NBS

PUBLICATIONS

Allies 7LS224

NBSIR 87-3676

Procedures for Sprinkler Anchor

Installation on Surfaces with

Fireproofing Materials

Robert G. Mathey

Lawrence I. Knab

John L. Gross

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Building Technology

John A. Small

National Measurement Laboratory

Center for Analytical Chemistry

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

-QC

100

- U 5 6

#87-3676

1988

c.2

Prepared for: General Services Administration

Public Buildings Service

18th and F Streest, NW

Washington, DC 20405

Stimulating America s Progress

1913-1983

Research Information Center

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899

NBSIR 87-3676

PROCEDURES FOR SPRINKLER ANCHOR

INSTALLATION ON SURFACES WITH

FIREPROOFING MATERIALS

Robert G. Mathey

Lawrence I. Knab

John L. Gross

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Building Technology

John A. Small

National Measurement Laboratory

Center for Analytical Chemistry

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

February 1988

Prepared for: General Services Administration

Public Buildings Service

18th and F Streets, NW

Washington, DC 20405

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, C. William Verity, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

ABSTRACT

Procedures were developed for limiting the release of fibers from

fireproofing material during sprinkler hanger anchor installation

on steel deck/concrete floor slab surfaces. These procedures

were needed by the General Services Administration (GSA) for

installation of sprinkler systems in buildings having fireproofing

containing asbestos.

A prototype floor slab having spray-on friable mineral wool

fireproofing was used in laboratory tests. The mineral wool

fireproofing was used as a model system for fireproofing containing

asbestos. The various combinations of mechanical anchoring

procedures (use of drills or powder-actuated gun) and encapsulation

procedures tested limited the fiber release to a range of values

of 0.000 to 0.055 f/cc (fibers per cubic centimeter) as compared

to a range of values of 0.26 to 0.82 f/cc for procedures without

encapsulation. Encapsulation was shown to be effective as

evidenced by much higher levels of fiber release during testing

without encapsulation.

Because there is no known correlation between the release of

mineral wool fibers and asbestos fibers, it was recommended that

the procedures developed be evaluated by GSA in buildings having

fireproofing containing asbestos. An air sampling protocol was

developed for use by GSA in evaluating the procedures in the field.

Subsequently, field tests were conducted by GSA.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

Page

5. 1.5.1 Tests with Encapsulation ............ 39

5. 1.5.

2

Test without Encapsulation ......... 46

5.2 Test Results and Discussion 48

5 . 3 Conclusions 56

5 . 4 Recommendation . . • 56

6. SUMMARY . 58

7 . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..... 61

8

.

REFERENCES 62

APPENDIX A - COMMENTS ON FIELD TESTS PERFORMED BY GSA ...... 63

vi
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Sketch of typical test area of cellular steel

deck/concrete floor slab and spray-on mineral

wool. Locations of anchor installation,

encapsulation, injection, and coring are

shown. The "E" lines represent extended

areas of encapsulation (Section 3.5) 21

Figure 2. Test set-up for floor slab enclosure. The

floor slab (approximately 8 x 15 ft.) was

supported by steel beams which were supported

by a steel frame as shown. The test area was

enclosed with plastic sheeting (not shown)

during testing 38

Figure 3 . Sketch of the position and order of testing

for each test run. Areas of encapsulation

and coring are shown with respect to the

position of the flutes. At each test location,

the test run number is shown. The type of

mechanical anchoring device is designated by

the first letter, and the encapsulant type is

designated by the second letter (table 8) 40

Figure 4. Horizontal distances from center of cored

hole to air monitoring filters for Filter

Nos. 1-6 and Test Run Nos. 1-18. Filter No.

1. was worn by the person who operated the

mechanical anchoring devices. Vertical

distance from air monitoring Filter Nos. 2-6

to the bottom of the mineral wool fireproofing

was about 2 8 in 41

Figure 5. Horizontal distances from center of cored

hole to air monitoring Filters Nos. 1-6 for

Test Run No. 19. Filter No. 1 was worn by

the person who operated the mechanical anchoring

devices. Vertical distance from air monitoring

Filter Nos. 2-6 to the bottom of the mineral

wool fireproofing was about 24 in 47

Vll
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Page

Figure 6. Plot of f/cc values for each test run in Run

Nos. 1-18. The minimum, maximum, median, and

approximate 25th and 75th percentile values

are shown for the 11 f/cc values determined for

each test run. Two data points (0.082 f/cc

from Test Run No. 6 and Filter No. 6 and

0.102 f/cc from Test Run No. 10 and Filter

No. 6) were excluded and were considered to

be outliers. The range of f/cc values for

the test run (No. 19) without encapsulation was

0.26 to 0.82 51

Figure 7. The first and second replicates, denoted by

"l" and ,, 2" respectively, are plotted for

each of the 11 filter numbers. Each of the

nine plots corresponds to a different mechanical

anchoring device-encapsulant combination.

For each plot, the type of mechanical

anchoring device is designated by the first

letter and the encapsulant type is designated

by the second letter (see table 8) 54

viii
LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Drills Selected for Study in Phase 1 10

Table 2. Results for Drilling Through Two Sheets of

18-Gage Steel with a 5/8 in. "Steel Bit" Using

Rotary Action Only 11

Table 3. Results for Drilling a 2 in. Deep Hole in a Concrete

Slab with a 1/2 in. Masonry Bit Using Rotary Action

Only 12

Table 4. Results for Drilling a 2 in. Deep Hole in a Concrete

Slab with a 1/2 in. Masonry Bit Using Rotary-Impact

Action 12

Table 5. Collection and Analysis of Air Samples for GSA's

Field Tests 34

Table 6. Horizontal Distances from Center of Cored Hole to

Air Monitoring Filters for Filter Numbers 7-11 in

Test Run Numbers 1-18 42

Table 7. Flow Rates of Vacuum Pumps Used with Each Air

Monitoring Filter for Test Run Numbers 1-18 43

Table 8. Mechanical Anchoring Device-Encapsulant Combinations

and the Two Corresponding Replicate Test Run Numbers

for each Combination 49

Table 9. Calculated Values of Fibers Per Cubic Centimeter

(f/cc) for All Test Runs 50

IX
'

.
1 . INTRODUCTION

1 . 1 Background

The General Services Administration (GSA) has determined that

many of its buildings require retrofitting with fire sprinkler

systems. Many of these buildings have spray-on fireproofing,

containing asbestos fibers, applied to the structural members and

decks where sprinkler systems are to be attached. Current

asbestos abatement procedures regarding installation of sprinkler

hangers involve the total removal of the fireproofing material.

This is a costly procedure and the evaluation of alternative

procedures for the installation of sprinkler systems on steel

deck/concrete floor slab surfaces was needed by GSA. It is

likely that significant cost savings can be obtained if the

sprinkler systems can be installed by removing small amounts of

fireproofing instead of total removal of the fireproofing.

GSA has determined that total removal is not necessary for

buildings where the fireproofing is in acceptable condition and

when an asbestos control management program is followed. For such

buildings, only relatively small amounts of the fireproofing need

be removed from the structural members or the steel deck/concrete

floor slabs where the sprinkler hangers would be installed. In

these cases, the sprinkler system installation must be carried

out using procedures that limit the release of fibers from the

fireproofing during and after installation. GSA was concerned

that the removal of small amounts of fireproofing and induced

1
vibrations in the structural system during installation of

sprinkler hanger anchors might result in the release of fibers

into the air. No recognized procedures exist for controlling the

release of fibers during sprinkler hanger installation. Based on

this need, GSA requested the National Bureau of Standards (NBS)

to investigate installation techniques and to recommend procedures

for installation of hanger anchors into steel deck/concrete floor

slab surfaces containing spray-on, friable, fibrous fireproofing

material

.

In the NBS study, a mineral wool fireproofing material was used

in laboratory tests as a model system for fireproofing containing

asbestos. Since there was no known correlation between the

release of mineral wool fibers and asbestos fibers, no conclusion

could be drawn with respect to the performance of fireproofing

containing asbestos.

Subsequently, field tests were conducted by GSA to evaluate the

procedures developed in the NBS study and to measure asbestos

fiber release during sprinkler hanger anchor installation.

Comments pertaining to the field tests are given in Appendix A.

1.2 Objectives

The overall objectives of this study were (1) to evaluate alternative

procedures to limit release of fibers from fireproofing during

the installation of sprinkler hanger anchors on steel deck/concrete

2
floor slab surfaces, (2) to evaluate these procedures by

quantitatively determining the release of fibers from a model

system of spray-on mineral wool fireproofing during sprinkler hanger

anchor installation, and (3) to provide GSA with technical data

based on the model system of mineral wool fireproofing for their

use in field tests. GSA planned to develop procedures for

limiting the release of fibers from asbestos-containing fireproofing

materials into occupied areas of buildings during installation of

sprinkler hangers.

1.3 Scope of the Study

The project involved NBS staff from the Center for Building

Technology's Building Materials Division and Structures Division

working with GSA. • The NBS Center, for Analytical Chemistry

developed a protocol for air monitoring and fiber analysis. The

NBS research consisted of four phases: (1) evaluation of

mechanical anchoring procedures, (2) development of encapsulation

and fireproofing core removal procedures, (3) development of a

protocol for air monitoring and fiber analysis, and (4) evaluation

of core removal/anchor installation methods with regard to fiber

release. These tasks are referred to as Phases 1 through 4 of

the project in the following text. GSA was responsible for the

selection of an enclosure to be used in field testing and for

performing field tests using the procedures developed by NBS.

This report describes the work performed by NBS. At the request

of GSA, NBS assisted GSA in making arrangements for an industrial

3
hygienist contractor to work with GSA during the field tests.

Brief outlines of the NBS phases (1 through 4) are given below.

Phase 1 - Mechanical Anchoring Procedures

The objective of this phase was to select mechanical anchoring

procedures which cause only small disturbances from vibration and

impact to the fireproofing material during sprinkler hanger

anchor installation. Mechanical anchoring procedures refer to

drilling holes needed for hanger anchors or installing a threaded

anchor using a powder-actuated gun.

