EPA-450/3-90-017
National Emission Standards
        for Asbestos  —
  Background Information
 for Promulgated Asbestos
     NESHAP Revisions
           Eminem Standards Divine
      U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
           Office of Air and Radiation
       Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
       Research Triangle Paric, North Carolina 27711

             October 1990

-------
                                    DISCLAMER
 x       rei?ort nas been reviewed by the  Emission Standards Division  Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air and Radlat on
Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication?  Mention of
company or product names does not constitute endorsement by EPA   Conies of
this report are available free of charge  to Federal employees, curren
      Ct°                 and non-™f1t  organizations --as
                                       Informatlon

-------
                          ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                             Background Information
                                    and Final
                          Environmental Impact Statement
                            for Revised Standards for
                                    Asbestos
                                  Prepared by:
.Jack  R.  Farmer
Director,  Emission Standards Division
U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
                                         27711
 1.   The promulgated revisions to the national  emission standards for asbestos
     require control device and emission monitoring, recordkeeping,  and
     reporting for asbestos milling,  manufacturing, and fabricating;  revisions
     to the notification requirements for demolition and renovation;  and
     recordkeeping for asbestos waste disposal.   The promulgated revisions
     implement Section 112 of the Clean  Air Act  and are based on the
     Administrator's determination of March 31,  1971 (36 FR 3031),  that
     asbestos presents a significant  risk to human health as a result of  air
     emissions from one or more stationary source categories and is therefore  a
     hazardous air pollutant.

 2.   Copies of this document have been sent to the following Federal
     Departments:   Labor,  Health  and  Human Services, Defense,  Transportation
     Agriculture,  Commerce,  Interior,  and Energy;  the National  Science
     Foundation; the Council  on Environmental Quality;  State and Territorial
     Air Pollution Program Administrators;  EPA Regional  Administrators; Local
    -Air Po lution Control  Officials; Office  of  Management and  Budget;  and
     other  interested parties.                .

 3.   For additional  information contact:

     Mr.  Fred  Dimmick
     Emission  Standards  Division  (MD-13)
     U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
     Research  Triangle  Park, North Carolina  27711
     Telephone:  (919)  541-5625

4.   Copies of this document may be obtained from:

    U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency Library  (MD-35)
    Research Triangle Park, North Carolina  27711

    National Technical  Information Service
    5285 Port Royal Road
    Springfield,  Virginia  22161
                                     ill

-------

-------
                                  ABBREVIATIONS
 A/C      asbestos/cement
 ACM      asbestos-containing material
 AHERA    Asbestos  Hazard  Emergency Response Act  of 1986
 ANSI      American  National  Standards  Institute
 ASTM      American  Society for Testing  and Materials
 BID      background  Information  document
 CAA      Clean  A1r Act
 CPSC      Consumer  Products  Safety Commission
 DOT      Department  of Transportation
 EPA     .Environmental Protection Agency
 ID        Identification
 LEV      local  exhaust ventilation
 NADC      Natlonanl Association of Demolition Contractors
 NARS      National Asbestos  Registry System
 NESHAP    National Emission  Standards for Hazardous Air  Pollutants
 NIOSH     National Institute  for  Occupational Safety and Health
 OAQPS     Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
 OSHA      Occupational Safety and Health Administration
 OSW     Office of Solid Waste
 PEL     permissible exposure limit
 PLM     polarized light microscopy
 RCRA     Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SARA     Superfund Amendments and  Reauthorlzation Act of 1986
TEM      transmission electron microscopy
TSCA     Toxic Substances Control  Act

-------

-------
                                   CONTENTS
Chapter                                                                 Page
Abbrevl atlons	„	     1
 1.0  Summary	     1-1
      1.1-   Summary of Changes Since Proposal	     1-1
      1.2   Summary of Impacts of Promulgated Action.	     1-3
            1.2.1   Environmental Impacts of Promulgated Action....     1-3
            1.2.2   Energy and Economic Impacts of Promulgated
                    Action	,	     1-4
 2.0  List of Commenters and Organization of Comments and
      Responses	.	     2-1
 3.0  General Comments	     3-1
      3.1   Basis for Revisions	     3-1
      3.2   Compl lance/Enforcement	     3_2
      3.3   Industry Burden	     3.3
      3.4   Stringency	..	     3.5
      3.5   Revisions to Facilitate Enforcement...	     3.5
      3.6   Agency Burden...	     3_5
      3.7   Support Clarifying Changes	     3.7
      3.8   Clearer Language	     3.7
      3.9   Interpretation  of NESHAP	     3.7
      3.10   Type  of Asbestos	     3.3
      3.11   Health  Effects...	     3-10
      3.12   Cross-Referenclng	     3.^0
      3.13   Inspections by  the Administrator...	      3-12
                                     vll

-------
                             CONTENTS  (continued)
Chapter
      3.14  Effective Date.	
      3.15  Storage and Transfer	
      3.16  Alternate Methods	e>>>>
      3.17  Responsibility for Compliance	
      3.18  Noncommercial  Asbestos	
 4.0  Definitions	
      4.1   General	
      4.2   Asbestos-Containing Waste Material	
      4.3   Commercial  Asbestos	
      4.4   Demol itlon	
      4.5   Emergency Renovation Operation	
     4.6   EPA  ID .Number.	
     4.7   Fabricating.	
     4.8   Facility	
     4.9   Fad 11 ty Component	
     4.10   Friable Asbestos Material-Material Covered	
     4.11  Friable Asbestos Material-Analytical Method	     4.13
     4.12  Fugitive Sources...	
     4.13  Generator	aff
     4.14  Glove Bags	'...«„.
     4.15  Inactive Waste  Disposal  Site	      4_18
     4.16  Inspection  Ports...	
     4.17  Instal1ation	
     4.18  Location and Address	
     4.19  Malfunction	
  Page
  3-12
  3-13
  3-14
  3-14
  3-15
  4-1
  4-1
  4-1
  4-2
  4-3
  4-5
 4-6
 4-6
 4-7
 4-8
 4-9
 4-16
 4-17
 4-17
4-18
4-18
4-19
4-19
                                   V111

-------
                             CONTENTS  (continued)
Chapter                                                                 paqe
      4.20  Natural Barrier	     4_20
      4.21  Nonfrlable	.	     4.20
      4.22  Nonscheduled Renovation Operation..	     4-20
      4.23  Outside A1r...	..     4_22
      4.24  Owner or operator of a Demolition or Renovation
            Activity	.	fff     4_23
      4.25  Partlculate Asbestos Material	     4-24
      4.26  Remove	     4-2JL
      4.27  Renovation...	     4.25
      4.28  Roadway	t	^^     4_25
      4.29  Transport	     4-26
      4.30  Visible Emissions..	     4_26
      4.31  Waste Generator.	     4-29
      4.32  Waste Oil.	     4-29
 5.0   Milling,  Manufacturing, and  Fabricating...	..     5-1
      5.1    Compliance	..	     5-1
      5.2    Applicability	     5-2
      5.3    Visible  Emission Monitoring	     5.2
      5.4    Weekly Inspections..	      5-6
      5.5    Compliance Options	      5-6
      5.6    Monitoring Reports...	      5_8
      5.7    Reference	      5.3
6.0   Roadways	           6,
     6.1   Use of Tailings........	.._     6-1
     6.2   Use of All Asbestos-Containing Material....	     6-2
                                     1x

-------
                             CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter
                                                                        Page
      6.3   Contaminated Stone	      5_2

 7.0  Demolition and Renovation	      7_j

      7.1   Applicability	,	      7_1

            7.1.1   Asbestos-Containing Material..,	      7-1
            7.1.2   Coverage Expanded to "Disturbed"  Material!.*!.*!!      7-9
            7.1.3   No Asbestos	„„	      7.H
            7.1.4   Applicability Threshold—Volume Equivalent!!!!!      7-14
            l'}'l   Applicability Threshold—Exempted Operations...      7-17
            7.1.6   Affected Facilities	      7_ig
            7.1.7   Offslte  stripping	,	!!!!!      7-ig
            7.1.8   Roadways	!..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!      7-20
            7.1.9   Individual  Nonschedul.ed Operations—Section**"
                    61.145 (a) (4) (1)	      7_20
            7.1.10   Emergency  Renovations—Section 61.145(a)(4)(11)      7-24
            7.1.11   Format	                               7 05
            7.1.12   Building Survey	!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!      7-25

     7.2    Notification	      7_27

            7.2.1    General	      7.27
            7.2.2    Reason for Updating Notices...!	      7 28
            7.2.3    Identifying Updated Notices	!!!!!	      7.20
            7.2.4    Where to Send	        ""      7.29
            7.2.5    Waiting  Period Between Notification'and	
         -   -, o c    Be91nn1n9 Work—Section 61.145(b)  (3) (1)	     7-29
            7.2.6    Individual Nonscheduled Renovations—Section
            _ , _    fl-145(b)(3)(11)..	     7_30
            ;*H   ^rgency Renovation—Section 6l.l45(b)(3)(111)     7-31
            7.2.8   Ordered Demolitions	                       7 «
            7.2.9   Notification Period	.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!     7-34
            7.2.10  Distinction Between Removal  as  Part'of	
                   Demolition or Renovation	                    7.10
            7.2.11  Renot1f1 cation..-	         	     739
           7.2.12  Notification Prior to Stripping,..!!!!	     7-44
           7.2.13  Renot1f1cat1on/Updat1ng	„„....    	     7.44
           ?*HJ  ueS°5 °! Not1fyin9 EPA-Sectlon 61.145(b) (2)*!.'     7-45
           "H'Jf  ^hod of Notlfylng-Sectlon  61.145(b) (3)......     7-46
           7.2.16  Information Required—General...	     7.47
           7.2.17  Information Required—Responsibility for*	
                   Not 1 f 1 cat 1 on	           7_48
           7.2.18  Information Required—Identlflcation'of'owner/*
                   Operator.	      7_4g
           7.2.19  Information Required—Description  of Facility!!      7-50
           7.2.20   Information Required—Asbestos Detection	      7-50
           7.2.21   Information Required—Quantity of Asbestos	      7-52

-------
                             CONTENTS  (continued)
Chapter
                                                                       Page
            7.2.22  Information Required—Address—Section
                    61.145(b)(4)(v1)	              7.55
            7.2.23  Information Required—Dates—Section
                    6l.l45(b)(4)(v11).....	       7_55
            7.2.24  Information Required—Dates for Individual
                    Nonscheduled Renovations—Section
                    6l.l45(b)(4)(v11)	             7-58
            7.2.25  Information Required—Methods—Section
                    6l.l45(b)(4)(1x)	      7_58
            7.2.2$  Information Required—Trained Supervisor—
            7 „ „   fe?1on 6l«l45(b)(4)(x1i)...	      7.59
            7.Z.Z7   Information Required—Ordered Demolitions-
                    Section 6l.l45(b)(4)(x111)	,      7_60
            7.2.28   Information Required—Emergency Renovations-
                   Section 61.145(b)(4)(x1v)...	      7-61
            7.2.29   Information Required—Discovery of Unexpected
            7 7,n  Js^os::Sect1on  61-145(b)(4)(xv)..	      7-62
            7.2.30  Notification Form	            7_66
            7.2.31  Lack o.f Notifications  as  Basis  for Estimate "of*
                   Noncompliance	                    7 KQ
            7.2.32  Periodic Reports	III!!"!"!!!*      7-70
            7.2.33  Notification for Individual  Nonscheduled"**""
                   Operations	                      7 7n
     7.3   Controls	....	.....IIII.MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIH      7-71

