For Use in AT&T Buildings in Authorized States Only

For use in AT&T buildings in authorized States only

For use only by authorized contractors and AT&T employees

This form may not be altered except as authorized by AT&T

REVISED May 9, 2013 VALID UNTIL May 9, 2014

A. Description of current job

1. This work practice is used to provide a clean surface in preparation for drilling through or into a concrete slab or for other purposes. The work practice consists of removing pieces of asbestos-containing resilient floor coverings with a chisel or hole punch and using soapy water and/or shaving cream to control debris and fiber release. These NEAs are applicable to both vinyl floor tile and sheet vinyl/rolled goods such as linoleum with asbestos backing material.

2. Type and amount of material - Work will be performed on 9" x 9" and/or 12" x 12" resilient floor tile and/or sheet/rolled vinyl floor covering such as linoleum , installed on a concrete floor, and on the associated adhesive mastic. The amount of material removed will be normally 9” x 9” or less.

3. Type and percent asbestos - The floor covering and associated mastics are presumed to contain asbestos and no samples have been taken for analysis.

4. Engineering controls - No engineering controls are required.

5. Worker's training and experience - Workers have completed a 2-hour Awareness Training course, plus training in use of the procedure. This training included "hands-on" exercises using non-asbestos floor coverings similar to the asbestos-containing material on which the work will be performed.

6. Class of work - Class III work - Maintenance and repair on resilient floor covering.

B.1 Initial Exposure Assessment (IEA) - Floor Tile – Chisel Cut

1. Initial Exposure Assessment (IEA) was completed on January 27, 2000.

a. Name of person performing IEA: Andrew F. Oberta, MPH, CIH, The Environmental Consultancy, Austin, TX, a licensed asbestos consultant (TDH License No. 10-5430).

b. Was a project design completed for this project? Yes. Test procedures and air sampling procedures were prepared, and a drawing of the test facility was provided.

c. Were engineering controls implemented as designed? Yes.

d. Results of an 8-hr TWA: No 8-hr TWA exposures were calculated. The sample results in Table 1a are for the actual duration of sampling, which was 120 minutes for each test. 8-hr TWA exposures would be less than the values in Table 1, all of which are below the PEL of 0.1 fibers/cc.

e. Results of a 30-minute STEL: All of the EL samples are below the excursion limit of 1.0 fibers/cc.

f. How were these samples analyzed? Phase Contrast Microscopy using NIOSH Method 7400.

g. Are the results less than the PEL and the EL? Yes. Also, the 95% UCL is below the PEL and EL.

h. Were the samples taken representative of all operations which will take place during the work? Yes, provided that the workers receive training in using the procedure, that they use similar equipment and materials, and that work is limited to resilient floor tile.

Table 1a. Summary of Personal Samples for tile lifting

Collected January 26-27, 2000

PEL samples EL samples

No. of samples 6 22

Range, fibers/cc 0.0186 0.0569 0.0271 - 0.14

Average, fibers/cc 0.0445 0.0816

95% UCL, fibers/cc 0.0667 0.15

Cutting and Lifting NEA Form Page 1 of 5

Cutting and Lifting NEA Form

Page 2 of 5 Make sure you have the correct form!!!!!

Form Expires May 9, 2014

2. Annual Updates have been conducted. The most recent is summarized below.

a. Name of person performing update: Ken Garza, Gobbell Hays Partners, Inc.

b. Was a project design completed for this project? A test plan and air sampling strategy were prepared.

c. Were engineering controls implemented as designed? No engineering controls were necessary, based on the Initial Exposure Assessment and previous updates.

d. Results of an 8-hr TWA: No 8-hr TWA exposures were calculated. The sample result below is for the actual duration of sampling, 90 minutes. 8-hr TWA exposures would be less than this value.

e. Results of a 30-minute EL: All of the EL sample results are less than the excursion limit of 1.0 f/cc.

f. How were these samples analyzed? Phase Contrast Microscopy using OSHA ID 160.

g. Are the results less than the PEL and the EL? Yes. Also, the 95% UCL is less than the PEL and EL.

See Table 2a below.

B.2 Initial Exposure Assessment (IEA) - Resilient Sheet Vinyl Flooring Cutting and Lifting– Chisel Cut

1. Initial Exposure Assessment (IEA) was completed on September 11, 2003

a. Name of person performing IEA: Peter D. Cappel, Senior Industrial Hygienist, Gobbell Hays Partners, Inc.

b. Was a project design completed for this project? Yes. Test procedures and air sampling procedures were prepared.

c. Were engineering controls implemented as designed? Yes.

d. Results of an 8-hr TWA: See Table 1b. All air samples collected were below the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit of 0.1 fibers/cc.

e. Results of a 30-minute EL: See Table 1b. All EL air samples collected were below the OSHA Excursion Limit of 1.0 fibers/cc.

f. How were these samples analyzed? Phase Contrast Microscopy

g. Are the results less than the PEL and the EL? Yes. In addition, the 95% UCL is below the PEL and EL.

h. Were the samples taken representative of all operations which will take place during the work? Yes.

provided that the workers receive training in using the procedure, that they use similar equipment and

materials, and that work is limited to resilient sheet vinyl flooring.

Table 1b. Summary of Personal Samples for lifting sheet vinyl flooring

Collected September 11 and 12, 2003

PEL samples EL samples

No. of samples 3 9

Range, fibers/cc <0.016 <0.044

Average, fibers/cc 0.020 0.081

95% UCL, fibers/cc 0.038 0.437