A series of laboratory tests was performed to evaluate existing

procedures for limiting fiber release from fireproofing during

installation of anchors for sprinkler systems in buildings. Test

specimens were considered to be representative of the construction

details in GSA buildings scheduled for evaluating sprinkler

hanger installation procedures in the field. Mechanical anchoring

devices and procedures were recommended for the prototype core

removal/anchor installation tests in Phase 4.

Phase 2 - Fireproofing Core Removal

The objective of Phase 2 was to evaluate materials and procedures

for encapsulation of spray-on friable, fibrous, mineral wool

fireproofing material in order to minimize dislodgement of

fireproofing during encapsulation, core removal, and sprinkler

hanger anchor installation. Encapsulants and procedures for

4
removal of wetted cores that minimize the release of fibers from

the fireproofing were selected for inclusion in the prototype

core removal/anchor installation tests in Phase 4. Encapsulants

were used to penetrate, wet, and improve the cohesive strength of

the friable fireproofing.

Phase 3 - Protocol for Fiber Monitoring and Analysis

The objective of Phase 3 was to develop a protocol for air

sampling and' analysis during Phase 4 and the GSA field, tests.

The protocol addresses factors such as the number of air samples

to be taken, their locations, and the analytical procedure to be

followed. The protocol presented in this report was recommended

for use by GSA during their field tests.

Phase 4 - Prototype Core Removal /Anchor Installation Tests

The objective of Phase 4 was to carry out large-scale laboratory

tests to evaluate the effect of sprinkler hanger anchor installation

procedures on dislodgment of fibers from mineral wool fireproofing

material. Apart from the use of fireproofing containing mineral

wool, these prototype tests were intended to simulate the type of

floor slab construction in GSA buildings scheduled for GSA's

evaluation of sprinkler hanger anchor installation in the field.

The mineral wool fireproofing material was applied to the

underside of a steel deck/concrete floor slab. The mechanical

anchoring devices selected in Phase 1 and the encapsulants and

procedures for core removal recommended in Phase 2 were used in

5
the Phase 4 prototype tests. The information gained in the Phase

4 tests was released to GSA for use in planning their field

tests. The field tests were intended to determine if the release

of fibers from fireproofing materials containing asbestos could

be kept acceptably low when installing sprinkler hanger anchors.

This report describes the work performed by NBS in Phases 1

through 4 . The report includes recommendations based on the

results of this study for procedures that limit the release of mineral

wool fibers from fireproofing on steel deck/concrete floor slab

surfaces during sprinkler hanger anchor installation. Since

there was no known correlation between the release of mineral wool

fibers and asbestos fibers, it was not determined if the procedures

developed would control the release of fibers from fireproofing

containing asbestos. Subsequent field tests conducted by GSA '

provided information on asbestos fiber release during sprinkler

hanger anchor installation. Comments on asbestos fiber release

from fireproofing material during the field tests are included in

Appendix A.

For the field tests, GSA selected an enclosure to seal the

immediate work area during sprinkler hanger anchor installation.

They intended that the enclosure be portable and easy to relocate

within the building and provide adequate space for sprinkler

hanger anchor installation. GSA conducted field tests based on the

mechanical anchoring and encapsulation procedures developed by

6
NBS in Phases 1 through 4. The air sampling and analyses in the

field tests were performed by an industrial hygienist contractor

working in cooperation with GSA. The contractor's report on the

field tests [l] 1 was reviewed by NBS and comments about the

report are presented in Appendix A. The comments pertain to the

procedures used in the field tests for (1) air monitoring and

analysis, and (2) for encapsulation and mechanical anchor

installation. Comments are also presented in Appendix A on

asbestos fiber release from sprinkler hanger anchor installation

during the field tests as determined from analysis of air

monitoring samples using phase contrast microscopy (PCM)

.

Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this report describe Phases 1, 2, 3,

and 4, respectively, of the NBS work.

-^-Figures in brackets indicate references listed in Section 8.

7
2. MECHANICAL ANCHORING PROCEDURES (PHASE 1)

Vibrations induced in steel deck/concrete floor slabs during

installation of sprinkler hangers may result in the release into

the air of fibers from in-place fireproofing material. The

objective of Phase 1 was to select procedures for sprinkler hanger

anchor installation which, cause only small disturbances from

vibration and impact to the fireproofing material. Tests of

conventional mechanical anchoring devices and anchor installation

techniques were performed to determine their suitability for this

application. Based on the results of these tests, procedures were

selected for use in the Phase 4 laboratory tests.

The floor system recommended by GSA for the Phase 4 laboratory tests

consisted of a lightweight concrete floor slab cast on top of a

cellular steel deck sub-floor. Two methods for installing

sprinkler hanger anchors on the underside of this floor system

were studied:

(1) Threaded studs driven through the steel decking and embedded

in the concrete floor slab using a powder-actuated gun

(explosive-driven fastening tool)

.

(2) Expansive anchors installed in the concrete floor slab which

required that a hole be drilled through the cellular steel

decking and into the concrete floor slab.

8
In the first method, a 27-caliber, powder-actuated gun was used to

install 3/8 in. -diameter threaded studs in a cellular steel

deck/concrete test floor slab. A 2-7/8 in. -long steel stud (total

length including threaded portion) was driven through the steel

decking and embedded approximately 1-7/8 in. into the lightweight

concrete floor slab, leaving the threaded portion (about 1 in.)

of the stud protruding from the steel decking2

. GSA requested

that this method be tested in Phase 4 because of the ease of use

and the one-step, rapid anchor (stud) installation.

Because of the difference between vibrations caused by impulse

loading using a powder-actuated gun and mechanical vibrations

induced by abrasive drilling, the two installation methods were

not directly comparable. Therefore, no measurements were made of

the magnitude and duration of vibrations caused by a powderactuated gun, although vibration measurements were made to

compare drilling methods.

In the second method, the installation of an expansive anchor

required that a hole be drilled through the steel decking into

the concrete floor slab. A variety of drills suitable for

drilling into concrete were evaluated, including rotary drills and

"hammer-drills". The purpose of this experimental program was to

2 The stud anchorage should be of sufficient load carrying

capacity for the appropriate installed sprinkler system, and

should conform to applicable fire safety codes.

9
determine which drills and drilling techniques produced the least

amount of vibration.

The drills which were selected for testing in Phase 1 are listed

in table 1.

Table 1 - Drills Selected for Study in Phase 1

Drill Designation Speed

(RPM)

Blows

(BPM)

Current

(Amps)

A

* Rotary-drill 500 N/A 6.0

B Light-duty hammer-drill 2500 50,000 4 .

5

C Medium-duty hammer-drill 950 19,000 6.2

D Medium-duty hammer-drill 520 3150 5.5

E Heavy-duty hammer-drill 700 3750 10.0

Two different types of drill bits were used with the drills.

The first was a masonry bit with a carbide tip designed specifically

for drilling concrete or other masonry material. The second was

a "hi-speed" twist drill bit specifically designed for drilling

through steel or similar metal. This type is referred to in this

report as a "steel bit" to distinguish it from a masonry bit.

Drilling of the steel deck/concrete slab floor system using

either a rotary or "hammer-drill" causes vibration of the floor

system. The response of the floor system may be characterized by

its acceleration which is a measure of the amplitude of the

vibrations. The average acceleration, as computed by the rootmean-square (RMS) procedure, was multiplied by the average time

of drilling to produce a measure of vibration by which the

various procedures could be compared.

10
Tests were conducted using various combinations of drill, drill

bit, and drilling technique. Lightweight concrete slabs to which

a single sheet of 18-gage steel decking was fastened were used to

model the cellular deck sub-floor system. Accelerations were

recorded using a processing digital oscilloscope and a piezoelectric

type accelerometer with a range of 0 to 500 g. The "steel bit" was

found to dull immediately upon penetration into the concrete and,

therefore, a new steel bit was used for each test.

Drills D and E were found to produce much larger accelerations

than Drills A, B, and C. For this reason they were eliminated

from consideration. Results for drills A, B and C are summarized

in tables 2 through 4

.

Table 2 - Results for Drilling Through Two Sheets of 18-Gage

Steel with a 5/8 in. "Steel Bit" using Rotary Action

Only

Drill RMS Accel.

(Q)

Drill Time

(s)

Measure of Vibration

fd x s)

A 2 .

5

55 138

B 6.0 9 54

C 5.3 23 122

11
Table 3 - Results for Drilling a 2 in. Deep Hole in a Concrete

Slab with a 1/2 in. Masonry Bit Using Rotary Action

Only

Drill RMS Accel.

(Q)

Drill Time

(s)

Measure of Vibration

(g x s)

A 1.0 48 48

B 4.0 27 108

C 2.7 85 230

Table 4 - Results for Drilling a

with a 1/2 in. Masonry

2 in. Deep

Bit Using

Hole in a Concrete Slab

Rotary-Impact Action

Drill RMS Accel.

(cn

Drill Time

(s)

Measure of Vibration

(cr x s)

B 6.7 14 94

C 5.8 18 104

If only a single drill type were to be used to drill both the

steel and concrete, the smallest measure of vibration would be

148 g x s. This would be produced by Drill B using rotary action

to drill through the steel deck (54 g x s) and rotary- impact

action to drill a 2 in. deep hole in the concrete (94 g x s) . Drill B produced similar vibration results (162 g x s) with

rotary action alone. Drill A also produced fairly low vibrations

(186 g x s) . On this basis, Drills A and B were selected for use

in Phase 4

.

Based on the results from the comparative drill tests and tests

with the powder-actuated gun, three methods for installing

sprinkler hanger anchors were recommended to be tested in Phase 4

:

12
( 1 ) Threaded studs installed with a powder-actuated gun. The

gun should be of sufficient capacity to install an anchor

with a rated load-carrying capacity greater than or equal to

that specified in the applicable fire safety codes (see

footnote 2 previously noted in this chapter)

.