           7.3.1    Exemption  from Removal...................           7-71
           H'f    Hor,k Pract1ces—Clearance Inspection/Cleanup!.*!     7-73
           7.3.3    Work Practices—Waste Storage.	             7.74
           7.3.4    Work Practices—General	     	     7 74
           7.3.5    Work Practices—Section 61.145(c)(3).....!.*.""     7.75
               6    ¥°r^actlcf:7^ct1ons 61.145(c)(2), (c)(3),**
                   lcj(4jf  and  (c)(6)	      7_76
           7.3.7    Work Practices—Section 61.145(c)(5)	        7.77
           7.3.8    Work Practices—Section 61.145(c)(6)	      7.79
           7.3.9    Work Practices—Chutes—Section
                   6l.l45(c)(6)(111)	                 7-so
           7.3.10   Work Practices—Section 61.145(c)(7)	*      7-31
           7.3.11   Work Practices—Exterior Nonfriable Products..!      7-82
           7.3.12   Work Pract 1 ces—Wastewater	         7.33
           I'l'M   ,^xemPt1on from Removal—Section  61.145(c)(l)!.*!      7-83
           7.3.14   Wetting Exemption for Renovation—Section
                   61.145(c)(3).	            7_85
           7.3.15  Wetting Exemptions  in Freezing Weather—Section
                  61.145(c)(7)	                   7 Q-,
           7.3.16  Adequately Wet.......	     ...........      / »i
           7.3.17 -Glove Bags...	!!!!!.'!.".*.*!.*      7-94
           7.3.18  Technology vs.  Paperwork	II!	**      7 QK
           7.3.19  HEPA Filters	IIIIIIIIIII      7-96
                                   xl

-------
                              CONTENTS (continued)
 Chapter
             7.3.20  Negative Pressure Systems.....,,	     7-97
             7.3.21  Restrict Access to Work Areas.,	     7-98
             7.3.22  Control  Options—No Visible Emissions vs.
                     Equipment Specifications	,	     7-98
             7.3.23  Training	     7-98
             7.3.24  Work Permit	,	     7-105
             7.3.25  General.	     7-106
             7.3.26  Strlngency/Compllance	     7-106
             7.3.27  Unnecessary Burden	     7-107
             7.3.28  Overall  Regulation of Asbestos Abatement	     7-109
             7.3.29  Objective Measures of Compliance	     7-110
             7.3.30  Uncertainty 1n  Level  of Compliance	     7-110
             7.3.31  NDAC Claims...	     7-111
             7.3.32  Emission Sources	     7-111
            •7.3.33  Level  of Compliance and Emissions.....	     7-112
             7".3.34  Emission Estimates	     7-112
             7.3.35  Violations	     7-113
             7.3.36  Fees...,	,	     7-114
             7.3.37  Format.*	     7-114
             7.3.38  Occupant; Protection—Schools	     7-115
             7.3.39  Risk-Based Review.	     7-115
             7.3.40  NARS....	     7-115

 8.0  Spraying	„	     8-1

 9.0  Insulating  Materials.„..	     9-1

10.0  Waste Disposal for Asbestos Mills	     io-l

      10.1  Emission Standard	     10-1

      10.2  Waste Transport	     10-1

      10.3  Exemption from Wetting	     10-2

      10.4  Alternative  Treatment Method	     10-2

11.0  Waste Disposal for Manufacturing, Fabricating, Demolition,
      Renovation,  and Spraying	     11-1

      11.1  Applicability	      11-1

      11.2  Placards	      11-2

      11.3  Labeling	.,	      11-4

      11.4  Waste Tracking form	„	      11-6

            11.4.1  Uniformity of Existing Stystems	      11-6

-------
                              CONTENTS (continued)
 Chapter                                                                 Paqe
             11.4.2  Information Required	     11-7
       11.5  Reporting,  Recordkeeplng	     H_8
             11.5.1  General............	*....     11-8
             11.5.2  Semiannual  Reports	     n_g
       11.6  EPA Identification  Numbers	     11-10
       11.7  Broken Nonfriable Material—Section  61.150(a)(3)	     11-11
       11.8  Asbestos-Containing Waste Material	     11-14
       11.9  Work Practices	     11-16
             11.9.1  Asbestos Not Removed Prior to  Demolition	     11-16
             11.9.2  Waste  Containers.....	     11-17
             11.9.3  Wetting Practices.....	]]     11-17
             11.9.4  Transport of Waste	     11-18
             11.9.5  Processing  Waste	     11-19
             11.9.6  Control  Options	     11-19
             11.9.7  Alternative Methods	     11-20
             11.9.8  General	..     11-21
       11.10  On-S1te Disposal............'	.	     11-21
       11.11  Off-Site Disposal..		     n_22
       11.12  Holding Time	      11-22
       11.13  Format	      11-22
       11.14  Responsibility  for Compliance		      11-23
       11.15  Enforcement.	      11-23
       11.16  General	.	     11-24
12.0   Inactive Waste Disposal Sites	     12_i
      12.1   Appl 1 cabi 11 ty	     12_i
      12.2   Work Practices...	.......;	     12-1
      12.3   Recordkeeplng, Reporting	     12-2
      12.4   Natural Barriers	     12-3
      12.5   Excavation of Asbestos Waste	     12-3
                                     X111

-------
                              CONTENTS  (continued)
 Chapter                          *                                       Paqe
 13.0  Air Cleaning	„	     j3_l
 14.0  Reportl ng	„	     14_1
 ,15.0  Active Disposal Sites	     15_1
       15.1  Costs	«	     i5_i
       15.2  Work Practices.	     15-1
       15.3  Responsibility for Compliance..	     15_4
       15.4  Verifying Discrepancies on Manifest	     15_5
       15.5  Inspection of Waste	     15.5
       15.6  Inspection and Receipt	     15.7
       15.7  General	     15_7
       15.8  Recordkeep1ngr Reporting	     15_8
              15.8.1    Asbestos  Waste Tracking System-Form	     15-8
              15.8.2    Volume	     15.9
              15.8.3    Retention of Forms	.,	]     15.9
              15.8.4    Reporting Improperly Contained Waste	!!     15-9
              15.8.5    Recording Improperly Contained Waste	     15-10
              15.8.6    Semiannual  Report-Submittal Dates	     15-11
              15.8.7    Generator	„„'.	     15-12
              15.8.8    Maintenance of Records	.„	[',[]     15-13
              15.8.9    Opposition  to  Semiannual  Reports	!     15-14
              15.8.10   Waste Shipment Record—Information  Required..     15-14
              15.8.11   Location  of Waste	         15-14
              15.8.12   On-S1te Disposal	,	     15_16
              15.8.13   Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting..........      15-17
      15.9    Regulatory Authority.....	      15-17
      15.10   EPA ID Nubmer..	      15.18
      15.11  Asbestos  1n Ground Water	      15-19
      15.12  Reference.	      15-19
16.0  Waste Conversion Processes	      15_j
      16.1   General	      16-1
      16.2   Application to Construct	      16_i
                                      xlv

-------
                             CONTENTS  (continued)
Chapter
      16.3  Performance Test...	
      16.4  Operating Parameter Monitoring........
      16.5  Analysis of Feed and Output	
      16.6  Test for Leachable Chemicals.	
      16.7  Monitoring	„	
      16.8  Safety of Output Materials	
      16.9  Other Treatment Processes	
Page
16-1
16-2
16-2
16-4
16-4
16-5
16-5
                                     xv

-------

-------
                                .  1.0  SUMMARY

     On January 10, 1989, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed
 revisions to the asbestos National  Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
 Pollutants (NESHAP) (54 FR 912) under authority of Section 112 of the Clean
 Air Act (CAA).  Public comments were requested on the proposal  in the Federal
 Register.  There were 100 commenters composed mainly of industry groups; also
 commenting were regulatory agencies and Federal  agencies.   The  comments that
 were submitted,  along with responses to these comments,  are summarized in this
 background information document (BID).   The summary of comments and responses
 serves  as the  basis for the revisions made to the standard between proposal
 and  promulgation.                                        -
 1.1   SUMMARY OF  CHANGES SINCE  PROPOSAL                    -
     Several modifications  have  been  to  the requirements  for demolition  and
 renovation  since proposal.   The applicability provisions were revised  to
 explicitly  require  the  thorough inspection  of a facility for the presence of
                                                                 *
 asbestos  before demolition  or renovation.   Previously, the  requirement  for an
 inspection was inferred  from the requirements  to  report to  EPA  all demolitions
 and any renovation where the amount of asbestos exceeds the threshold amount.
 The provision that would have required that all notices be sent by certified
mail has been deleted allowing, instead, the use of the U.S. Postal Service,
                                      1-1

-------
 commercial delivery, or hand delivery of notices.  In situations when the date
 on which asbestos stripping or removal changes from the date contained in the
 original notice, the 5-day waiting period has been modified.  Instead, the
 owner or operator must notify EPA by telephone followed by a written
 notification of the new start date.  The notice by telephone, must be received
 before the original start date, and the written followup notice must be
 received no later than the original start date.  The final rule also contains
 a new provision that requires that the trained on-site supervisors receive
 additional  refresher training in the provisions of the NESHAP every 2 years.
 The definition of "emergency renovation" and the provisions pertaining to
 emergency renovations have been modified to include a renovation caused by the
 disruption  of normal  industrial  operations,  in addition  to a renovation caused
 by unsafe conditions  (which was contained in the proposed  amendments).   The
 NESHAP has  also been  revised to clarify  which nonfriable materials  do not have
 to be removed from a  facility prior to demolition.
     The  recordkeeping  and  reporting provisions for  asbestos  waste disposal
 have  also been  changed  since  proposal.   Specifically,  the  requirement that
 waste generators and waste disposal  site owners and operators submit   '
 semiannual  reports to EPA  detailing waste disposal activities for the past 6
 months has  been eliminated.  Also,  the proposed requirement for waste
 generators  and disposal sites to obtain an EPA identification (ID) number, to
 be included on all waste shipment records, was deleted.  Two new provisions
 have been added to the waste disposal requirements since proposal.  Disposal
 site owners and operators must now notify EPA whenever they receive an
 improperly contained shipment of asbestos waste, and waste generators must
notify EPA if, after a specified amount of time, they are unable to confirm
delivery of a waste shipment.

