Aerogun Spray Fireproofing

Product Description

Aerogun was a spray-applied fireproofing material manufactured by Narco during the 1970s. Produced from 1971 through 1979, the product was designed to provide passive fire resistance to structural components in industrial and commercial construction settings. Spray fireproofing materials of this era were widely used across a range of building types, applied directly to steel beams, columns, decking, and other structural elements to slow the spread of heat and flame in the event of a fire.

Narco, operating within a broader industrial materials market during this period, formulated Aerogun as part of the widespread industry practice of incorporating fibrous mineral additives into spray fireproofing compounds. These additives were valued for their thermal insulating properties, binding characteristics, and resistance to high temperatures. Spray-applied fireproofing was considered a cost-effective method for meeting building code requirements during the construction boom years of the 1970s, and products like Aerogun were used extensively on job sites where large-scale industrial and structural construction was underway.

The product was applied using spray equipment that projected the mixed compound onto target surfaces, creating an insulating layer intended to maintain structural integrity during fire events. This application method, while effective for its stated purpose, created significant airborne dust and fiber exposure risks for workers involved in the application process and those working nearby.

Asbestos Content

Aerogun contained chrysotile asbestos as a component of its formulated spray fireproofing compound. Chrysotile, also known as white asbestos, is a serpentine-form asbestos mineral that was the most commercially prevalent asbestos variety used in building and construction products throughout much of the twentieth century.

Chrysotile fibers were incorporated into spray fireproofing compounds during this era because of their thermal stability, tensile strength, and ability to bind with cementitious or other carrier materials. These properties made chrysotile well-suited for use in products that needed to adhere to vertical and overhead surfaces while providing durable fire resistance.

Although chrysotile has at times been characterized as less potent than amphibole asbestos varieties such as crocidolite or amosite, regulatory agencies and scientific consensus have long established that chrysotile is a known human carcinogen. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the National Toxicology Program all classify chrysotile as a carcinogen capable of causing mesothelioma, lung cancer, asbestosis, and other serious diseases following sufficient inhalation exposure.

Federal regulation of asbestos-containing spray fireproofing materials accelerated through the 1970s. The EPA issued prohibitions on spray application of materials containing more than one percent asbestos in 1973 under the Clean Air Act, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration established permissible exposure limits for asbestos in occupational settings during this same period. Products like Aerogun were produced and used in an era when asbestos-containing spray materials were transitioning from standard industry practice to regulated and eventually prohibited substances.

How Workers Were Exposed

Industrial workers involved in the application, disturbance, or removal of Aerogun spray fireproofing represented the primary population at risk for asbestos fiber exposure. Litigation records document that workers in industrial settings where Aerogun was applied faced repeated, sometimes daily, contact with airborne asbestos fibers generated during the product’s use.

The spray application process was a principal source of exposure. When Aerogun compound was mixed, loaded into application equipment, and sprayed onto structural surfaces, the process generated clouds of airborne particulate that contained respirable asbestos fibers. Workers operating spray equipment were directly in the path of this dispersion, and those working in the same enclosed or semi-enclosed spaces—including other tradespeople and general laborers—were exposed to fibers that remained suspended in the air well after active spraying had ceased.

Plaintiffs alleged that exposure did not end with the application phase. In construction and industrial environments, Aerogun-coated surfaces could be disturbed by subsequent trades performing cutting, drilling, welding, or other work in proximity to treated structural members. These disturbances could release previously bound asbestos fibers back into the breathing zone of workers who may have had no direct role in the original fireproofing application. Plaintiffs further alleged that maintenance workers and others who performed work in facilities where Aerogun had been applied faced ongoing secondary exposure risks when the applied material was damaged, deteriorated, or disturbed during routine operations.

Litigation records document claims that adequate respiratory protection was frequently not provided to workers during this era, and that employers and manufacturers failed to communicate the hazards associated with asbestos-containing spray products to the workforce. Plaintiffs alleged that the risks of chrysotile asbestos inhalation were known or knowable to manufacturers during the period of Aerogun’s production, and that this information was not adequately disclosed to the workers who came into contact with the product.

Industrial workers generally—a broad category that includes laborers, maintenance personnel, equipment operators, and others employed in manufacturing and processing facilities—are identified in litigation records as a significant portion of those claiming exposure to Aerogun. The industrial setting often involved confined spaces, poor ventilation, and extended work shifts, conditions that plaintiffs alleged amplified both the intensity and duration of asbestos fiber exposure.

There is no dedicated asbestos bankruptcy trust fund established for claims related to Aerogun manufactured by Narco. Individuals who believe they were exposed to Aerogun and have since been diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease are not able to pursue a trust fund claim for this specific product and manufacturer under the current trust fund framework.

Instead, legal remedies for Aerogun-related asbestos exposure are pursued through civil litigation in the tort system. Litigation records document that claims involving spray fireproofing products containing chrysotile asbestos have been filed in asbestos dockets across multiple jurisdictions. Plaintiffs in these cases have alleged that manufacturers of asbestos-containing spray products, including those in the fireproofing category, were negligent in their failure to warn workers of the hazards associated with asbestos inhalation, failed to provide adequate safety instructions, and continued to produce and market asbestos-containing products despite available knowledge of associated health risks.

Individuals diagnosed with mesothelioma, lung cancer, asbestosis, or other asbestos-related conditions who have a documented history of occupational exposure to Aerogun or similar spray fireproofing products should consult with an attorney who specializes in asbestos litigation. An experienced asbestos attorney can evaluate exposure history, identify all potentially liable parties—which may include product manufacturers, distributors, premises owners, and employers—and assess whether claims should be pursued through litigation, through other available trust funds related to co-exposures, or through both avenues simultaneously.

Because asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma often have latency periods of twenty to fifty years, workers exposed to Aerogun during its production years of 1971 through 1979 may only now be receiving diagnoses. Statutes of limitations for asbestos claims vary by state and generally begin running from the date of diagnosis or discovery of the disease, rather than the date of exposure. Prompt consultation with legal counsel is important to preserve all available legal options.