(2) Expansive anchors 3 requiring a hole drilled with a rotary

drill (Drill A) using a "steel bit" to drill through the

steel deck and a masonry bit to drill a hole approximately 2

in. deep in the concrete.

(3) Expansive anchors 2 requiring a hole drilled with a lightduty "hammer-drill" (Drill B) using a "steel bit" with only

rotary action to drill through the cellular steel decking,

and a masonry bit with rotary-impact action for drilling

into the concrete.

Based on the information gained in Phase 1, the following

procedures were recommended for use with Drills A and B when

conducting the Phase 4 tests:

(1) A 5/8 in. -diameter or larger "hi-speed" twist drill bit

should be used to drill through the cellular steel decking.

The "steel bit" should be larger than the hole required for

3 The installed anchor should be of sufficient load carrying

capacity for the appropriate installed sprinkler system, and

should conform to applicable fire safety codes.

13
the expansive anchor to minimize the possibility of the masonry

bit touching and vibrating the steel decking. Contact of the

masonry bit with the steel decking during drilling was found

to produce very high accelerations.

(2) A new "steel bit" should be used for each hole to be drilled

through the cellular steel decking since the bit is dulled

as soon as it penetrates into the concrete.

(3) A 1/2 in. -diameter masonry bit should be used to drill a

hole approximately 2 in. deep in the concrete to accommodate

a 1/2 in. -expansive anchor into which a 3/8 in. -diameter rod

could be inserted (see footnote 2).

(4) A new masonry bit need not be used for each hole to be

drilled in the concrete, but the bit should be replaced when

wear becomes noticeable. It is noted that, for safety

reasons, special masonry drill bits must be used with the

"hammer-drills"

.

14
3. FIREPROOFING CORE REMOVAL (PHASE 2)

The objective of Phase 2 was to develop procedures for removing

cores of sprayed-on fireproofing material from the underside of steel

deck/concrete floor slabs before sprinkler hanger anchor

installation. 4 The core removal procedure, which includes wetting

with an encapsulant to stabilize the fireproofing material, is

intended to minimize the risk of release of fibers from the

fireproofing material. Encapsulation refers to an increase in

resistance to fiber release while the fireproofing is wetted with

an encapsulant and also after the encapsulant in the fireproofing

has hardened. The definitions of encapsulants and the factors

considered in their selection is this study are given in Sections

3.3 and 3.4. Encapsulants and procedures for removal of wetted

cores were selected for testing in Phase 4.

3 . 1 Test Specimens

Specimens of a fibrous, friable, non-asbestos, spray-on fireproofing

were prepared. Mineral wool fireproofing was chosen with the

concurrence of GSA as a model system for fireproofing containing

asbestos because mineral wool is commonly used for fireproofing.

It was recognized that mineral wool fireproofing also has some

important differences as compared to asbestos fireproofing (e.g,

differences in fiber size and distribution, fiber aerodynamics,

friability, and possibly different wetting characteristics) . The

4 For reasons of fire safety, cored holes in fireproofing

should be filled with a fireproofing material after installation

of the sprinkler system.

15
fireproofing in the test specimens ranged from about 2 to 4 in.

in thickness and had a friability between "low" and "moderate" in

the terms described by EPA [2]. This level of friability was

requested by GSA. The manufacturer of the mineral wool fireproofing

material reported that this level of friability corresponded to a

density of about 14 pcf. The moisture content in the mineral

wool fireproofing ranged from about 2 to 3 percent when the Phase

2 tests were conducted.

Information about the mineral wool fireproofing prepared for NBS

was provided by the manufacturer. The fireproofing, which

consisted of mineral glass fibers with hydraulic binders, such as

cements and plasters, was mixed with water and spray applied.

Fiber sizes ranged, in general, from 4 to 8 micrometers in

diameter and averaged 5 to 7 micrometers; the fiber lengths

generally exceeded 1/4 in. The fibers were individual vitreous

fibers, not bundles or nodules. The dry blend of materials had

some spots rich in binder and others with clumps of fibers, but

the product was fairly homogeneous when blended together as

spray-applied fireproofing material.

3.2 Laboratory Tests of Encapsulants

Encapsulants were applied to the underside of a test frame having

steel decking covered with spray-on mineral wool fireproofing

material. In these tests, observations were made of the extent

of wetting (surface of fibers coated by encapsulant) of the

16
fireproofing material, and measurements were made of the

depth of penetration (depth to which wetting was observed in

cored fireproofing) of the encapsulants . The encapsulating

materials to be included in the tests were selected based on

recommendations from (1) GSA staff members having field experience

with these materials, (2) a member of an ASTM technical committee

on encapsulation, and (3) EPA staff.

Eight encapsulants were included in the tests. Preliminary tests

involving spraying, injecting, and coring were performed. A twogallon capacity garden-type sprayer (air compressed by hand

pumping) was used which applied the encapsulants at a rate of

0.45 to 0.65 liters per minute. Because it was difficult to

penetrate the total depth of fireproofing by spraying, encapsulant

was injected into areas of fireproofing wetted by spraying to

achieve total penetration. The encapsulant was injected using

plastic, disposable syringes (Section 3.5). To determine the

depth of encapsulant penetration, cores (1, 1-1/2, and 2-1/2 in.

in diameter) were taken from areas which had been sprayed, or

injected, or both. Based on these preliminary tests, a procedure

for encapsulation of fibers in the fireproofing and for core

removal was developed (Section 3.5).

3.3 Considerations for Encapsulant Selection

The following factors were considered in cooperation with GSA in

selecting the encapsulants for the prototype tests (Phase 4)

.

17
(1) The encapsulant should penetrate deeply into the

fireproofing and completely wet the surfaces of the

fibers; total penetration of the depth of the fireproofing

should be achievable by a combination of spraying and

injection. They should be either "removal” or "penetrating"

encapsulants5 and should be able to wet fireproofing

containing asbestos fibers, including amosite.

(2) The encapsulant should prevent the release of fibers

from wetted (encapsulated) material, with resistance to

fiber release being considerably increased after curing

and hardening of the encapsulant.

(3) The encapsulant should harden in the fireproofing material

in 7 days or less after application.

(4) The encapsulant should be commercially and readily

available.

(5) The encapsulant should not be toxic or hazardous (e.g.,

not explosive, when used with a powder-actuated gun)

.

5 EPA has defined "removal" and "penetrating" encapsulants in

a draft technical bulletin, dated May 27, 1987, addressing

asbestos removal encapsulants. "Penetrating" encapsulants are those

that penetrate into or wet the matrix and improve the cohesive

strength of the friable material. "Removal" encapsulants are

asbestos penetrating encapsulants designed specifically for

removal of asbestos-containing material, rather than for in-place

encapsulation.

18
(6) The encapsulant should not appreciably reduce the

fire resistance of the fireproofing material.

(7) The encapsulant should be easy to work with (i.e., mixing,

spraying, and injecting)

.

(8)

The encapsulant should be applied as a single material

rather than spraying with two different encapsulants,

requiring two sprayer tanks.

3.4 Encapsulant Selection for the Phase 4 Tests

Based on the preliminary laboratory tests (Section 3.2) and

considerations for encapsulant selection (Section 3.3), three of

the eight encapsulants (designated as A, B, and C) were recommended

for the Phase 4 tests for the following reasons. They provided

100 percent depth of penetration with injection and about 50 to

75 percent depth of penetration without injection (after about 5

minutes of spraying) for fireproofing from 2 to 4 in. thick.

They were reported by their manufacturers to wet amosite asbestos

fibers (the wetting ability of encapsulant B was documented by an

independent testing laboratory) . The encapsulant hardened in 7

days or less when sprayed on to fireproofing. The materials were

reported by their manufacturers as nontoxic and nonhazardous when

used as recommended. They were commercially available and were

considered to be "removal" or ‘'penetrating" encapsulants. They

were easy to work with. It is noted that NBS did not test or

19
evaluate the encapsulants with respect to being nontoxic,

nonhazardous, or reducing the fire resistance of the fireproofing

material

.

Encapsulants A and B were one-component materials and were used

as supplied. Encapsulant C was a two-component mixture (equal

parts by volume) and the mixture was diluted with one part water

by volume.

Because of the limited time available for identifying encapsulants,

not all commercially available encapsulants were identified.

Therefore, there may be additional encapsulants which would

perform as well, or better, than those selected for Phase 4

testing. However, as will be seen in Section 5.2, those selected

performed satisfactorily.

9

3.5 Procedure for Core Removal and Encapsulation

Based on the results of Phase 2, the following procedure (Steps 1

through 4) was recommended for use in Phase 4 to evaluate procedures

for core removal and encapsulation of overhead fireproofing prior

to sprinkler hanger installation. These. steps were performed in

a period of about 15 minutes (see Section 5. 1.5.1).

(1) The location where the anchor was to be installed

was marked with a thin application of spray paint along

the circumferences of the 9 and 18 in. -diameter

circles. As shown in figure 1, the anchor

20
ANCHOR INSTALLATION LOCATION

LIGHTWEIGHT

* -V . CONCRETE

uppermost V -v

• : 7 i - t ^ l''

'

' LOWER —'s', UPPEI

\V‘ — >, FLUTE 'C'V,' ' FLUTE ;v 'W_-- -*> V —

18 GAGE CELLULAR

STEEL DECKING

SPRAY -ON

MINERAL WOOL

FIREPROOFING

18 IN. DIAMETER CIRCLE

LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS

OF CORING DEVICES (a-d)

a - 1.5 IN. OUTSIDE

DIAMETER

b - 2.5 IN. OUTSIDE

DIAMETER

C - 1.5X4 IN. OUTSIDE

DIMENSIONS

d - 3X5 IN. OUTSIDE

DIMENSIONS

X = INJECTION LOCATIONS

FOR GUN

= INJECTION LOCATIONS

FOR DRILLS

SPOT WELDS 4.5 IN. ON CENTERS (TYPICAL)

LOWER

FLUTE

Figure 1. Sketch of typical test area of cellular steel

deck/concrete floor slab and spray-on mineral

wool. Locations of anchor installation,

encapsulation, injection, and coring are

shown. The "E" lines represent extended

areas of encapsulation (Section 3.5).