                                      1-2

-------
     In addition to the above changes, several minor clarifying and editorial
 changes were made.  These and the other changes are discussed in more detail,
 along with the rationale for the changes, in Chapters 3.0 through 16.0
 1.2  SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF PROMULGATED ACTION
     1.2.1.  Environmental Impacts of Promulgated Action
     The estimated environmental impacts have not changed since proposal.  If
 there were full compliance with the NESHAP,  emissions from asbestos removal
 activities associated with demolition and renovation would be about 700 kg/yr.
 However,  it is estimated from EPA's enforcement experience that approximately
 50 percent of all  demolition and renovation  operations are performed without
 EPA's being notified,  indicating that a significant amount of asbestos
 material  (including asbestos waste)  is handled out of compliance with the
 provisions of the  NESHAP.  Based on  the current level  of compliance,,  estimated
 emissions  from demolition and renovation for both  removal  and waste  disposal
 are approximately  228,000 kg/yr, with emissions from illegal  waste dumping
 accounting for nearly  all  of this amount.  The recommended amendments would
 improve compliance with  the  NESHAP,  thereby  reducing  emissions and health
 risks, although the degree to which  compliance  would be  improved  and  emissions
 would be reduced is uncertain.
     Estimated process  emissions  under the current NESHAP at full  compliance
 for milling, manufacturing, and  fabricating are approximately 7,400 kg/yr.  To
 the  extent possible, EPA considered the effects that the final ban and
 phasedown rule would 'have on the impacts of the recommended asbestos NESHAP
 standard.   Depending on the extent to which the ban and phasedown rule reduce
 asbestos consumption, the amount: of asbestos  processed and the amount of
asbestos emitted to the atmosphere are likely to be reduced, although the
precise impact is  unclear.

                                      1-3

-------
      Estimated emissions  from waste disposal,  if there were  full  compliance
  with the  NESHAP by all sources,  would be about  600  kg/yr.   However,  as  noted
  above,  enforcement experience indicates  that  a  significant  amount  of asbestos
  waste from  noncomplying  demolitions and  renovations  is  handled out of
  compliance  with the NESHAP.   Based on current practice, estimated  waste
  disposal  emissions from  all  waste,  but primarily from the illegal  dumping  of
  demolition  and  renovation waste, are  227,000  kg/yr.   The recommended
  amendments  are  focused on improving compliance with the NESHAP.  Although  the
  degree  to which  emissions would  actually be reduced cannot be quantified
  precisely,  the  emission  reduction  would approach 227,000 kg/yr as  compliance
  approaches  100  percent.
  1-2.2.  Energy  and  Economic  Impacts of Promulgated Action
     Since proposal, changes  have been  made that affect the industry burden
 associated with  recordkeeping and  reporting.  The requirement for waste
 generators and disposal sites to make  semiannual reports summarizing their
 waste disposal activities has been omitted.  However, a provision was added
 requiring waste generators to report to EPA after a  specified time if they are
 unable to confirm delivery of any waste shipments.   In addition,  a provision
    j+
 was added that requires waste disposal sites to  notify EPA  in the event  that
.they receive a waste shipment that  is improperly contained.   Also,  on-site
 supervisors  of demolitions  and renovations,  in addition  to their  initial
 training,  must receive  refresher training every  2 years.
     The  total  costs of  the  recommended amendments are  expected to be  small
 relative to  normal  operating  costs  for these industries.  Amendments  are
 intended to  promote compliance and  codify existing good practices.  An
 additional cost  of  approximately  $9.9  million/yr would be associated with the
                                      1-4

-------
recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the amendments.  This is an
increase over the $9.3 million recordkeeping and reporting costs estimated for
the proposed amendments.  The increase in costs results from the changes in
the final amendments described above.  No significant adverse impacts on
energy are anticipated.
                                     1-5

-------

-------
       2.0   LIST  OF  COMMENTERS  AND  ORGANIZATION  OF  COMMENTS AND  RESPONSES

    A  total of 100  letters  commenting on the proposed standard  were  received.
Comments from the public hearing on the proposed standard were  recorded, and a
transcript of the hearing was  placed in the project docket.  The docket number
for this project is A-88-28.   Dockets are on file at EPA Headquarters in
Washington, DC, and at the  Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS) in Durham, NC.  A list of commenters, their affiliations, and the EPA
docket number assigned to their correspondence is given in Table 2-1.
    For the purpose of orderly presentation, the comments have been
categorized by the part of the regulation they address.   Each category of
comments.and corresponding chapter are as follows:
     3.0  General Comments
     4.0  Definitions
     5.0  Milling,  Manufacturing,  and  Fabricating
     6.0  Roadways
     7.0  Demolition and  Renovation
     8.0  Spraying
     9.0  Insulating Materials
    10.0 Waste Disposal  for Asbestos Mills
    11.0 Waste Disposal  for Manufacturing,  Fabricating,  Demolition,
         Renovation,  and Spraying
    12.0 Inactive Waste Disposal Sites
    13.0 Air Cleaning
    14.0 Reporting
    15.0 Active Disposal Sites
    16.0  Waste Conversion Processes
                                     2-1

-------
              TABLE 2-1  LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
                               TO ASBESTOS NESHAP
 Docket Item number
      Commenter and affiliation
 IV-D-01
 IV-D-02
 IV-D-03
IV-D-04
IV-D-05
IV-D-06
IV-D-07
 John F. Welch
 SBA Safe Building Alliance
 Suite 1200, Metropolitan Sq.
 655 Fifteenth St. N.W.
 Washington, DC  20005

 Joey Toney
 Calaveras Asbestos Ltd.
 P.O. Box 127
 Copperopolis, CA  95228

 Hal  Barrett
 University of Alabama
 12 Thomas Circle
 P.O. Box 6095
 Tuscaloosa,  AL  35487-6095

 William L.  Baker
 National  Association  of
   Demolition Contractors
 4415 W.  Harrison St.
 Hillside,  IL  60162

 Dennis  R. Moran
 C.M.  Towers,  Inc.
 P.O.  Box  1166
 W. Caldwell,  NJ   07007

 John  F. Welch
 Safe  Buildings Alliance
 Suite 1200,  Metropolitan Square
 655  Fifteenth St. N.W.
Washington,  DC   20005

 Kenneth Nyquist
Asbestos Information Association
 1745 Jefferson Davis Hwy.
Crystal  Square 4, Suite 509
Arlington, VA  22202
                                     2-2

-------
                              TABLE 2-1 (continued)
 Docket item number
      Commenter and affiliation
 IV-D-08
 IV-D-09
 IV-D-10
 IV-D-11
 IV-D-12
IV-D-13
IV-D-14
IV-D-15
IV-D-16
 Robert Stockton
 N.O.A. Associates
 300 Technology Dr.
 Malvern, PA  19355

 J. Martin Thrasher
 City of Colorado Springs
   Dept. of Utilities
 P.O. Box 1103
 Colorado Springs, CO  80947

 Joey Toney
 Calaveras Asbestos Ltd.
 P.O. Box 127
 Copperopolis, CA  95228

 Timmie D. McBride
 323 Brookside Blvd.
 Pittsburgh,  PA  15241

 Harold E. Hodges
 Tennessee Dept.  of
   Health  and Environment
 701 Broadway
 Nashville, TN 37219-5403

 John C. Baguzia
 Wayne  County Air Pollution  Control
 2211 E. Jefferson
 Detroit,  MI   48207

 J.  Michael Valentine
 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
 520  Lafayette Rd.
 Saint  Paul,  MN  55155

 Robert P. Miller
 Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources
Stevens T. Mason Bldg., Box 30028
 Lansing, MI  48909

Ralph Self
N.C. Dept. of Public Instruction
116 W Edenton St.
Education Bldg.
Raleigh, NC  27603-1712
                                                              (continued)
                                      2-3

-------
                               TABLE 2-1 (continued)
 Docket Item  number
Commenter and affiliation
 IV-D-17  •               J. A.  Paul
                         Regional Air  Pollution  Control  Agency
                         451 W.  Third  St.
                         P.O. Box 972
                         Dayton, OH  45422

 IV-D-18                 Robert  L. Foster
                         Tennessee Dept. of Health and Environment
                         701 Broadway
                         Nashville, TN 37219-5403

 IV-D-19                 Charles K. Weiss
                         Baltimore County Office
                           Bldg., Rm.  223
                         111 W. Chesapeake Ave.
                         Towson, MD  21204

 IV-D-20                 Darrel Graziani
                         Hillsborough  County Environmental
                            Protection Commission
                         1900 - 9th Ave.
                         Tampa, FL  33605

 IV-D-21                 Paul  Heffernan
                         Kaselaan & D'Angelo Associates,  Inc.
                         28 State St.
                         Boston, MA  02109

 IV-D-22                 John  L. Myers
                         Calidria Asbestos
                         P.O.  Box K
                         King  City,  CA  93930

.IV-D-23                 Joanne Wright
                         Ad Hoc Coalition  of Asbestos Abatement Contractors
                         (no address)

 IV-D-24                 B. A.  Steiner
                         ARMCO  Corporate Offices
                         Box 600
                         Middletown,  OH 45043

                                                               (continued)
                                      2-4

-------
                              TABLE 2-1 (continued)
 Docket item number
      Commenter and affiliation
 IV-D-25
 IV-D-26
 IV-D-27
 IV-D-28
 IV-D-29
IV-D-30
IV-D-31
IV-D-32
 Robert L. Pearson
 Environmental Affairs
 Public Service Co. of Colorado
 P.O. Box 840
 Denver, CO  80201-0840

 Joseph G. Brehm
 Wisconsin Dept. of Natural
   Resources
 P.O. Box 7921
 Madison,  WI  53707

 Jack W. Fisch
 Westinghouse Electric Corp.
 Gateway Center
 Pittsburgh,  PA  15222

 Garry Kuberski
 Florida Dept.  of Environmental
   Regulation
 3319 Maguire Blvd.,  Suite 232
 Orlando,  FL   32803-3767

 David R.  Jordan
 City of Indianapolis,  Dept.  of  Public Works
 2700 S. Belmont
 Indianapolis,  IN   46221

 Peter A.  Hessling
 Pinellas  County (Fla)  Board  of  Commissioners
 16100 Fairchild Dr., Suite  V-102
 Clearwater,  FL 34622

 Karen A.  Baker
 SASI  Superior  Abatement Services,  Inc.
 113  E. Baraga,  P.O. Box 7101
 Marquette, MI  49855

 Dwight Wylie
Mississippi Dept. of Natural Resources
 P.O.  Box 10385
Jackson, Mississippi   39289-0385
                                                              (continued)
                                     2-5

-------
                              TABLE 2-1 (continued)
 Docket item number
      Commenter and affiliation
 IV-D-33
 IV-D-34
 IV-D-35
IV-D-36
IV-D-37
IV-D-38
IV-D-39
IV-D-40
 Edward D. Makruski
 Gandee & Associates, Inc.
 4488 Mobile Dr.
 Columbus, OH  43220

 H.  Lanier Hickman, Jr.
 Governmental Refuse Collection
   and Disposal  Association,  Inc.
 P.O Box 7219
 Silver Springs, MD  20910

