• Journal of Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.212-221
• /
• 2013

Objectives: Asbestos fibers are accumulated in negative pressure unit (NPU) or vacuum cleaner in asbestos removal. Failure of operation or poor use performance of the NPU or vacuum cleaner causes asbestos fibers to spread in the air. Asbestos contractors should have an NPU fitted with a HEPA , vacuum cleaner, decontamination area, respirators, wetting equipment, and differential pressure manometer to register with the Ministry of Employment and Labor. There should be performance criteria of equipment used in asbestos removal. But there are none such criteria used in asbestos removal. This study was performed to investigate international or national performance criteria of equipment used in asbestos removal. Methods: Regulations, approved code of practice, guidance and national standards of the UK, USA and Korea were reviewed. A survey was done to investigate the requirements for equipment used in asbestos removal in Korea. Results: Air flow of NPUs used in Korea usually covers from$500m^3/h$ to over $3000m^3/h$. Some requirements for NPUs used in Korea were missing compared to the requirements of British standards for NPUs. All NPUs have different missing requirements. The UK also has separate British standard for leak tests for NPUs. Highly hazardous class vacuum cleaners should be used in asbestos removal in the UK. It has national standards on the operation of vacuum cleaners used in asbestos removal. There is only a certification system for less than 2.5kw rated voltage vacuum cleaners for home use in Korea. Powered (-assisted) respirators with mask are recommended in asbestos removal. Type 5 coveralls should be used in asbestos removal in the UK. There are international standards for requirements and leak tests of type 5 coveralls. A manometer for measuring differential pressure is needed in asbestos removal. The manometer's measuring range should cover less than ${\pm}125$ Pa and the gradation of manometer should be less than 2.5 Pa. The definition of decontamination area should be corrected. Installation of airlock and minimum area should be considered in decontamination area. Conclusions: Equipment should be used in asbestos removal proper performance and no leaks. There should be a certification system for equipment used in asbestos removal. This study can help to a certification system for equipment used in asbestos removal in Korea.

• Journal of Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.184-193
• /
• 2015

Objectives: This study focused on three aspects: characterizing concentrations of airborne particles by size distributions and asbestos fibers generated by various building materials; analyzing the characteristics of fibers produced by each simulation and asbestos fibers released from ACBMs; and investigating correlations of airborne asbestos fibers and particles generated and association of particle and asbestos concentrations. Methods: We selected three ACBMs including an insulation board, cement asbestos slate and wallboard. We constructed 4 scenarios; a) crushing with a hammer; b) cutting with a industrial knife; c) brushing with a metal brush; and d) tightening & loosening with a hand drill. We implemented one simulation for 30 seconds followed by 30 seconds resting period. We repeated a total of 5 cycles for 5 minutes. Results: The highest concentration of particulate & fibrous matters was from crushing with a hammer in each scenario followed by brushing with a metal brush, cutting with a industrial knife, and tightening & loosening with a hand drill. For ACBMs studied, asbestos concentrations were highest from an insulation board followed by cement asbestos slate, and wallboard. No difference in terms of concentration was found between an insulation board and asbestos slate. Fibers with $5{\sim}20{\mu}m$ in length were included in 76~90% of total fibrous matters. The distribution of the straight form fibers was greater than that of the curl form. About 90% of $PM_{Total}$ released from ACBMs was consisted of $PM_{10}$ while only 10% of $PM_{Total}$ was $PM_{2.5}$. Particulate matters like $PM_{2.5}$ was significantly correlated with fibrous matters($R^2=0.81$). Conclusions: We found ACBMs can significantly release asbestos fibers as well as $PM_{2.5}$. Concentrations of asbestos generated by ACBMs were well correlated with $PM_{2.5}$.

• Journal of Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.205-212
• /
• 2020

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to identify the needs and improvement measures of the risk assessment system through a survey of asbestos abatement companies. Methods: This study prepared a questionnaire that includes improvement measures for the risk assessment system(six questions) and the necessity of a risk assessment system for asbestos abatement(one question). The questionnaire was sent to 2,170 asbestos abatement companies and returned by 83 companies(return rate = 3.8%). We conducted frequency analysis, ANOVA, and Chi-squared testing at the 5% significance level. Results: This study analyzed the survey results and identified six main opinions on the risk assessment system and improvement measures. First, giving an advantage to companies with a high grade(S and A grades) in public bidding and/or qualification screening showed a similar preference(agree: 50.6%, disagree: 49.4%). Second, 57.6% of the respondents wanted to allow air showers along with water showers for low risk asbestos work. However, 23.2% of the respondents asserted that only a water shower should be allowed since there is no scientific evidence supporting the removal of asbestos by air shower. Third, in order to prevent missing the enrollment of workers, simply submitting a change report should be allowed when any worker is changed (40.0%). Fourth, 43% of the respondents answered that they did not know how to calculate the proper number of negative pressure units. The reasons given were a lack of guidelines or standards(38.9%), inconvenience (36.1%), and absence of education(25%). Fifth, the respondents who were favorable toward the necessity of a risk assessment system gave higher scores compared to unfavorable respondents on the necessity of the management of workers' work history(favorable respondent = 3.96 out of 5, unfavorable respondent = 2.68) and the necessity of professional training for workers(favorable respondent = 3.71, unfavorable respondent = 2.56). Finally, the respondents favorable toward a risk assessment system showed higher scores on the awareness of calculating the proper number of negative pressure units(4.79) compared to unfavorable respondents(3.3). Conclusions: The opinions of asbestos abatement companies identified through the survey in this study can be usefully utilized as fundamental information to improve the risk assessment system.