21
installation location was at the uppermost flute (flute

width 1.5 in.) of the cellular steel decking which was

in direct contact with the concrete deck. An encapsulant

was sprayed for 5 minutes on an area of fireproofing

within the 9 in. -diameter circle (figure 1). When the

powder-actuated gun was to be used, the area of

spraying was extended about 2 in. beyond the edges of

the 9 in. -diameter circle in the direction of the

uppermost steel flute ("E" lines, figure 1) . A gardentype sprayer was used which delivered 0.45 to 0.65

liters per minute of encapsulant when sprayed upwards

onto the fireproofing. When excessive drippage

occurred, the spraying was momentarily stopped. During

the 5-minute interval, the encapsulant penetrated and

wetted about 50 to 75 percent of the depth of the

mineral wool fireproofing (2 to 4 in. thick) . After

spraying for 5 minutes, the location (figure 1) where

the anchor was to be installed was determined by

probing upward with a thin straight wire (e.g., 0.050

in. diameter) to find the uppermost flute adjacent to

the concrete where the anchor was to be embedded

(figure 1) . The approximate thickness of the fireproofing

was also measured at this time using a thickness gage

for spray-on fireproofing materials. The flute where

the anchor was to be installed was checked to assure

22
that it was approximately centrally located within the

9 in. -diameter circle (figure 1).

(2) After spraying and locating the uppermost flute,

encapsulant injections (each 20 ml) were made (nine

injections for drills and twelve for the gun) to insure

that the upper portion of fireproofing was completely

wetted. When injecting, the tip of the injection

needle was placed against the uppermost flute in the

positions shown in figure 1. Disposable, plastic, 60 ml

syringes were used with "Luer-lok" 6 tips fitted with

reusable 13-gauge, 4 in. -long stainless steel, "Luerlok" 6 needles.

(3) The next step was to take cores from the wetted 9 in.-

diameter circular area where the anchor was to be

installed. Two concentric circular cores were taken when

a drill was to be used, and two rectangular cores

(different sizes) were taken when the gun was to be

used. Both of the circular coring devices were 12 in.-

long brass tubes, with a 0.033 in. wall thickness and

sharpened on the coring end. The rectangular coring

6 Certain manufacturer names, commercial equipment, instruments,

or materials are identified in this report in order to adequately

specify the experimental procedure. Such identification does not

imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Bureau of

Standards, nor does it imply that the materials or equipment

identified are necessarily the best available for the purpose.

23
devices were 10 in. long stainless steel tubes, with

wall thickness of 0.040 in. The outer dimensions of the

cutting edges were 1.5 x 4 in. and 3 x 5 in. for the

smaller and larger rectangular coring devices, respectively.

When using the smaller circular coring device (1.5 in.

outside diameter) , it was positioned to be concentric

with the 9 in. -diameter circle (figure 1) and was gently

pushed vertically upward and simultaneously rotated

until the end of the coring device contacted the

uppermost flute. The fireproofing was removed completely

up to the uppermost flute where the anchor was to be

installed (figure 1). If the 1.5 in. outside diameter

coring device contacted any steel surfaces other than

the uppermost steel flute (figure 1), then the coring

9 device was repositioned to the proper position. Then

the larger coring device (2.5 in. outside diameter) was

positioned such that it was concentric with the 1.5 in.

diameter core hole. The coring device was then gently

pushed vertically upward and simultaneously rotated

until the end of the coring device contacted the sloped

portions of the steel deck adjacent to the uppermost

flute where the anchor was to be installed (figure 1)

.

All of the fireproofing material in the cored area was

then removed. Fireproofing remaining on the uppermost

flute after coring, and other fireproofing not adequately

24
removed by the coring devices, was removed with a knife

having a blade with a square end.

The procedure used for the rectangular coring devices

was similar to that used for the circular coring

devices. The smaller rectangular coring device was

gently pushed upward through the fireproofing until it

contacted the uppermost flute. The 4 in. cutting edge

of the coring device was oriented along the uppermost

flute while the 1.5 in. cutting edge extended across

the width of the uppermost flute (figure 1). Additional

fireproofing material was removed by using the larger

rectangular coring device to allow room for the gun to

be positioned next to the uppermost flute. As previously

noted, fireproofing not removed by the coring devices

was removed with a knife. Adequate removal of fireproofing

was important to assure that the powder-actuated gun

was in contact with the uppermost flute.

Removable covers were placed on the lower ends of the coring

devices to retain cored fireproofing material.

(4) After coring was completed, an encapsulant was sprayed

for a total of 2 minutes. The inside of the cored hole

was sprayed until drippage occurred. After that,

spraying was continued over the area between

25
the 9 in. -diameter circle and the 18 -in. -diameter circle,

which was concentric with the 9 in. -diameter circle

(figure 1) . A small amount of encapsulant was also

sprayed on the area inside the 9 in. -diameter circle.

26
4. PROTOCOL FOR FIBER MONITORING AND ANALYSIS (PHASE 3)

The protocol presented in this section of the report ("NBS

Protocol") was developed by NBS. It was recommended to GSA for

use in their field tests.

The "NBS Protocol" for field testing of sprinkler hanger anchor

installation on surfaces with asbestos fireproofing included area

samples taken (1) prior to any activity in the test zone, (2)

during testing, and (3) after the test zone had been cleaned.

Area samples also should be collected inside each work area along

with personal samples. Personal samples refer to those worn by

individuals performing abatement activities.

The EPA document "Interim Transmission Electron Microscopy

Analytical Method and Field Sampling Protocol for the Clearance

Testing of an Abatement Site," [3] or the most recent updated

edition of this protocol, should be used for the sampling and

analysis of the filter samples, except for the modifications

listed below. The most recent edition of this EPA transmission

electron microscopy (TEM) protocol [3], has been entered into the

Federal Register under proposed rules, Vol. 52 #83; April 30, 1987.

NOTE: The "NBS Protocol" was designed to evaluate the asbestos

fiber release during GSA’s field tests of sprinkler hanger anchor

installation. It was not designed to provide clearance monitoring

for contractor release or area reoccupation. If GSA desires to

27
use the post-installation sample set (see below) for this

purpose , then the EPA TEM protocol [3] should be followed as

written without any modifications. This will include the

collection of five ambient air samples and the use of aggressive

sampling during collection of the post-installation sample set.

4.1 The definitions of "test zone" and "work area" are given below.

4.1.1 Test Zone: A test zone is defined as a room or other

area of the building which is being modified and is

separated from other areas by walls, doors or

appropriate containment barriers such as polyethylene

sheeting. The test zone does not include work areas.

4.1.2 Work Area: The work areas are the areas inside the

portable enclosures (barriers) and part of the air

plenum where the anchor installation is being done.

4.2 If the sampling and analysis for the GSA field tests are not

being conducted for the clearance of an abatement action, the

following modifications should be made to the EPA TEM

protocol [ 3]

:

4.2.1 Eliminate section 7 of the EPA TEM protocol [3] on

aggressive sampling.

28
4.2.2 Eliminate section of EPA TEM protocol [3] on ambient

sampling.

4.2.3 In place of comparing abatement area samples to ambient

samples, it is recommended that 15 area samples

consisting of three sets of five samples each be

collected for every test zone. The EPA TEM protocol

[3] should be followed for locating the five

sampling sites within the test zone. The three

sample sets should be collected at the same

locations and consist of the following samples:

4. 2. 3.1. Background set: This set of samples should

be collected after the test zone has been

cleaned with a high-efficiency particulate

air (HEPA) vacuum and prior to any work

activity with the heating, ventilating, and

air conditioning (HVAC) system for the zone turned

off the night before and the door(s) closed.

4. 2. 3. 2. Installation test set: This set of samples

should be started at the beginning of

activity in the test zone and should run during

all phases of the anchor installations within

that test zone. This set should be terminated

after all work and activity is completed in

29
the test zone. For this set, the HVAC for the

zone should be off.

4. 2. 3. 3. Post-installation set: This set of samples

should be collected immediately after all

clean-up and activity has been completed in

the test zone. For this set, the HVAC for the

zone should be off.

NOTE: The above sampling protocol ("NBS Protocol") takes into

account the time constraints imposed by GSA for completing the

work during one weekend time period. As a result, sampling for

this phase of the program will not provide a time-resolved

analysis. It will only provide a comparison of the asbestos

levels before, during, and after work is initiated in a given

area. In addition, it is important to note that background

asbestos levels inside a building containing friable asbestos may

be highly variable.

4.3 In addition to the area samples described in 4.2.3, samples

should also be collected inside the work area. For each

work area, six filter samples, including five area samples

and one personal sample, should be obtained inside the portable

enclosure during each anchor-site installation in the test

zone. The locations of the area samples should be as follows.

30
4.3.1 Three area samplers should be set on the ceiling tiles

in the vicinity of the opening for access to the deck.

4.3.2 Two area samplers should be set inside the portable

enclosure but at two different levels above the

HEPA vacuum exhaust.

4.3.3 One personal sample should be obtained throughout

"the test procedure inside the portable enclosure.

4.4 In addition to the test-zone and work-area samples, area

samples can be taken in areas of the building where no work

is being done if the GSA coordinator of the field tests

determines that they are needed.

4.5 A Fibrous Aerosol Monitor (FAM) or monitors may also be used

to evaluate any phase of the program or any sampling

location to provide a "real time" analysis. It is suggested,

as a minimum requirement, that FAM data be collected inside

the portable enclosure to obtain "real time" fiber loadings

for this location. If possible, when sampling inside the

portable enclosure, the sampling tube of the FAM (an

extension of not more than 6 ft.) should be set at 5-6 ft.

above the platform of the portable enclosure, and the FAM

and its recorder should be set outside the portable enclosure.