 William Ewing
 The Environmental  Management Group,  Inc.
 Cobb Corporate  Center/300
 350 Franklin Rd.
 Marietta,  GA 30067

 John L.  Wittenborrr and  William M.  Guerry
 (Collier Shannon  Rill & Scott,  Counsel  for)
 SSIUS Specialty Steel Industry of  the U.S.
 1055 Thomas  Jefferson St., NW
 Washington,  DC  20007

 John L.  Wittenborn and  William M.  Guerry
 (Collier Shannon  Rill & Scott,  Counsel  for)
 SCA Shipbuilders  Council  of  America
 1055 Thomas  Jefferson St., NW
 Washington,  DC  20007

 Ron  Rappard  & Louis  Knieper
 Solid  Tech Inc.
 4800 Lamar
 Mission,  KS  66202

 L. M.  Bell .
 ARCO Oil and Gas Company
 P.O. Box 2819
 Dallas, TX  75221

J. W.  Barbee
Mobil Oil Corporation
3225 Gallows Rd.
Fairfax, VA  22037-0001
                                                              (continued)
                                      2-6

-------
                              TABLE 2-1 (continued)
 Docket item number
      Commenter and affiliation
 IV-D-41
 IV-D-42
 IV-D-43
 IV-D-44
IV-D-45
IV-D-46
IV-D-47
IV-D-48
 Carol P. Hoffstein
 E.I. DuPont De Nemours and
   Company
 Wilmington, DE  19898

 Peter C. Cunningham (Hopping Boyd Green & Sams,
 Counsel for)
 Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group Inc.
 123 S. Calhoun St.
 P.O. Box 6526
 Tallahassee, FL  32314

 J. R. Smith
 The Light Company (Houston)
 P.O. Box 1700
 Houston, TX  77001

 Kenneth P.  Woodington
 South Carolina Attorney General's Office
 Rembert C.  Dennis  Bldg.
 P.O. Box 11549
 Columbia,  SC  29211

 Gregory J.  Odegard
 ETPaso  Natural  Gas Company
 P.O. Box 1492
 El  Paso,  TX  79978

 Richard  L.  White
 Texas Utilities Electric  Company
 Skyway  Tower
 400  N Olive St.  "
 Dallas,  TX   75201

 Walter D. Anderson
 Resilient Floor Covering  Institute
 966  Hungerford Dr., Suite  12-B
 Rockville,  MD  20850

 Michael A.  Wiegard (Paul,  Hastings, Janofsky &
  Walker, Counsel  for)
 GAF  Corporation
 Twelfth Floor
 1050 Connecticut Ave.,  NW
Washington, DC  20036
                                                              (continued)
                                      2-7

-------
                              TABLE 2-1 (continued)
 Docket item number
Commenter and affiliation
 IV-D-49                  F.  William Brownell  (Hunton & Williams,  Counsel  for)
                         Utility Air Regulatory Group
                         2000 Pennsylvania Ave.,  N.W.
                         P.O. Box 19230
                         Washington,  DC  20036

 IV-D-50                  (Kirkland & Ellis, Counsel  for)
                         Safe Buildings Alliance
                         655 Fifteenth  St., N.W.  '
                         Washington,  DC  20005

 IV-D-51                  G.  A.  Kilpatrick
                         Phillips Petroleum Company
                         Bartlesville,  OK  74004

 IV-D-52                  H.  T.  Gibson
                         Exxon  Company  U.S.A.
                         P.O.  Box 2180
                         Houston,  TX  77252-2180

 IV-D-53                  Richard  W. Niemeier
                         Dept.  of Health  & Human Services
                         4676 Columbia  Parkway
                         Cincinnati, OH   45226-1998

 IV-D-54                  Lee  Lockie
                         South  Coast Air  Quality
                          Management District
                         9150 Flair Dr.
                         El Monte, CA  91731

 IV-D-55                 Jack Houghton
                        Montgomery County Government
                         110 N. Washington St., 3rd  floor
                        Rockville, MD  20850

IV-D-56                 Robert C. Wyatt
                        Dynamac Corporation
                        11140 Rockville  Pike
                        Rockville, MD  20852

IV-D-57                 Scott Schneider and Matthew Gill en
                        Workers' Institute for Safety and Health
                        1126 Sixteenth St., N.W.   -
                        Washington, DC  20036

                                                              (continued)
                                      2-8

-------
                              TABLE 2-1 (continued)
 Docket item number
      Commenter and affiliation
 IV-D-58
 IV-D-59
 IV-D-60
 IV-D-61
IV-D-62
IV-D-63
IV-D-64
IV-D-65
 R. S. Rose
 Dow Chemical Company
 2030 Building, Willard H. DOW Center
 Midland, MI  48674

 R. T. Simril
 Duke Power Company
 Nuclear Production Dept.
 P.O. Box 33189
 422 South Church St.
 Charlotte,  NC  28242

 Victoria Farran
 Texas Instruments, Inc.
 P.O. Box 655303
 Dallas,  TX   75265

 Rhonda L. Ross
 General  Motors Corporation
 30400 Mound Rd.
 Warren,  MI   48090-9015

 A.  J.  Ahern
 American Electric Power
   Service Corporation
 One Riverside  Plaza
 Columbus, OH  43215

 Gerald L. Raley
 Public Service  Indiana
 1000  E.  Main St.
 Plainfield,  IN  46168

 V.  M. Mclntire
 Eastman  Kodak Company
 Eastman  Chemicals Division
 Kingsport, TN   37662

Jerome S. Amber
 Ford Motor Company
Suite 608
 15201 Century Dr.
Dearborn, MI  48120
                                                              (continued)
                                      2-9
                     2-9
2-9

-------
                              TABLE 2-1 (continued)
 Docket item number
      Commenter and affiliation
 IV-D-66
 IV-D-67
 IV-D-68
 IV-D-69
IV-D-70
IV-D-71
IV-D-72
IV-D-73
IV-D-74
 Walter R. Mook
 Air Pollution Control  District
 (Victorville, CA)
 15428 Civic Dr.,  Suite 200
 Victorville, CA  92392

 Gary D.  Vest
 U.S. Dept. of the  Air  Force
 Washington, DC  20330-1000

 Thomas W. Rarick
 Indiana  Dept. of  Environmental  Management
 105 S. Meridian St.
 P.O. Box 6015
 Indianapolis, IN   46206-6015

 David M. Anderson
 Bethlehem Steel Corporation
 Bethlehem,  PA  18016

 D.  G.  Doughty
 Oklahoma Dept.  of  Health
 P.O.  Box 53551, 1000 NE Tenth
 Oklahoma City,  OK  73152

 Skiles W.  Boyd
 Detroit  Edison  Company
 2000  Second Ave.
 Detroit,  MI  48226

 Marilyn  F.  Mueller
 Supradur Manufacturing Corp.
 P.O. Box 908
 Rye, NY   10580

 Charles  D.  Mai loch
Monsanto Company
800 N. Lindbergh Blvd.
St. Louis, MO  63167

Joseph A. Fields
U.S. Dept. of the Army
Holston Army Ammunition Plant
Kingsport, TN  37660-9982
                                                              (continued)
                                     2-10

-------
                              TABLE 2-1 (continued)
 Docket item number
      Commenter and affi1i ati on
 IV-D-75
 IV-D-76
 IV-D-77
 IV-D-78
 IV-D-79
IV-D-80
IV-D-81
IV-D-82
IV-D-83
 Deborah Turner-Fox
 Atlantic Electric
 P.O. Box 1500
 Pleasantville, NJ  08232

 J. D. Patterson
 MSU System Services Inc.
 P.O. 61000
 New Orleans, LA  70161             •

 William C. Eddins
 Commonwealth of Kentucky, Natural  Resources and
   Environmental Protection Cabinet
 18 Reilly Rd.
 Frankfort, KY  40601

 Nick Nikkila
 Oregon Dept. of Environmental  Quality
 811 SW Sixth Ave.
 Portland,  OR  97204-1390

 J.  L. Sullivan, Jr.
 GPU Nuclear Corp.
 One Upper Pond Rd.
 Parsippany,  NJ  07054

 Sue M.  Briggum
 Waste Management Inc.
 1155 Connecticut Ave., NW,  Suite 800
 Washington,  DC  20036

 Joe Francis
 Nebraska Dept.  of Environmental Control
 P.O.  Box 98922
 Lincoln, NE   68509-8922

Judith A. Whelan
P.O.  Box 87
Brookeville, MD

Richard D. Sharpe
South Carolina Dept. of Health and Environmental
  Control
2600 Bull St.
Columbia, SC  29201
                                                              (continued)
                                     2-11

-------
                              TABLE 2-1 (continued)
 Docket  item number
      Commenter and affiliation
 IV-D-84
IV-D-85
IV-D-86
IV-D-87
IV-D-88
IV-D-89
IV-D-90
IV-D-91
IV-D-92
 Thomas S.  Hadden
 Ohio Environmental  Protection Agency
 P.O. Box 1049
 1800 Water Mark Dr.
 Columbus,  OH  43266-0149

 Paula J.  Keyes
 Environmental  Sciences,  Inc.
 105  E.  Speedway Blvd.
 Tucson,  AZ  85705

 Paul  C.  Fiduccia, Winston  & Strawn  (Counsel  for)
 Building Owners and  Managers  Association
 2550 M  St.,  NW,  Suite  500
 Washington,  DC  20037

 Raymond  Pelletier
 U.S.  Dept.  of Energy
 Washington,  DC  20585

 Robert G.  Smerko
 The  Chlorine Institute Inc.
 2001  L St.,  NW
 Washington,  DC  20036

 Alex  R. Cunningham
 California  Dept. of  Health  Services
 714/744 P St.,  P.O.  Box  942732
 Sacramento,  CA  94234-7320

 James R. Frederick
 OPT Omega Phase  Transformations Inc.
 P.O.  Box 960
 Narberth, PA   19072

 Charles D. Malloch
 Monsanto Company
 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd.
 St. Louis, MO  63167

 Harvey W. Schultz
New York Dept. of Environmetnal Protection
2358 Municipal Bldg.
New York, NY  10007
                                                              (continued)
                                     2-12

-------
                              TABLE 2-1 (continued)
 Docket item number
      Cornmenter and affiliation
 IV-D-93
 IV-D-94
 IV-D-95
 IV-D-96
IV-D-97
IV-D-98
IV-D-99
IV-D-100
 Kenneth Nyquist
 Asbestos Information Association
 1745 Jefferson Davis Hwy.
 Crystal Square 4, Suite 509
 Arlington, VA  22202

 Richard E. Grusnick
 ADEM Alabama Dept. of Environmental Management
 1751 Cong, W.L., Dickinson Dr.
 Montgomery, AL  361.30

 William B. King
 Armstrong World Industries Inc.
 1025 Connecticut Ave.,  NW
 Suite 1007
 Washington, DC  20036

 Dennis T.  Johnston
 Austin Rover Cars of North America
 U.S. Liaison Office
 8953 N.W.  23 St.
 Miami,  FL   33172

 Michael  McElwrath
 U.S. Dept.  of the Interior
 Office  of  the Secretary
 Washington,  DC  20240

 Alan I.  Roberts
 U.S. Dept.  of Transportation
 400  Seventh  Street,  SW
 Washington,  DC 20590

 Sabino Gomex
 Texas Air Control  Board
 6330 Hwy,, 290  E
 Austin, TX  78723

 Kenneth E. Nyquist
Asbestos Information Association
 1745 Jefferson Davis Hwy.
Crystal Square 4, Suite 509
Arlington,  VA  22202
                                    2-13
                     2-13 2-13
2-13
•13


-------

-------
                              3.0  GENERAL COMMENTS
 3.1  BASIS FOR REVISIONS
     Comment:  Two commenters question the basis for the proposed revisions.
 Pertaining to the entire proposal, commenter 72 states that there is a lack of
 evidence to substantiate the proposed changes.   Commenter 93 states that EPA
 is expanding the scope and stringency of the NESHAP without the necessary
 factual  evidence and without adherence to the two-step process required as a
 result  of the vinyl  chloride case (NRDC v.  EPA,  824 F. 2d 1146 [D.C.  Cir.
 1987]).
     Response:   Regarding the claim that the proposed  revisions lack
 substantiating evidence,  there  is an  overwhelming  consensus among  enforcement
 officials  and  industry groups that there is a significant level  of
 noncompliance  and  confusion  with  the  NESHAP.  While there may  be differences
 of opinion  regarding what  the actual  degree of noncompliance is, there  is
 agreement that  it  could  be improved.  To this end, the revisions contain
 recordkeeping and  reporting  requirements and  changes that  codify previous
 policy determinations  that were made to clarify the regulation and will help
 EPA achieve its goal of  improving enforcement.
    Regarding the comment that EPA is making substantive changes without
adherence to the procedure required as a result  of the vinyl chloride case
Natural  Resources Defense Council  [NRDC] v.  EPA,  824 F. 2d 1146 [D.C. Cir.
1987]),  the vinyl chloride case  pertains to the  requirements EPA must comply

                                      3-1

-------
 with when setting standards under Section 112.   The intent of the revisions is
 to improve the enforceability and clarity of the existing asbestos NESHAP,  not
 to set a new standard.   At such time as EPA decides that a comprehensive
 review of the asbestos  NESHAP is needed and, if further revision is
 appropriate,  the requirements of the vinyl  chloride case (NRDC v. EPA,  824  F.
 2d 1146 (D.C. Cir.  1987])  will  be taken into consideration unless Congress  has
 amended the Clean Air Act  so as to change EPA's approach to regulating  toxic
 air pollutants.
 3.2  COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT
     Comment:   The following general  comments were received on  compliance with
 and enforcement.
     1.   Commenter 30  states that the revisions  proposed  on January 10,  1989,
 are comprehensive and bring the regulation  more in  line  with industry
 performance standards;  in  addition,  they  should aid enforcement.   Commenter 46
 states  that they  generally support the  revisions  proposed  on January 10, 1989,
 including  the use of  leak-tight wrapping  and  glove  bags, and that  they  concur
 that  the standards  in effect  prior to the January 10, 1989, proposal are
                               !             J-V                                 t
 effective.  Also, commenters  80 and  77  generally  support EPA's proposed
 revisions  to  enhance  enforcement  and compliance for demolition and  renovation
 operators  and other generators  of asbestos waste, and generally support  EPA's,
 proposed revisions for asbestos waste disposal  sites.  With minor
 reservations,  commenter 81  supports the revisions proposed on January 10,
 1989.
    2.  Commenters 57 and 49 believe that, although intended to control  and
prevent appreciable emissions of  asbestos, certain  revisions proposed on
January 10, 1989, do not achieve  this goal.  Commenters 66 and 67 explain
                                      3-2

-------
 that, overall, revisions are needed, although reducing procedural and
 administrative requirements would allow them to concentrate on the problem.
 Commenter 30 points out that it remains to be seen who will perform the
 proposed new activities and whether additional funding will be needed.
     Response:  1.  No response is necessary.
                2.  The EPA has considered these comments carefully and has
 concluded that the revisions will  enhance enforcement and improve compliance
 with the NESHAP.   Although the objections to procedural  and administrative
 requirements are  understandable,  EPA considers such requirements  essential  to
 enhancing enforcement and improving compliance.   The EPA anticipates  that the
 new activities will  be performed  as in  the past—by States,  localities,  and
 EPA working  in cooperation.   The  EPA expects that,  initially,  a modest
 increase in  or a  redirection of resources  may be  necessary  in  order to carry
 out the  new  activities included in  the  revised rule.   However, in  the  long
 run,  it  is anticipated that,  as a result of improvements on  enforcement  and
 compliance,  the burden required to  enforce  the revised rule  will decrease.
 3.3   INDUSTRY  BURDEN
     Comment:   Commenters 9,  25, 28,  62, and  73 express their concern that
 imposing an  additional  regulatory burden does  little to promote compliance and
may  inhibit  compliance.  Two commenters, 9 and 58, believe that it penalizes
those trying to comply, while commenters 24 and 58 state that the revisions
proposed on January 10, 1989, appear to respond to a situation caused by lack
of adequate enforcement.  Serious  environmental hazards should be focused on,
and commenters 24 and 65 emphasize that the proposed revisions will allow EPA
to bring many more enforcement actions for procedural deficiencies without
reducing health risks.  Commenters 58 and  75 assert that  EPA should consider
                                      3-3

-------
 strict enforcement of the rule existing prior to January 10, 1989,  for
 noncompliers to promote compliance, instead of stricter regulation  of those
 entities that are in compliance.  Commenters 69 and 70 argue that EPA should
 focus on those who completely ignore the regulations rather than on those who
 incorrectly record their activities.  These commenters also believe that the
 result will be a paperwork-intensive program that will be detrimental  to their
 programs.  Another approach to improve compliance recommended by commenters 70
 and 76 is through education rather than more paperwork.   Commenter  65  states
 that regulatory agency flexibility, instead of additional  strict, procedural
 requirements that will  result in numerous minor violations,  is an incentive
 that will encourage overall  compliance.
     Response:   The EPA agrees that the revisions proposed  on January 10,  1989
 impose some additional  regulatory burden in the form of  reporting and
 recordkeeping  requirements,  but  these  new provisions will  promote compliance
 with those parts of the NESHAP that directly regulate asbestos emissions.   In
 response  to comments  received, EPA has  eliminated  the proposed semiannual
 waste reports.   The EPA considers  the  revisions  essential  to  improving
 compliance with  the NESHAP.   It  is  not  EPA's  intention that  the new  provisions
 in the  NESHAP penalize  those  attempting  to  comply, and EPA believes  that those
 who  are currently  complying with the existing rule will continue to  comply
 with  this  rule.  The  EPA disagrees with  the suggestion that additional
 enforcement  resources alone would solve  the problem.  The EPA notes  that it
 has been  increasing asbestos NESHAP enforcement activities.  Although there
will be increased potential for procedural violations under the final rule,
 EPA considers the new provisions to be important tools to increase compliance
and, thereby, reduce the potential for substantive violations involving the
                                      3-4

-------
 emission of asbestos.  The EPA considers the new provisions essential to bring
 noncompliers into compliance and considers the additional paperwork a
 necessary part of those provisions.  The EPA agrees with the commenters who
 suggested education as another approach to improve compliance and will widely
 disseminate information on its Final Asbestos Demolition and Renovation Civil
 Penalty Policy.  The EPA agrees that regulatory agency flexibility is
 important and observes that these revisions provide options for compliance, as
 well as the means to seek Administrator approval  for innovative control
 approaches.                          •
 3.4  STRINGENCY
     Comment:   Commenter 22 argues that  there are  several  areas  of increased
 stringency of controls (e.g.,  definitions  for "visible emissions" and
 "friable," and  the use of HEPA filters)  although  the preamble states  that
 there is no effect on  control  stringency.   Commenters 47  and 48 point out the
 potential  for confusion in regard to the NESHAP's applicability to nonfriable
 flooring and  roofing materials, and  without  clearly exempting resilient  floor
 covering and  other nonfriable material,  NESHAP coverage would be  extended,
 thus calling  into  effect  the requirements of the vinyl chloride case  (NRDC  v.
 EPA,  824 F. 2d  1146  [D.C.'Clr. 1987]).
     Response:   The  intent  of the  proposed revisions is not to alter the
 stringency of the asbestos NESHAP, but to clarify it as it existed prior to
 the  January 10, 1989, proposal, and to improve enforceability and compliance.
 The wording changes in the definitions are intended to meet that goal.  The
 amended definition of "visible emissions" better describes what  EPA considers
to be visible  emissions.  It does  not add or subtract from coverage.  The
proposed revisions do not require  the use of HEPA  filters, although they do
                                      3-5

-------
 permit their use.   "Friable asbestos material" Is clarified to explicitly
 allow for measurement in a way that was already generally accepted.  It is not
 EPA's policy to regulate materials, such as vinyl floor tile, that are
 nonfriable and are unlikely to release significant levels of asbestos fibers
 even when damaged.  The proposed revisions have been modified to clarify that
 resilient floor covering, asphalt roofing products, gaskets, and packing do.
 not have to be removed from a building prior to demolition and under what
 circumstances other nonfriable materials would be covered.  Additional
 information on nonfriable materials will  be distributed at a later date to all
 affected parties to assist them in applying these regulations.
 3.5  REVISIONS TO FACILITATE ENFORCEMENT
     Comment:   Commenters 12,  23,  and 29 support the concept of a regulation to
 facilitate enforcement.   Commenter 12 urges a risk-based proposal  as quickly
 as possible.   Commenter 70 supports making only essential  changes  at this  time
 and deferring the rest until  risk-based revisions  are published.   Commenter 86
 supports  EPA's  stated position not to make substantive changes  until  it  has
 completed an  analysis of health and risk  factors,  although some  of the
 revisions are substantive and  should  be deleted.   Commenter 5.7 explains  that
 it is unclear if EPA intends to issue  revised  regulations  at some  time that
 affect stringency  of controls,  but  believes they are  needed.
     Response:   The EPA believes the revisions  to the  asbestos NESHAP will
 promote compliance and enhance  enforcement without affecting stringency, but
 EPA  does  intend  at a  later date to consider the need  for revisions that affect
 stringency of controls.
 3.6  AGENCY BURDEN  .
     Comment:  Commenter 14 agrees that the proposed changes will  help enforce-
ment, but asserts -that they will result in an increased workload requiring