31
4.6 Analysis of the filters must be done by transmission

electron microscopy as described in the EPA TEM protocol [3].

4.7 The "NBS Protocol" presented in this section of the report should

be used for any additional sampling required by GSA, such as

during the installation of sprinkler system pipes.

NOTE: As mentioned above, if GSA intends to use any samples for

clearance monitoring, the EPA TEM protocol [3] must be followed

without modification.

4.8 If phase contrast microscopy (PCM) analysis is desired to be

performed concurrently with TEM analysis of filter samples,

the following sampling and analysis must be followed as

shown in table 5:

4.8.1 Filter samples from all of the listed sampling

locations are to be analyzed by the NIOSH PCM

Protocol Method 7400 [4-6]

.

4.8.2 At 50 percent of the sampling locations listed, except

those for clearance monitoring, separate TEM filter

samples must be collected and analyzed by the EPA

TEM protocol [3].

32
4.8.3 For all clearance sampling locations, TEM filter

samples must be collected and analyzed by the EPA

TEM protocol [3].

4.9 The filter sections analyzed by PCM are for information and

comparison purposes only. GSA must evaluate fiber loadings

based only on the results from the TEM analyses.

4.10 The industrial, hygienist contractor who will perform the air

sampling and analysis in the GSA's field tests may make

minor modifications to this "NBS Protocol" provided they are

acceptable to the GSA coordinator of the field tests.

33
Table 5. Collection and Analysis of Air Samples for

GSA * s Field Tests

Four buildings are included in the field tests* Tests will be

conducted in four rooms in each of the buildings, and there will

be two work areas in each room.

Number of Samples to be Collected and Analyzed

Separate Samples

Background, each Room

Working Samples, each Room

Clearance Samples, each Room

Working Samples, Work Area (A)

Working Samples, Work Area (B)

Total Samples, each Room

PCM TEM

5 2 a

5 3 a

5 b 5

6 3

6 3

21 16

The following additional samples (provisional) are to be collected

and analyzed immediately after testing or are to be stored for

analysis at a later date if needed:

5 TEM background samples for each room (2 or 3 to be

analyzed and 2 or 3 to be stored)

5 TEM "outside" (outdoor air) samples for each building (5

to be stored)

a Number of samples will alternate between 2 and 3 for each

room in a building to comply with requirement that 50 percent of

the samples collected and analyzed must be by the TEM method.

b GSA will make interim clearance determination based on onsite PCM analysis. Final clearance will be based on TEM analysis

results when they become available.

34
5. PROTOTYPE CORE REMOVAL/ANCHOR INSTALLATION TESTS (PHASE 4)

In Phase 4 of the study, laboratory tests were conducted to

evaluate the influence of sprinkler hanger anchor installation on

the release of fibers from the fireproofing material. These prototype

tests were intended to simulate the type of floor slab construction

in GSA buildings scheduled for evaluation of sprinkler hanger anchor

installation in the GSA field tests. The mechanical anchoring

procedures for hanger anchor installation recommended in Phase 1,

and the encapsulants and procedures for stabilization and core

removal of fireproofing material recommended in Phase 2, were

used in the Phase 4 tests. The effectiveness of each mechanical

anchoring device-encapsulant combination was determined from

monitoring and analysis of airborne mineral wool fiber concentrations

during core removal and sprinkler hanger anchor installation

(either drilling a hole or installing a threaded anchor) . An

industrial hygienist contractor performed the air monitoring and

fiber analysis during Phase 4 testing.

5.1 Test Specimens, Equipment, and Procedures

5.1.1 Mineral Wool Fireproofing

Spray-on mineral wool fireproofing was used for the Phase 4

tests. This material is described in Section 3.1. When the

Phase 4 tests were conducted, the moisture content of the

fireproofing, in most cases, ranged from 1 to 3 percent. This

moisture content range was believed to be sufficiently low so as

not to affect the fiber release. The dry density of the mineral

35
wool fireproofing used in Phase 4 was about 11 pcf. The fireproofing had a friability of between "low" and "moderate" as

described by EPA [2] and requested by GSA.

5.1.2 Encapsulants

The three encapsulants (denoted A, B, and 0) selected in Phase 2

were used in the .Phase 4 tests. Information regarding these

encapsulants is given in Section 3.4.

5.1.3 Mechanical Anchoring Devices

Three mechanical anchoring devices were used in the Phase 4

tests. These devices were selected based on the Phase 1 tests.

Information regarding the three devices is given in Sections 2 and

5. 1. 5. 1.

5.1.4 Cellular Steel Decking/Concrete Floor Slab

Mineral wool fireproofing, about 2 to 4 in. thick, was sprayed on

the underside of a cellular steel deck/concrete floor slab as

shown in figure 1. The adjacent flutes of the cellular steel

decking were spot welded every 4.5 in. (figure 1). Side laps for

the cellular steel decking were made by overlapping the 3 ft. wide

steel decking sections and attaching them together with screws

spaced 20 in. apart. This type of cellular steel deck/concrete

floor slab was requested by GSA. Prior to spraying the mineral

wool fireproofing, the cellular steel decking surface to which

the fireproofing was to be bonded was wiped with acetone to remove

36
any contaminants, such as oil, which could reduce the bond

between the fireproofing and the steel decking. The lightweight

concrete in the floor slab had a density of 121 pcf and a

compressive strength of 4400 psi. The floor slab, which measured

approximately 8 x 15 ft. , was supported on steel beams which were

supported by a steel frame as shown in figure 2. The bottom of

the fireproofing was elevated about 11 ft. above the laboratory

floor. The flutes in the cellular steel decking ran in the 8 ft.

direction.

5.1.5 Test Setup and Procedure

The space under the floor slab was enclosed with plastic sheeting

attached to wood studs to prevent air disturbances inside the

test enclosure. A test platform was used by personnel to apply

the encapsulants and operate the mechanical anchoring devices.

The temperature and relative humidity during the Phase 4 tests

were about 74 7 and 60 percent, respectively. Appropriate safety

measures were followed during these tests (e.g., use of goggles,

masks, and respirators; and safe operation of mechanical anchoring

devices)

.

Prior to each test run, a test location was selected, air

monitoring filters were positioned, the floor and a test platform

in the test area were vacuumed, and a background air sample was

37
Figure 2. Test set-up for floor slab enclosure. The

floor slab (approximately 8 x 15 ft.) was

supported by steel beams which were supported

by a steel frame as shown. Test area was enclosed

with plastic sheeting (not shown) during testing.

38
taken. A test run consisted of (1) turning on the vacuum pumps 7 for

the air monitoring filters, (2) spraying encapsulant, (3) injecting

encapsulant, (4) coring encapsulated fireproofing material, (5)

respraying encapsulant, (6) either drilling a hole or installing

a threaded anchor stud using a powder-actuated gun, and (7) turning

off the vacuum pumps for the air monitoring filters. The

position and order of testing for each test run are shown in

figure 3. As the tests were progressively run, more and more of

the mineral wool fireproofing' became encapsulated (see Section 5.2).

5. 1.5.1 Tests with Encapsulation

From test run to test run, air monitoring Filter Nos. 1-6 did not

appreciably change in their positions relative to the center of

the cored hole in the encapsulated fireproofing as shown in

figure 4. Because of the limited area in the enclosure, the

positions and distances of air monitoring Filters Nos. 7-11

varied from test run to test run. The horizontal distances from

the center of the cored hole in the fireproofing material to the

air monitoring filters for Filters Nos. 7-11 are given in table

6. The vertical distance from Filter Nos. 7-11 to the bottom of

the mineral wool fireproofing was about 66 in. The flow rates of

the vacuum pumps used for each air monitoring filter are given in

table 7. The air monitoring filters had a 25 mm (1 in.) nominal

7 Refers to Filter Nos. 4,5,7-11 and also for the personal

pumps used with Filter Nos. 1,2,3 and 6.

39
Ofr

"id 8

]

‘

1

Figure

3.

Sketch

of

the

position

and

order

of

testing

for

each

test

run.

Areas

of

encapsulation

and

coring

are

shown

with

respect

to

the

position

of

the

flutes.

At

each

test

location,

the

test

run

number

is

shown.

The

type

of

mechanical

anchoring

device

is

designated

by

the

first

letter,

and

the

encapsulant

type

is

designated

by

the

cond

letter

(table

8)

.
CnG • mo • •h O Cn l c G 2 G cm -H O -H

-G

GG *oo

•h aj

O cn cn o O rG o 2 -G S -H C G

tn 03

G

O

G 0) -Q •H r—( -G 03

fd • 03 i—I

00 o -h cn O'—l -H [G id -G I C 5

rH 03 CT> CD G C Cn

rH • O -H c O cn aj g -h

-C

C £ O <4-1 2 GJ O

T3 CD -h

O

CD

G 4G

G

G

G

G 4J o a OK £ (D O T3 G

-G CD

G -H

LG cn -G -H lg 0 (D fd (d

E-i

G i—I G (D £ O

<D TJ CD

O 0 G C O G 5 c cd mg

CD 0 i-I o mo jg a) as 1 5 O G £ rH G CD 0 G (d G G • O -G -h

lg cn cn cn £ 0 G -H

in Z CD T3 CD

CD CD _G O H i—f 4-J G CD CD (d

C!

D £ U

G

-G

—i -G -H

O

G -H 4-J H D 3g G £

T3 -Q CD

O

G >4-1

rH 0 G -G

(d Mh

G

O

G

O • -Q c cn 5 cn 0 G CD CD N CD cn o -G

•H 4-1 fd -H -G G '—i 3 > 0 -H CD O

33 Mg rH TD 4-J

CDGG

Cn •H

41
Table 6 Horizontal Distances from Center of Cored Hole to

Air Monitoring Filters for Filter Numbers 7-11 in

Test Run Numbers 1-18.

TEST1 RUN NUMBER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

FILTER

NUMBER

Horizontal Distance (in.

Air Monitorina Filter

) From Center of Cored Hole to

7 56 56 56 56 56 62 56 56 56

* 8 - 69 69 60 40 69 69 39 40 40

9 40 40 40 40 40 45 40 40 40

10 21 21 21 21 21 35 21 21 21

11 34 49 49 49 49 56 69 69 65

Table 6. (Continued)

*

TEST RUN NUMBER

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

FILTER

NUMBER

Horizontal Distance (in.

Air Monitorina Filter

) From Center of Cored Hole to

7 56 56 56 62 56 46 38 39 23

8 40 40 43 64 50 36 21 41 40

9 40 40 40 40 39 39 39 36 37

10 21 21 21 45 65 63 68 64 63

11 39 69 69 66 70 70 61 36 65

42
Table 7. Flow Rates of the Vacuum Pumps Used with each Air

Monitoring Filter for Test Run Numbers 1-18

Air Monitoring Vacuum Pump

Filter Number Flow Rate (lpm)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

* 9

10

11

2

4

4

10

4

2

10

10

10

10

10

* In most cases, this filter position was also used for

background readings ("BF", table 9).

43
diameter. The fibers collected on each filter were counted twice

(once each by a different microscopist using phase contrast

microscopy according to the NIOSH 7400 method [4-6]).

Background air monitoring samples were taken for 30-32 min. prior

to starting each test run, with the exception of Test Run No. 1

(38 min.). All the background samples were taken at the Filter

No. 8 position, except for Test Run No. 14 (Filter No. 10) . The

elapsed time between the ending of a background sample and the

starting of a test run in most cases was 15 min. or less.

Spraying of the encapsulant began about 1 to 5 min. after beginning

a test run (starting of vacuum pumps)

.

After beginning a test run, the steps (given in detail in Section

3.5) used for spraying the encapsulant, injecting encapsulant, core

removal, and spraying encapsulant on the fireproofing material

after core removal were performed. The mechanical anchoring

devices were then used to either drill an anchor hole or install a

threaded anchor stud with a powder-actuated gun.

The equipment and procedures used for installing the mechanical

anchoring devices are described as follows. Two drill types were

used: a rotary drill (Drill A) and light-duty "hammer-drill"

(Drill B) . The details of the drills are given in Section 2.

Prior to using both drills, a specially fabricated 12 in. -long

center punch was used to mark the center of the hole to be

44
drilled through the steel decking. A 5/8 in. -diameter x 12 in.-

long "hi-speed" twist drill "steel bit" (designed for drilling

through steel) was used to drill through the cellular steel

decking. A new "steel bit" was used for each hole drilled through

the steel. Then a 1/2 in. -diameter by 12 in. -long masonry bit was

used to drill a hole in the concrete floor slab of sufficient

depth .(about 2 in.) to accommodate a 1/2 in. -expansive anchor (see

footnote 2, Section 2). With Drill A, only rotary action was used

for drilling both the steel and concrete. With Drill B, rotary action

was used for drilling the steel and rotary action and hammer

action were used for drilling the concrete. For safety reasons,

special masonry drill bits designed for use with the hammer-drill

(Drill B) must be used. With 5 of the 6 test runs using Drill A,

the total drilling time (including changing of bits) ranged from

65 to 85 s (the average of five test runs was 72 s) . The six test

runs in which Drill B was used had similar total drilling times to

those of Drill A (range of 55 to 90 s and an average of 68 s for

six test runs) . The person operating the drills indicated that

Drill B was easier to use than Drill A.

A powder-actuated gun8 with a special nose attachment so as to fit

into the uppermost steel flute was used to install a 2-7/8 in. -long

8 A Hilti model DX 600 N powder-actuated gun with a 3/8 in. - 16 stud no. 3297211 W 10-30-42P10 and a 27-caliber-long safety

booster no. 5/370 (purple - powder level 6) . Also see footnote 6

in Section 3.5.

45
anchor stud (0.205 in. shank diameter and 1.25 in. thread length)

using a 27-caliber-long charge. With one exception, the protrusion

distance of the installed stud as measured from the bottom of the

steel decking to the tip of the stud was about 1 in.

After either drilling a hole or installing an anchor stud in the

concrete floor slab, there was in most cases an elapsed time of 2-

4 min. before turning off the vacuum pumps for the air monitoring

filters. The total elapsed time for each test run ranged from 18

to 20 min.

5. 1.5.2 Test Without Encapsulation

In Test Run No. 19, the cored hole in the fireproofing was made

without using any encapsulant and the powder-actuated gun was used

to install an anchor stud. The positions and distances of the air

monitoring filters used in Test Run No. 19 are given in figure 5.

A vacuum pump flow rate of 10 1pm was used with Filter Nos. 2-6 and

2 1pm with Filter No. 1. A background air sample was taken for 15

min. prior to starting the vacuum pumps for the test run. The

background filter was located 24 in. vertically beneath the bottom

of the fireproofing material and 17 in. horizontally from the

center of the cored hole. The total time for this test run was 12

min., which was somewhat less than the total time of Test Run Nos.

1-18 (18-20 min. )

.

46
47

Figure

5.

Horizontal

distances

from

center

of

cored

hole

to

air

monitoring

Filters

Nos.

1-6

for

Test

Run

No.

19.

Filter

No.

1

was

worn

by

the

person

who

operated

the

mechanical

anchoring

devices.

Vertical

distance

from

air

monitoring

Filter

Nos.

2-6

to

the

bottom

of

the

mineral

wool

fireproofing

was

about

24

in.
5.2 Test Results and Discussion

The nine mechanical anchoring device-encapsulant combinations and

the two corresponding replicate test run numbers are shown in table

8. In addition to the 18 (9 combinations x 2 replications) test

runs using encapsulants, there was one test run (Run No. 19) in

which no encapsulant was used.

Table 9 shows the calculated fibers/cm3 (f/cc) values (see

equation below) for all air monitoring filters used in each of the

19 test runs, including the one background filter, "BF" , located

inside the enclosure. Another air monitoring filter was located

outside the test enclosure and, for all test runs, the f/cc values

for this filter were 0.000 (no fibers observed in 100 fields of

view) . During some test runs, one to three air monitoring filters

were located vertically under fireproofing material which had been

previously encapsulated; these filters are noted in table 9.

The f/cc values were calculated from the following equation:

f/ cc = (no. fibers counted/100 fieldsW filter collection area)

1000 (size of field of view) (volume of air in liters)

where: filter collection area = 385 mm2

size (area) of field of view of microscope = 0.00785 mm2

Figure 6 shows, for each test run in Run Nos. 1-18, the minimum,

maximum, median, and approximate 25th and 75th percentile values

based on the 11 f/cc values corresponding to Filter Nos. 1-11.

Two data points (0.082 f/cc from Test Run No. 6 and Filter No. 6,

48
Table 8. Mechanical Anchoring Device-Encapsulant Combinations

and the Two Corresponding Replicate Test Run Numbers

for Each Combination

Mechanical 3

Anchoring

Device

A

B

G

A

B

G

A

B

G

Encapsulant*3

A

A

A

B

B

B

C

C

c

Test

Replicate

2

5

12

9

1

4

6

3

10

Nos

.

Replicate 2

18

8

16

17

13

7

11

15

14

G (no encapsulant 19

used)

a A = Drill A (rotary)

;

B = Drill B (rotary-hammer) ; G = powderactuated gun

b A, B, C = Encapsulants A, B, and C

49
Table

9.

Calculated

Values

of

fibers

l’er

Cubic

Centimeter

(f/cc)

for

All

Test

Runfl

CO<ou

aa <o

COC

CO o u <

LO

<T

U aa

co <aa ozc3

OS

V)

<u H

H3 00 U C —• —' 03 C U 0*

03

O

U £ j: -h u u >

0)

C

D 3ICQ

C^J rs sO O' o O 01 0) 3 0) 0) o sO sO © rsi o m m m rsi 00 © d o O O o o o 3 <* m m sO o is in SO sO 00 m O o o O o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o o o pt* z o o o o o o d o o o o 3 3

in

m o o m 00 00 rsm

O o © o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 3

Cd 00

O

m rs IS so o o O o rsi O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o d o o o d o o o o o o o 3 3

rsi so rsj GOm O' o rs- sO

O rs! cw rsi rsi o o o O o o o •o O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 3

SOmm sO o o 3 o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o

fcu C*4 o o Z o o o z o o o o o 3

r-4 Cs|

m O' <T so 'O- <Tm o rsi o o o o o o o o O o o O o o o o u, o o o o o z o o o o o o o o o o d 3

r*i sO SO rsi so 00 00 rs 00 o rsj 3 o o o o o c O o o o o o o o O o

u* o o o o o o z o o o o o 3 3 o o SO sO sO m so o o o o o o o o o o o o u-> o o o o o o o o o o z o o o o o o o o o o o 3 3 3

CM rs o rs 00 rsi rs)

© rsi c o rsj (*SJ rsj o 'T o o o O o o o O o O o o o o O o o o O o o o o o o 3 3

sO SO SO

C r*5 00

m o o o o O 3 o o o o o o o o o O o O o o o o o

U. o o o o O Z O o o o o o 3 3 3 o m rs m m sO m m 'T o o o rsi o o o O o o o f— O o o o o O o o o o o z o o o o o o o o o o o 3 3 3

sO rj vO rsi

© sO c rsi rsi rsi o o ^-4 o —» o o o O O o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 3

rsi rs o rs rsi rs rsim 00 O' <r ni o o-J rsi m 00 o o o O o O o O o o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o 3

rsj

m in o rs SOm rs.

m o o o O o o o o o o o C*« o o o o o o o o o o z o o o o o o o o o d o 3

'T SO

m 'T SO <Tm in 00 00

O CnJ <r rsi rsi o m o o o o o o o o o O O o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o 3

so rsi

m

© 00 rs in

m o SO

u rsi

m rsi o rsi rsi o o O o O o o o O o o O o z o o o o o o o o o O o 3

r-d o 00 o o in o o O m o m rsi rsi o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o o o o o