                                      3-6

-------
 additional resources.  Commenter 99 believes that the additional  forms  for
 notification, etc., will be helpful, but that additional resources are
 required to enter the information into a data base.
     Response:  The EPA agrees that, at least initially, additional resources
 will be required. .However, EPA believes that the additional resources needed
 initially are reasonable and consonant with the improvements expected in
 enforcement of the NESHAP and that,  in the long run, improvements in
 compliance will  ease the Government's enforcement burden.
 3.7  SUPPORT CLARIFYING CHANGES
     Comment:   Commenters 16,  48,  49,  75,  and 63 concur with most of the
 proposed rule changes,  which  add  to  clarity,  and support EPA's  attempt to
 clarify the NESHAP.
     Response:  No response  is  necessary.
 3.8  CLEARER  LANGUAGE
     Comment:   Commenter  18  suggests, that  EPA  rewrite the proposed  and  final
 NESHAP  rule in direct language.
     Response:  As a result  of  this and other  comments dealing with specific
 provisions  of  the rule, such as the provisions concerning the treatment  of
 nonfriable  materials, several parts of the regulation have been  revised  to
 make them easier to understand.  In addition, concurrent with promulgation of
 the final rule, EPA is carrying out an extensive campaign to educate all
 parties affected by this rule as to its requirements.
 3.9  INTERPRETATION OF NESHAP                            "
    Comment:  Commenter 21 argues  that EPA should compel  States  with delegated
authority to conform to  EPA interpretations in enforcement,  or cease citing
Federal  regulations if  the State is  functioning  under its own authority.
                                      3-7

-------
 Commenter 21 states further that EPA should exercise its oversight authority
 to ensure that regulations developed by States are consistent with the NESHAP.
     Response:  All  States with delegated authority for NESHAP enforcement
 should make the same interpretation of the regulation when they are enforcing
 the asbestos NESHAP.  The EPA recognizes that this may not always  appear to  be
 the case and, therefore,  understands the concern raised by the commenter.
 Because this rule clarifies parts of the NESHAP, it will  promote more  uniform
 Interpretations.   In addition,  EPA plans to issue additional  information to
 assist regulatory agencies and  the regulated community in NESHAP
 interpretation.
 3.10,  TYPE OF ASBESTOS
     Comment:   Commenter 69 urges  EPA to  consider regulations  that
 differentiate between  the less  hazardous chrysotile  and the more hazardous
 amoslte and crocidolite.
     Response:  The  commenter states  that EPA should  consider  different
 regulations to differentiate between  the less  hazardous chrysotile and the
 more hazardous amphibole  and crocidolite.   The EPA disagrees  with this
 assessment.
     For lung  cancer, EPA  finds  the evidence  supporting this argument to be
 inconclusive  and  inconsistent.  Some  of  the  lowest unit risk  factors observed
 for  lung cancer are  among  cohorts exposed to predominantly chrysotile
 asbestos.   However,  some of  the highest  unit values are also from exposures to
 primarily chrysotile.  This  suggests  that chrysotile exposures can confer an
 extremely high risk of lung  cancer.   The cause of the observed variability in
 lung cancer unit risk for chrysotile  in different studies is unknown, but some
of the variabilities can be attributed to differences in the fiber
                                      3-8

-------
  characteristics  associated with different processes,  uncertainties due  to
  small  numbers  in epidemiological  studies, and  incorrect estimates of the
  exposures of earlier years.
     For mesothelioma, EPA recognizes that peritoneal mesotheliomas have
  largely been associated with crocidolite exposure and that there is some
  epidemiological  evidence suggesting that crocidolite is more potent than
  chrysotile in  inducing pleural mesothelioma.  However, definitive conclusions
  concerning the relative potency of various fiber types in inducing
 mesothelioma cannot be made on the basis of available epidemiological
  information.  This is because:  (1) mesotheliomas are difficult to diagnose;
  (2) dose-response information for mesothelioma for individual  fiber types is
 unavailable; (3)  exposure data are inadequate;  and (4) exposure to crocidolite
 fibers could be higher because they become  airborne  more  easily than other
 fiber  types.   Further,  numerous animal  studies  have  demonstrated that
 chrysotile  is  at  least  as  potent as ^amphiboles  in  inducing both mesothelioma
 and lung cancer by inhalation,  as  well  as by  injection or implantation.
     Available  information  indicates that the  combined  epidemiological and
 animal  evidence fails to establish  conclusively differences in  mesothelioma
 hazard  for the  various types of asbestos fibers.   In view of the
 inconsistencies and uncertainty regarding this issue, EPA believe's that it is
 prudent and in  the public interest  to consider all fiber types as having
 comparable carcinogenic potency in  its quantitative assessment of mesothelioma
 risk.  The EPA does recognize that some evidence exists indicating that
 amphiboles may be more potent in inducing mesothelioma than  chrysotile.
 However, the need for further study to resolve this, issue,  and the resulting
delay in EPA's risk assessment for asbestos,  cannot be justified given  the
                                      3-9

-------
 volume of data showing the carcinogenic potency of all  fiber types.   Similar
 conclusions were reached previously by other scientific bodies  and agencies
 (54 FR 132, July 12,  1989).
 3.11  HEALTH EFFECTS
     Comment:  Commenter 22 asserts that the  low prevalence of asbestos-related
 gastrointestinal  cancer does not justify listing it in  the preamble  along with
 asbestosis, lung cancer,  and mesothelioma.
     Response:   A number of epidemiological studies  have documented significant
 increases in the incidence of gastrointestinal  cancer due  to occupational
 exposure  to asbestos.   Gastrointestinal  cancers  consist largely of cancers of
 the esophagus,  stomach,  colon,  and rectum.   However, the magnitude of
 gastrointestinal  cancer risk is lower  than that  of  lung cancer or
 mesothelioma,  and no dose-response data  are  available.
     The commenter states  that the  evidence indicating a positive association
 between gastrointestinal  cancer and asbestos exposure is weak and  inconclusive
 and does  not justify listing  along with  asbestosis, lung cancer, and
 mesothelioma.   Other commenters  have indicated that unidentified factors may
 cause the excess  gastrointestinal  cancers.  Some commenters have suggested
 that many of the  excess cancers  attributed to gastrointestinal sites may be
 due to misdiagnosis of peritoneal mesotheliomas.  Other.commenters have
 contended that, in the absence of any positive experimental evidence, the
 epidemiology data alone do not support the conclusion that exposure to
 asbestos can cause gastrointestinal cancer.
    The EPA recognizes that the evidence supporting an  association between
gastrointestinal cancer and asbestos exposure is not as  strong as  that which
is available to support an association between asbestos  exposure and  lung
                                     3-10

-------
 cancer and mesothelioma.  However, after weighing the available Information,
 EPA believes that there is evidence of a strong causal relationship between
 asbestos exposure and gastrointestinal cancer excess.  This evidence includes
 the following:  (1) A statistically significant increase in gastrointestinal
 cancer was found in 10 of 23 epidemiological studies; (2) a consistent
 relationship exists between increased gastrointestinal cancer risk and
 increased lung cancer risk (approximately 10 to 30 percent of the lung cancer
 excess);  (3) it is biologically plausible that asbestos could be associated
 with these tumor sites because it is conceivable that the majority of fibers
 inhaled are cleared from the respiratory tract and subsequently swallowed,
 allowing  the fibers to enter the gastrointestinal  tract (additionally,  fibers
 may be swallowed directly);,  and (4)  one  study .demonstrated some evidence of
 cardnogenicity in male rats fed diets containing  intermediate range  size
 chrysotile asbestos (65 percent 10 microns  in length).
     Further,  EPA does  not  accept the  argument that all  gastrointestinal
 cancers identified in  the  epidemiology studies  described  above are  the  result
 of  misdiagnosis.   Cancers  of• some gastrointestinal cancer sites  (e.g.,  stomach
 and pancreas)  could be  the result of misdiagnosis  of peritoneal mesotheliomas.
 However,  this does  not  account  for all of the excess cancers seen at sites
 such as the colon or rectum.  The  Occupational Safety and Health
Administration  (OSHA) in its final rule lowering the permissible exposure
 limit  (PEL) for asbestos (51 FR 22612, June 20, 1986)  concluded that the
studies conducted to date  "constitute substantial evidence of an association
between asbestos exposure and a risk of Incurring gastrointestinal  cancer."
The EPA agrees with this conclusion.
                                     3-11

-------
 3.12  CROSS-REFERENCING
     Comment:  Commenter 28 requests that EPA delete the cross-referencing
 section because it does not enhance compliance with the NESHAP.
     Response:  Cross-referencing to other asbestos  regulations  is  for
 informational purposes.  The EPA believes a heightened  awareness of other
 standards that apply to asbestos will  help improve  understanding of and
 compliance with the asbestos NESHAP and  help reduce overall  exposure to
 asbestos.
 3.13  INSPECTIONS  BY THE ADMINISTRATOR
     Comment:   Commenter 41  suggests that a designated representative of  the
 Administrator should conduct inspections to reduce  the  Administrator's burden.
     Response:  It  appears that  the  commenter was assuming that the
 Administrator of EPA,  personally, would  have to perform all  of the  activities
 specified in  the NESHAP as  being the responsibility of  the "Administrator."
 However,  this is not the case.   Section  61.02 of 40 CFR defines
 "Administrator"  as  the Administrator of  EPA or "his authorized represent-
 ative."   Inspections and other  enforcement-related  activities required of the
 Administrator are typically performed  by local, State,  or regional  enforcement
 agencies  and  not directly by the Administrator of EPA.
 3.14  EFFECTIVE  DATE
     Comment:   Because  the revisions  are  extensive,   commenters 49,  58, and 63
 argue  that the final revisions should become effective no earlier than 6
months after promulgation, and commenter 73 recommends that they not become
effective for at least 1 year.
    Response:  Section 112 of the Clean Air Act contains specific  requirements
concerning when NESHAP regulations shall  go into effect.  Section  112(b)(l)(c)
                                     3-12

-------
 provides that "any emission standard established pursuant to this section
 shall become effective upon promulgation."  There are two exceptions to this
 requirement.  First, with respect to existing sources, Section 112(c)(1) (B)(i)
 states that standards "shall not apply until 90 days after [the standard's]
 effective date."  Second, Section 112(c)(1)(B)(11)  allows a waiver of up to 2
 years for an existing source if the Administrator finds that such a period is
 necessary for the installation of controls and  that steps will  be taken during
 the period of waiver to  ensure that the health  of persons will  be protected
 from imminent endangerment.
     Thus,  the statute requires NESHAPs  to  become  effective immediately  for new
 sources  and within  90 days  for existing sources,  unless  the  Administrator  has
 grounds  to grant a  waiver for  longer than  90 days.
     Requirements relating to recordkeeping and monitoring are authorized by
 Section  114 of the  Clean  Air Act and, thus,  are not  subject  to  specific
 restrictions regarding when  they go  into effect.
     The  EPA agrees  with the  commenters' concern and  has  decided to allow 30
 days  from  the  date  of promulgation before  the new waste  tracking  requirements
 go  into  effect.   The  revisions proposed on January 10, 1989, already contained
 a provision  giving  1 year before  the demolition and renovation training
 requirements become effective.   For the other proposed revisions, EPA believes
 that additional time  is not necessary, and they become effective upon
promulgation.
3.15  STORAGE AND TRANSFER
    Comment:  Commenter 84 recommends that specific  regulations for waste
storage and transfer be added to the NESHAP.
                                     3-13

-------
     Response:  The storage of waste at the site of generation and at the
 disposal site is clearly covered by the NESHAP.  The waste generator is
 responsible for ensuring that waste is taken to an acceptable landfill
 including the time from when the waste leaves the generator's site until  it
 reaches the landfill.
 3.16  ALTERNATE METHODS
     Comment:   Commenter 78 opposes the proposed revision  of delegable
 authorities.   Commenter 59 argues that the regulation  should state that,  if
 the NESHAP is adopted by a State and  if it has  primacy, EPA should relinquish
 their  approval  procedures and turn them over to the  State.
     Response:  The provisions of the  asbestos NESHAP that  are  nondelegable
 relate to  alternative methods of treatment,  control, and disposal.   The intent
 of  this requirement of Federal  approval  is  to provide  national consistency  in
 an  area that  would have'no  such  consistency  without  Federal  control.  The
 basic  enforcement  authority of the underlying NESHAP remains delegable to the
 individual  States.  Therefore,  EPA is  exercising  Federal control only in the
 area that  is  most  in  need of  consistency across the  country.  Many commenters
 stated that one of the problems  with the NESHAP had been a  lack of consistency
 from jurisdiction  to  jurisdiction.  The limitations on delegation help to
 address  such  concerns.
 3.17   RESPONSIBILITY  FOR  COMPLIANCE
    Comment:  Commenters  76 and  80 support the concept that each party,
 generator and disposal  site owner, be responsible for only those aspects that
 are reasonably under their control.
                            i
    Response:   Prior to these revisions, the waste generator was responsible
for selecting  a disposal site that met the requirements of the asbestos
                                     3-14

-------
 NESHAP; the disposal  site was not directly regulated.  Under these revisions,
 the disposal site owner or operator is responsible for complying with the
 asbestos NESHAP provisions for waste disposal,  but the waste generator
 continues to be responsible for ensuring that the asbestos waste is delivered
 to a disposal  site operated in compliance with  the NESHAP.
 3.18  NONCOMMERCIAL ASBESTOS
     Comment:  Commenter 56 requests  that EPA  consider addressing naturally
 occurring,  noncommercial  asbestos  in the current  revisions to  the NESHAP.
     Response:   The EPA  is currently  studying  contaminant  asbestos and  the
 possibility of regulating it under the  NESHAP at  a  later  date.   A previous
 study  of the use  of asbestos-contaminated  crushed  stone in  unpaved roads
 concluded that  such uses  were  infrequent and  restricted to  a few geographic
 areas;  therefore,  such  uses  were better suited to regulation by  local
 authorities  rather  than by national  regulations.  It should also be noted that
 under the demolition and  renovation and spraying provisions, EPA does not
 distinguish between commercial (deliberately added) and noncommercial
 (including contaminant)  asbestos.  The EPA may also consider revisions in a
 later rulemaking that  would regulate the use of insulating materials
containing asbestos regardless of whether or not the asbestos is commercial
asbestos.
                                    3-15

-------

-------
                                4.0  DEFINITIONS
 4.1  GENERAL
     Comment:  Commenter 57 agrees that the proposed revisionsto the
 definitions are an improvement over the existing language.
     Response:  No response is necessary.
 4.2  ASBESTOS-CONTAINING WASTE MATERIAL
     Comment:  1.   Commenter 22 asserts that "containers  that previously
 contained commercial  asbestos" could include trucks,  rail cars,  etc.,  and
 suggests that EPA replace it with "or other similar packaging used  in direct
 contact  with commercial  asbestos."
     2.   Commenter 26  states  that  the definition  should include  "asbestos-
 contaminated debris";  such waste  material  is  often  not addressed  in an
 abatement project because it is not  part of a facility component.
     3.   Commenters 35, 49, and 63 request  a clarification of  the  definition
 and  ask  if the  laundering of asbestos-contaminated  clothing is prohibited;
 they note  that  OSHA allows laundering of contaminated clothing.
     4.   For demolition and renovation, commenter 93 suggests  that the wording
 be revised  to apply to friable waste material, waste from control devices, and
 contaminated equipment and clothing.
     Response:   1.   As suggested by the comment,  EPA did not intend for trucks
or railcars used to transport commercial asbestos to be considered asbestos-
containing waste material.  Commercial asbestos  is typically packaged in paper
                                      4-1

-------
 or plastic bags for delivery to asbestos manufacturing plants.   It is these
 bags and similar packaging that are likely to be contaminated with asbestos
 after being emptied and that EPA intends to cover as asbestos-containing  waste
 material.   The EPA will modify the definition to make this  clear.
     2.   The EPA agrees  with the commenter and intends for the definition  to
 cover asbestos-contaminated debris,  which is present prior  to the  demolition
 or renovation  operation.
     3.   Asbestos-contaminated  clothing  is used as an example  of  the types of
 materials  that might be considered to be asbestos-containing  waste material.
 The EPA  did not intend  to .contradict OSHA rules that allow  the laundering of
 asbestos contaminated clothing.   Only asbestos-contaminated clothing  that is
 to be disposed of,  whether  disposable or not,  would  be  covered by  this
 definition.  The EPA will revise the definition to make this  clear.
     4.   It is  still  EPA's position that,  as applied  to  demolition  and
 renovation,  this term applies  to friable asbestos waste and not  to nonfriable
 asbestos waste that has not been crumbled,  pulverized,  or reduced  to  powder.
 The definition has  been revised  to clarify  the waste materials subject to the
 standard.             •             .
 4.3  COMMERCIAL ASBESTOS
     Comment:   Commenter 20  recommends revising the definition of "commercial
 asbestos."   They assert that the term "value"  in  the  definition is
 argumentative  and not consistent with the intent  of  Section 112 of the Clean
Air Act.
    Response:   This term is used  in the requirements that apply to asbestos
mills, manufacturers, and fabricators as well as asbestos insulation.   It is
EPA's intent to  regulate sources where asbestos is deliberately added,
although in the case of demolition, renovation, and spraying,  contaminant

                                      4-2               ,

-------
 asbestos may also be covered because it 1s not possible for these sources to
 determine the origins of the asbestos content.
     The definition is revised to make it consistent with EPA1s policy
 determination, which stated that materials to which asbestos is added and that
 are increased in value due to the added asbestos are commercial asbestos and
 are, therefore, subject to the NESHAP,  no matter what they are called.   The
 EPA does not consider the term "value"  to be either argumentive or
 inconsistent with the intent of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.
 4.4  DEMOLITION
     Comment:  1.  Commenter 4 suggests  that the definition of  "demolition"
 should be revised to prohibit the burning of demolition  debris  because  the
 heat can cause asbestos to be released  from nonfriable material.
     2.  Moreover,  Commenter 4 suggests  that the definition should  also
 prohibit the abandonment of buildings,  a  major source of asbestos  emissions.
     3.  Commenter 70 believes that the  inclusion of  intentional burning  in  the
 definition of "demolition"  is premature.
     4.   Commenter  84 recommends adding  salvage  operations  to the definition of
 "demolition."
     5.   Commenter  18  asks for a clarification of load-supporting structural
member and whether or not it  includes equipment.
     6.   Commenter 84  recommends adding  "including the stripping or removal of
asbestos-containing material  from facility components" to the definition.
     Response:  1.  Because the current standard does not prohibit the burning
of demolition debris, any change to prohibit this activity would be considered
an increase in the stringency of the regulation.  The EPA will  consider the
need for revisions that alter the stringency of the NESHAP at a later date.
                                      4-3

-------
     2.   While EPA agrees that abandoned and vacant: buildings may become
 emission sources, particularly where the asbestos  has  been disturbed by
 illegal  scavenging operations, EPA believes that emissions from such buildings
 are low  and  has  no information to  the contrary.  Therefore,  EPA believes  that
 including abandoned and  vacant buildings in the  definition of "demolition"  is
 unwarranted  at this time.
     3.   Concerning the comment that the inclusion  of intentional  burning  is
 premature, enforcement officials requested  this  change based on their
 enforcement  experiences.   Although EPA believes  that the  intentional  burning
 of  facilities, which would be subject to the NESHAP if demolished, will not
 occur-very often,  it is  important  to control  such  sources  to avoid inadvertent
 exposures that would result  from the burning, waste collection,  and  disposal
 of  the asbestos-contaminated material.
     4.   The  EPA  realizes that the  unauthorized removal of  equipment  for its
 salvage  value  may be a problem.  Such operations are,  however,  regulated  under
 the  NESHAP provisions for  renovation when the threshold quantities of asbestos
 are  exceeded.  Equipment is  considered  to be a facility component, and  any
 alteration of  a  facility component,  including removal  or stripping,  is  covered
 as part  of a renovation.   Operations  that Involve wrecking or taking  out
 structural members  are demolitions.
    5.   The meaning  of the term "load-supporting structural member" has not
been changed from  its meaning  in the  standard in effect prior to the January
10,  1989 proposal, and refers to structural  components such as beams and load-
supporting walls.  Equipment, however, does  not typically serve as a load-
supporting structural member; it is considered part of a facility (I.e., a
faci1i ty component).
                                      4-4

-------
     6.   Demolition refers to a specific activity, "...the wrecking or taking
 out of any load-supporting structural member..."  The stripping or removal of
 asbestos, which is already covered by the NESHAP, is an activity that must
 precede the wrecking or taking out of load-supporting structural members and,
 technically,  cannot be considered demolition, although it may occur as part of
 an overall  project to demolish a structure.  The EPA believes it is preferable
 to retain this distinction.
 4.5  EMERGENCY RENOVATION OPERATION
     Comment:   Commenters 9, 14,  41,  42,  and 49 state  that the scope of the
 term "emergency renovation operation" should not be  limited  to events
 resulting in  "unsafe  conditions,"  but should include  events  such as  fires,
 ruptured  pipes,  boiler failures, and  other  situations  that could present
 potential public health or safety  hazards if not immediately  attended  to.
 Commenter 18  asks  if the definition would include  the  release of asbestos  into
 the air.  Commenter 63  recommends  that the  definition  include operations
 necessary to  protect equipment from significant  damage*
     Response:   Events  that would necessitate  an  emergency  renovation include
 those that may produce  immediately unsafe conditions as well  as  those  that, if
 not  quickly remedied, could reasonably be foreseen to result  in  an unsafe or
 detrimental effect on health.  For example,  a boiler in an apartment building
 that suddenly malfunctions during the winter would need to be repaired
 immediately.  To protect equipment from significant damage and to avoid
 imposing an unreasonable financial  burden by requiring sources that experience
a sudden unexpected equipment failure to wait 10 days,  the final rule includes
equipment damage and financial burden as  additional reasons for emergency
renovations.   However,  the exemption from wetting is  not  automatic whenever
                                      4-5