IT) o O' o rs 1 m O' rs o m <T rsi rsi m o o o o o O O o o o o o o o o o o O O o o o o o o o

onitoring

r

Number®

BF

rsi

m 'Tm sO rs 00

© o Z 0) U U

*< fct,

T3C c cu

03

rs. *-h .OO

“3 »4H c w

03 *3 1-4 C <3 sO 3 -O O

75

U <4-i OJ 00

0)

50

Air

monitoring

filter

under

encapsulated

area

(from

previous

testing)

during

test

run.
90‘ 0

>-

LU* E

isX 03 03>

x-

_0

|!

t>

® ll Q_ I

CD

03 >C

CO TD

03 >T

03 cl E

03 ^

03

03

C

® * ^X o

CM

LOo

uno

330 U 54 O 0 e 0 3 \33 U X X •H e 3 3 CO ON •H 33 CM 3 H 3 CO O 0

•H 0 O i—1 O • e 3 5 • 0

rH Eh o 0 2

CD 3 54 '

£ > 33 0

Eh • 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 • X 3 33 54 • •H 54 40 3

CO -P 3 X H 3 X • CO l 0 co 0 33 0 H u 0 2 0 X

54

X 33 • 0 54 3 0

co ac 0 rH X! 0 0 X 0 X 2 x 3 rH X

-p 0 •H 0 54 3 LO 2 0 3 C" 54 0 X K 0 33 54 03 44 3 0 CO 3 3 3 0

QC

•H 3 33 3 • 0 4C .—. H CM LU c x 3 40 03 CO CD 3 -P X • > • I> Ll L3 £ 0 • o

CM

L 2 0 o

ID

X 0 2 0 0 Z CO 0 -P 3 \ X

CD X) 0 3 54

X

—

X 3 33a 0 40

^L. E X

X CM ID x •H 0 X i—1 0 • 0 X 0 0 •H O

03 0 3 0 2 0 l 0 L r4 Eh cc 0

00

a 3 33 3 3 u a > E 3 3 5 '-L-J 0 3 0 3 54 1— *4—1 O 54 3

33 0 X

O 0 0

CO 3 \ r4

X

X

CD 3 X

U Eh

X 3 0 • 3 i—1

*• i-4 \ 0 X 3 3 x X 2 t 3 > 3 0 0

•H 0 CM 3 54 2 O 33 x CO 3 0 3 o 0 X o X "H 0 \ E • X 3

4-1 54 o X

X 0 * 0 0 3

4-1 E x 0 0 X 0 3 0 Eh 3 E 3 X 0 0 X •H 5 3 E X X 0 X 0 •H 0 X

pH 3 X 0 54 0 •H

CL E 3 ax

X 5 m m CM t— o o O o o o o o o o o

(oo/j) xnmiNao o i a

n o y3d sa3au

400)

5-1 3

cn •H2

51
and 0.102 f/cc from Test Run No. 10 and Filter No. 6) were excluded

and were considered to be outliers. With the exception of the two

outliers, all the f/cc values were less than 0.055.

In most cases, the measured f/cc values in Test Run Nos. 1-18 were

less than the "quantification limit" 9

, which is. defined [7] as the

"limit of reliable quantification" using phase contrast microscopy.

The f/cc values, however, were in almost all cases above the

background values inside the test enclosure ("BF", table 9) and

were considered to be meaningful in evaluating the encapsulant

procedures investigated. In Test Run No. 19, the f/cc values for

all six filters (Nos. 1-6) exceeded the background value and

quantification limit.

The range of values of 0.000 - 0.055 f/cc (excluding the two

outliers shown in figure 6) for test runs with encapsulants was

substantially less than that for Test Run No. 19, which was run

without an encapsulant, and which had a range of f/cc values of

0.26-0.82 for all six filters (table 9). Thus, in almost all

cases the encapsulants were considered to have been effective in

limiting the release of fibers during sprinkler hanger anchor

installation to a relatively small value (0.055 f/cc). This f/cc

The quantification limit values were calculated using the

equation in section M. 1.4.2 of reference 6 using a filter collection

area value of 385 mm2

, a field of view value of 0.00785 mm2

, and

a filter sampling volume value corresponding to that of the test

run.

52
value was substantially less than those measured in the test run

(Run No. 19) for which an encapsulant was not used.

Figure 6 indicates that there was a trend of decreasing f/cc

values as the testing progressed (i.e., as the test run number

increased) . In particular, the first four test runs had generally

higher readings than the remaining test runs. A possible explanation

is that more loosely adhered fibers were dislodged in the earlier

test runs. In addition, as more test runs were conducted, more test

area was encapsulated and less non-encapsulated fibers were

available to be released.

The trend of decreasing fiber release with increasing test run

number is also illustrated in figure 7, where the f/cc values are

shown in terms of the filter number. Each of the nine plots in

figure 7 corresponds to a different mechanical anchoring deviceencapsulant combination. In figure 7, the two replicate values

and corresponding test run numbers for each filter number are

shown. In most cases, the value of the second replicate (larger

test run number, shown as "2" on the plots) was less than that of

the first replicate (smaller test run number, shown as "l" on the

plots) , indicating that, as the testing progressed, the f/cc values

decreased. Since the order in which the tests were run affected

the f/cc values, figure 7 cannot be used to determine whether more

or less fibers were released when the various mechanical anchoring

devices, encapsulants , and mechanical anchoring device-encapsulant

53
0.06 -

0 05 - T= Run No. 4

0.06 -

0 05 - T= Run No. 12

’2'= Run No. 7

’2" = Run No. 16

0 04 - G,B0 04 - o G, A

0 03 -

1

, i

1 o 0 03 - 2; i 0.02 -l

1 0 02 -1 2

i i 1

0 01 - 2 2 2 2

1

2 2

2

2 2 11 0 01 - 2 _

1 2

2 2 2 2

, 2 1

0

-

t t ?

2

2 2

0

- , l—, 1—5-

Filter Number Filter Number

0.06

0.05

0.04 o

O 0.03

*“ 0.02

0.01

0

0 2 4 6 8 1012

Filter Number

"1'= Run No. 10

"2’= Run No. 14

G,C

i i

Figure 7. The first and second replicates, denoted by

"l” and "2" respectively, are plotted for each

of the 11 filter numbers. Each of the nine

plots corresponds to a different mechanical

anchoring device-encapsulant combination. For

each plot, the type of mechanical anchoring

device is designated by the first letter and

the encapsulant type is designated by the

second letter (see table 8)

.

54
combinations were used. For example, as shown in the plot on the

left side of the middle row of figure 7, for the combination of

Drill B and encapsulant B, the first replication in most cases

clearly exceeded the second replication.

Because the f/cc values tended to decrease as the testing progressed,

it was necessary to analyze each replication of the data separately.

In figure 7 , values of f/cc from the first replication ("1"

entries) and second replication ("2" entries) are shown. Based on

the first replication, mechanical anchoring device-encapsulant

combinations of A,B and B,A (Test Run Nos. 9 and 5, respectively)

appear to have the lowest f/cc values. Based on the second

replication, however, all combinations except B,C (Test Run No.

15) appear to have roughly similar f/cc values. Thus, it was not

possible to distinguish which of the nine mechanical anchoring

device-encapsulant combinations was most effective in limiting

fiber release. Similarly, based on the data from the first and

second replications taken separately, it was not possible to

distinguish among the three mechanical anchoring devices nor the

three encapsulants . Therefore, the mechanical anchoring devices,

encapsulants , and the mechanical anchoring device-encapsulant

combinations having the lowest f/cc values could not be

distinguished. However, even in the first replication, all

combinations showed relatively' small f/cc values (most below the

"quantification limit") . All combinations gave much smaller

values than the last test run without encapsulation.

55
5.3 Conclusions

(1) The encapsulation and mechanical anchoring procedures

developed in this study limited the mineral wool fiber

release to a range of 0.000 to 0.055 f/cc compared to

procedures without encapsulation (range of fiber release 0.26

to 0.82 f/cc). The effectiveness of the procedures developed

to limit asbestos fiber release from spray-on friable

fireproofing needs to be evaluated, in order to establish a

correlation between the release of mineral wool fibers and

asbestos fibers from spray-applied fireproofing.

(2) The nine mechanical anchoring device-encapsulant combinations

investigated were all considered to have performed equally

well in limiting mineral wool fiber release during sprinkler

hanger anchor installation. In particular, the use of the

powder-actuated gun did not cause detectably greater release

of fibers than the drilling methods.

The urgency of the project did not permit an extensive evaluation

of encapsulants . Encapsulants other than those studied may

perform as well as, or better than, those included in the prototype

tests

.

5.4 Recommendation

Prior to GSA's field tests it was recommended that the encapsulation

and mechanical anchoring procedures used in the prototype tests

56
prototype tests (Phase 4) be evaluated in the field tests on

friable, asbestos fireproofing using the protocol for air

sampling and fiber analysis given in Phase 3. It was also

recommended that appropriate safety measures be followed when

performing the field tests, including those pertaining to the

powder-actuated gun, drills, encapsulants , and protection

from airborne asbestos.

57
6 . SUMMARY

At the request of the General Services Administration (GSA)

,

procedures were developed that limited the release of mineral wool

fibers from fireproofing material during sprinkler hanger anchor

installation on cellular steel deck/concrete floor slab surfaces.

The procedures were needed by GSA for installation of sprinkler

systems in buildings having fireproofing containing asbestos. It

was not practical to use fireproofing containing asbestos in

laboratory tests because of safety requirements and the limited

time available for completing the study. Tests were conducted

using a model system of spray-on, friable, mineral wool fireproofing on a cellular steel deck/concrete floor slab.

In the development of the procedures, tests were conducted to

select mechanical anchoring devices (Phase 1) which caused only

small amounts of disturbance to the fireproofing material.

Testing was also performed to evaluate materials and procedures for

encapsulation of mineral wool fireproofing material (Phase 2) in

order to minimize dislodgement of fireproofing during encapsulation,

core removal, and sprinkler hanger anchor installation. The

selected methods and procedures for mechanical attachment of

sprinkler hanger anchors, encapsulation of fireproofing material,

and fireproofing core removal were used in prototype tests (Phase

4). Apart from the use of fireproofing containing mineral wool,

these prototype tests were intended to approximate the conditions

58
in buildings in which sprinkler hanger anchors were installed

during the GSA field tests.

The effectiveness of the selected mechanical anchoring and

encapsulation procedures from Phases 1 and 2 was evaluated based

on air monitoring and analysis of air samples collected during the

prototype tests (Phase 4) . These selected procedures limited the

release of mineral wool fibers during testing to a range of 0.000

to 0.055 f/cc as compared, to a range of values of 0.26 to 0.82 f/cc

for procedures without encapsulation. Encapsulation procedures

were shown to be effective as evidenced by the much higher levels

of fiber release during the test without encapsulation.

The encapsulation and mechanical anchoring procedures developed

and the measured levels of fibers released apply only to the

spray-on, fibrous, friable mineral wool fireproofing tested in

this study. The effectiveness of the procedures developed to

limit asbestos fiber release from spray-on friable fireproofing

needs to be evaluated, in order to establish a correlation between

the release of mineral wool fibers and asbestos fibers from sprayapplied fireproofing.

Prior to GSA's field tests, it was recommended that the encapsulation

and mechanical anchoring procedures used in the prototype tests

(Phase 4) be evaluated in the field tests. Buildings having

friable, fibrous fireproofing containing asbestos were included in

59
the GSA field tests. A protocol for air sampling and fiber

analysis was also developed by NBS for use by GSA in the field

tests. The protocol addressed factors such as the number of air

samples to be taken, their locations, and the analytical procedures

to be used.

The laboratory and field studies provided GSA with an effective

procedure, measurement method, and decision tool for installing

sprinkler hanger anchors in steel/deck concrete floor slabs having

fireproofing materials.

60
7 . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge with thanks the contributions of

Kimberly Johnson, Frank Davis, and Erik Anderson of the National

Bureau of Standards (NBS) for conducting the laboratory tests,

fabricating test specimens, and obtaining needed materials and

equipment. The authors appreciate the statistical consultation

and data analysis provided by Dr. James J. Filliben of NBS. The

authors also appreciate the project coordination between NBS and

GSA provided by Noel Raufaste of NBS and Donald Bathurst of GSA.

Finally, the authors wish to acknowledge the work and patience of

Denise L. Herbert for her efforts in typing the manuscript.

61
8 . REFERENCES

1. "Studies of Airborne Fiber Emissions from Asbestos and NonAsbestos Sprayed-On Insulation During Installation of Hanger

Anchors for Sprinkler Systems," Marcus Environmental Inc.,

Contractor's Report to National Bureau of Standards, and

General Services Administration, February 2, 1988.

2 . "Asbestos Exposure Assessment in Buildings Inspection

Manual, "Environmental Protection Agency, October, 1982

(Revised)

.

3. "Interim Transmission Electron Microscopy Analytical Method

and Field Sampling Protocol for the Clearance Testing of An

Abatement Site," Fed. Register, Proposed Rules, Vol. 52, No.

83, April 30, 1987, pp. 15845-15882.

4. Revised Recommended Asbestos Standard, U.S. Department of

Health, Education & Walfare, Publication (NIOSH) 77-169 (1976) .

5. Leidel, N.A. , Bayer S.G., Zumwalde R.D., and Busch, K.A.

,

USPHS/NIOSH Membrane Filter Method for Evaluating Airborne

Asbestos Fibers, U.S. Department HEW, Publication (NIOSH) 79-

127 (1979)

.

6. NIOSH Manual of Anaytical Methods, 2nd Ed., Vol. 1., P&CAM

239, U.S. Department HEW, Publication (NIOSH) 77-157-A (1977).

7. "Guidance for controlling Asbestos-Containing Materials in

Building," EPA 560/5-85-024, Environmental Protection Agency,

June 1985.

62
APPENDIX A - COMMENTS ON FIELD TESTS PERFORMED BY GSA

The contractor's report on the field tests [1] was reviewed by NBS

and comments about the report requested by GSA are presented in

this appendix. The comments pertain to the procedures used in the

field tests for air monitoring and analysis, and for encapsulation

and mechanical anchor installation. Comments are also presented

in this appendix on fiber release from sprinkler hanger anchor

installation during the field tests as determined from analysis of

air monitoring samples using phase contrast microscopy (PCM)

.

1. Air Monitoring and Analysis

The NBS Center for Analytical Chemistry (CAC) reviewed the

Contractor's report [1] for compliance of air sampling and

analysis with the NBS recommended procedures and for consistency

with NBS experience with fiber distributions in the air of

buildings having asbestos containing fireproofing material. The

CAC comments are given in this appendix.

Laboratory Study

In the laboratory study described in this report (Phase 4) to

measure mineral wool fiber concentrations, the phase contrast

microscopy (PCM) air sampling and analysis followed the NBS

recommended procedures. Thus, the air monitoring and analysis

data obtained were considered valid for the laboratory study.

63
Field Study - Phase Contract Microscopy Measurements (PCM)

Data reported in the Contractor's report [1] based on phase

contrast microscopy (PCM) for the identification and estimation of

asbestos content in the building air at the test sites were

obtained using the NBS recommended air sampling and analysis

procedures. Thus, the air monitoring and analysis data obtained

were considered valid for the field tests. It is pointed out that

the PCM method does not unambiguously identify asbestos mineral

forms and only identifies fibers larger than 5 micrometers in

length by the definition of the methodology.

Field Study - Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM)

Data on asbestos contents of the air in buildings at the test

sites were obtained by transmission electron microscopy and are

included in the contractor's report [1]. Air sampling for the TEM

analysis of airborne asbestos followed the NBS required procedures,

except that the filter media were carbon coated after sampling.

However, the required procedures for analysis of the TEM samples

were not followed. Thus, the TEM asbestos data were not valid for

quantitative or semiquantitative correlation of the data.

2. Encapsulation and Mechanical Anchoring Procedures

The contractor's report [1] documents that the NBS recommended

encapsulation and mechanical anchoring procedures were followed,

except that two different encapsulants were used for some tests in

64
one building because the recommended encapsulants were not

available in the time required. This field modification represented

no material deviation from NBS procedures.

3. Asbestos Fiber Release During Sprinkler Hanger Anchor Installation

The contractor's report [1] provided data from 268 air monitoring

samples analyzed for asbestos fibers by the PCM method. Most .of

these samples (213) were taken either inside the work enclosure

(118) or in the room where the work enclosure was located (95)

.

Only 8 of these 213 samples had values of asbestos fibers per

cubic centimeter (f/cc) of 0.01 or larger. The maximum value was

0.027 f/cc. All of the 8 samples which had values of 0.01 f/cc or

larger were taken inside the work enclosure. Thus, all the air

monitoring samples taken outside the work enclosure but in the

room where the enclosure was located had values of asbestos fibers

less than 0.01 f/cc. It is noted that the various combinations of

mechanical anchoring procedures (use of drills or powder-actuated

gun) and encapsulation procedures tested in the laboratory study

(Phase 4) limited the measured value of mineral wool fiber release

to a maximum of 0.055 f/cc. Since sampling and analysis methods

using optical microscopy in the laboratory and the field were

considered valid, the recommended procedures were sucessful in

controlling fiber release both in the laboratory and in the field.

The field tests showed no evidence that asbestos contamination

occurred in the building air during anchor installation.

65
NBS-T14A (REV. 2-80

U.s. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET (See instructions)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

1. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO.

NBSIR 88-3676

2. Performing Organ. Report NoJ 3. Publication Date

MARCH 1988

Procedures for Sprinkler Anchor Installation on Surfaces with Fireproofing Materials

5. AUTHOR(S)

Robert G. Mathey, Lawrence I. Knab, John L. Gross, John A. Small

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS. see instructions) 7. Contract/Grant No.

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE S. Type of Report & Period Covered

GAITHERSBURG, MD 20899

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City, State, ZIP)

General Services Adminstration

Public Buildings Service

18th and F Streets, NW

Washington. D.C. 20405

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

T Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FlPS Software Summary, is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant in formation. If document includes a si anifimnt

Procedures were developed for limiting the release of fibers from fireproofing material during sprinkler hanger

anchor installation on steel deck/concrete floor slab surfaces. These procedures were needed by the General

Services Administration (GSA) for installation of sprinkler systems in buildings having fireproofing containing

asbestos

.

A prototype floor slab having spray-on friable mineral wool fireproofing was used in laboratory tests. Ihe

mineral wool fireproofing was used as a model system for fireproofing containing asbestos. The various

combinations of mechanical anchoring procedures (use of drills or powder-actuated gun) and encapsulation

procedures tested limited the fiber release to a range of values of 0.000 to 0.055 f/cc (fibers per cubic

centimeter) as compared to a range of values of 0.26 to 0.82 f/cc for procedures without encapsulation.

Encapsulation was shown to be effective as evidenced by much higher levels of fiber release during testing

without encapsulation.

Because there is no known correlation between the release of mineral wool fibers and asbestos fibers, it was recommended that the procedures developed be evaluated by GSA in buildings having fireproofing containing

asbestos. An air sampling protocol was developed for use by GSA in evaluating the procedures in the field.

Subsequently field tests were conducted by GSA.

The laboratory and field studies provided GSA with an effective procedure, measurement method, and decision

tool for installing sprinkler hanger anchors in steel deck/concrete floor slabs having fireproofing materials.

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolon s) air sampling; asbestos; core removal; encapsulation; friable fireproofing; fiber

analysis; mechanical anchoring devices; procedures; spray-on fireproofing; sprinkler

system installation; steel deck/concrete floor slabs

13. AVAILABILITY 14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

| ^1 Uni imited

For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS 75

1 Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402. 15. Price

r~y1 Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161 $13.95

U S COMM-D C 6O43-P80