-------
 equipment would have to be shutdown to perform repairs  or maintenance.
 Industry should not routinely request an  exemption from the  wetting
 requirements in order to avoid shutting down  equipment.
 4.6   EPA ID NUMBER
     Comment:  Commenters 61  and 63  argue  that the  definition of  EPA  ID  number
 is unclear.   Commenter 61 notes that EPA  assigns ID numbers  to hazardous waste
 generators under Subtitle C  of the  Resource Conservation  and Recovery Act
 (RCRA)  and that,  because asbestos is not  a RCRA hazardous  waste, not all
 asbestos waste generators will  have EPA ID numbers.  Commenter 63 observes that
 the  proposed rule does not indicate how an ID number is to be obtained.
 Commenter 84 recommends use  of the  contractor's license number under the
 Asbestos Contractors  Tracking  System for  EPA  ID number.
     Response:   The EPA has reconsidered the matter  of an  EPA ID number  and has
 determined that the name of  the owner/operator and  address will suffice to
 identify and locate violators.   The requirement to  obtain  and report an EPA ID
 number  will  be deleted from  the NESHAP.
 4.7   FABRICATING
     Comment:   Commenter 28 suggests  revising  the definition  to specify that
 bonding  and  debonding  operations are covered  only when there is grinding or
 sizing  involved.   The  asbestos  waste generated from bonding  and debonding is
 small and  the  significance to human health of  the air emissions is
 questionable.
     Response:   The  EPA  agrees that  facilities that only debond worn brake
 linings  from brake  shoes and bond new linings to the old brake shoes  are not
significant emission sources.   It is only  when grinding, sawing,  drilling or
other similar operations are performed on  the asbestos  lining that significant
                                      4-6

-------
 asbestos emissions occur.  Because these operations are currently covered by
 the NESHAP, inclusion of the reference to bonding and debonding was intended
 to clarify what kind of friction product fabricators are covered.  The EPA
 will modify the definition to be more specific as to which bonding and
 debonding operations are covered.
 4.8  FACILITY
     Comment:  1.  Commenter 4 requests that the definition of "facility"
 include the accidental  accumulation of asbestos debris resulting from
 weathering or other deterioration,  and exclude certain structures known to
 contain no asbestos,  e.g.,  bridges,  dams,  foundations,  and motors.
     2.   Commenter 70  believes that  the definition of "facility"  would  include
 private residences having more  than  four dwelling units.   Because "dwelling
 units"  is  not  defined,  it does  not clearly  limit  the application  to
 apartments.  Commenter  70 states  that  the definition should be changed  to
 clearly exclude  private  residences, outbuildings,  garages,  barns, and other
 farm buildings.   Commenter  83 endorses the addition  of  "any ship-to the
 definition of  "facility."
    3.   Several  commenters  argue  that the exclusion of residential facilities
 having  four or fewer dwelling units should be eliminated.   Commenter 89 argues
 that residential demolition/renovation and waste disposal involve significant
 quantities of asbestos and  should be regulated.  Commenter  54 asserts that
 residential buildings having four or fewer units should not be exempt from the
work practices' provisions even if they are exempt from the notification
requirements.  Commenter 94 recommends that only facilities with  one dwelling
unit be excluded because renters of  apartments are frequently  exposed as a
result of asbestos work  performed by untrained workers.
                                      4-7

-------
     Response:   1.   Facilities containing asbestos that has  fallen  off facility
 components or  accumulated otherwise are covered by the standard.   The
 owners/operators of such facilities are subject to the NESHAP  any  time that
 they remove any friable asbestos,  in amounts  above the threshold,  from the
 facility.   Regarding the commenter's recommendation to exclude certain
 structures known to contain no'asbestos,  it is  not clear  that  in some
 instances  such structures,  or associated  structures, would  not contain
 asbestos.   The EPA believes that  it is  prudent  not to  exclude  such  structures.
  ,   2.   Private residences  and associated outbuildings are  currently  excluded
 from coverage.  Outbuildings associated with  commercial or  other types of
 facilities covered by the standard  would  also be  covered.
     3.   The recommendation  to remove the  exemption  for residential  facilities
 having four or fewer dwelling units would expand  the scope  of  the rule.
 Revisions  that alter stringency may be  considered  during  a  later rulemaking.
 However, EPA does  not consider residential structures  that  are demolished or
 renovated  as part  of commercial or  public projects  to  be  exempt from  this
 rule.  For example,  the  demolition  of one or  more  houses  as part o.f an  urban
 renewal  project, a highway  construction project, or a  project to develop a
 shopping mall,  industrial facility,  or other  private development, would be
 subject  to  the  NESHAP.   The  owner of a home that renovates his house or
 demolishes  it  to construct  another  house  would not be  subject to the NESHAP.
 4.9  FACILITY  COMPONENT
    Comment:  The  definition of "facility component" in effect prior to the
January  10, 1989,  proposal should be retained according to commenters 42 and
49.  Commenters 42 and 49 explain that the proposed definition is less
precise,  especially in light of the absence of a definition  for "equipment."
                                      4-8

-------
  If  the  definition  is  revised,  exclude  "portable equipment" from the
  definition.
     Response:  The EPA intends that any part of a facility containing, covered
  with, or coated by asbestos be subject to the NESHAP.  The list of facility
  components contained  in the definition was an attempt to characterize all of
  the components that potentially could be found in a facility.  Occasionally,
  however, questions arise about the applicability to components not
  specifically listed in the current definition.   The more general  definition
  addresses those types of questions.  Regarding  the request to exclude portable
  equipment,  EPA wants, to regulate portable equipment at a facility if the piece
 of portable equipment contains, is covered with,  or is coated by  asbestos.
 4.10  FRIABLE ASBESTOS MATERIAL-MATERIAL COVERED
     Comment:   1.   Commenter 22 asserts  that this  term is  being expanded  to
 include  asbestos-cement  (A/C)  and  other nonfriable material that may  be
 "broken" and  should not be  included unless  evidence  is presented that
 excessive amounts of  fibers  would  be released.  Commenters 47,  48, 93, and 95
 request  that  the term  "broken"  be  defined or deleted to show  that the addition
 of this  term  to the definition of  "friable asbestos material"  does not affect
 the  nonfriable nature  of resilient  floor covering or other similar nonfriable
 materials.    Commenter 21 suggests  that EPA clarify whether or not material
 that can be broken is  considered friable, or is  it necessary that the. material
 be broken to produce dust before it is considered friable.
    2,  Commenter 77 states that the use of "hand pressure" to determine
 friability or ability to release fibers  is vague,  and feels that a
 standardized method is needed to determine friability.
    3.  Commenter 89 expresses the  need  to clarify the definition  of  "friable
asbestos  material"  to  explain that  crumbled,  pulverized,  etc., means  to  be

                                     4-9

-------
 crumbled,  etc.,  to a powder,  and not crumbled as a piece  of paper without
 reducing it to powder.
     4.   Commenter 29 requests that EPA publish a list  of  "friable" materials,
 and commenter 47 suggests that EPA specifically exclude resilient floor
 covering unless  it is sanded.
     5.   Commenter 95 supports EPA's resistance to revising  the definition
 because  it is well  established and widely  accepted.
     6.   Commenter 29 believes that EPA should define "friability"  in any way
 that suits its needs and  feels that the hand  friability test  is not
 appropriate for  demolition and .renovation  activities because  the  concern
 should be  whether or not  asbestos  is emitted  when the  material is  subjected to
 the forces of demolition  and  renovation.   They assert  that  the definition
 should incorporate  the  aspect of mechanical forces that are likely to act on
 the asbestos  material.  Commenter  14 suggests  that the current interpretation
 of  friable asbestos,  explained in  the preamble,  should be included in the
 regulation to clarify what is regulated.
     Commenter 93  recommends deleting the word  "broken" from the definition,
 asserting  that it misses  the  point  of EPA's 1974  policy determination, which
 exempts  nonfriable material from the NESHAP, because many types of nonfriable
 material can  be broken by  hand but  cannot be crumbled by hand pressure.
 Similarly,  commenter  95 argues that  the addition  of "broken" expands coverage
 because many  nonfriable materials can be broken,  although the potential for
 fiber release  is low.  Commenter 95  further argues that vinyl floor tile
 broken during  demolition or renovation does not become  friable and that this
 point should be made clear.
    Commenter 83 suggests modifying this definition to  include previously
nonfriable material rendered friable, rather than attempting to condition

                                     4-10

-------
  numerous individual  definitions where this  may apply.   They argue  that the
  proposed approach leads to inconsistency in the use  of terms "asbestos-
  containing material,"  "asbestos-containing  waste material," and  "friable
  asbestos material."  Commenter 83  suggests  use of the  term  "asbestos-
  containing material,"  with definitions for  "friable,"  "nonfriable," and
  "rendered friable."                                          .
     Response:   1.  Addition of the word  "broken"  to this definition was not
  intended  to expand applicability to nonfriable materials, but was intended to
  complement and be consistent with the current meaning of "...crumbled,
  pulverized, or reduced to powder..."  This phrase refers to characteristics
 that are likely to result in asbestos fibers becoming airborne.   Upon
 reconsideration, EPA has decided that the term "broken" is  likely to create
 confusion and possibly  lead to misapplication of this definition,  and,"EPA
 therefore, has decided  to eliminate "broken" from the definition.
     2.   The American  Society for Testing  and Materials  (ASTM)  has  investigated
 objective methods  for determining friability,  but because of several
 difficulties encountered in trying  to  develop  a method,  the  investigation  was
 not  completed.   The EPA agrees  that the use  of hand pressure to determine
 friability may  be  somewhat  subjective  in  some  instances.  The EPA believes
 that for  most materials,  however, use  of  hand  pressure  is adequate to
 determine  friability.                                 -
     3.    In  this definition, crumbled  is  not analogous to crumpling a piece of
 paper.  The  EPA interprets  "crumbled" to mean easily crumbled into a large
 number of pieces.  To assist in the appropriate application and interpretation
 of the NESHAP as it applies to nonfriable materials, EPA will issue additional
 information to all  relevant parties  that will address  the commenter's concern
on the treatment and handling of nonfriable asbestos material.

                                    4-11

-------
     4.   In the revisions  proposed on  January  10,  1989,  EPA listed  the
 nonfriable materials  that normally would  be exempt  from the requirements  for
 demolition.  The  EPA  is also  providing  additional clarification  on the
 handling and  treatment of nonfriable  materials  including A/C materials.   The
 EPA feels that by listing the nonfriable  materials  and  through the process of
 elimination,  the  commenter's  request  for  a list of  friable materials is '
 satisfied.  Resilient floor covering  will be  one of the nonfriable materials
 normally exempted from the demolition provisions.   The  revised NESHAP will
 explicitly require controls on the sanding of floor covering.
     5.   The EPA has resisted  making major changes to this  definition because
 it  is well  established and widely accepted.   However, the  change requiring the
 use of a specific method  of determining asbestos content  is  long overdue  and
 will reduce confusion over what activities are  subject  to  the regulation.
     6.   The EPA considered, but rejected, a revision to this definition to
 include  materials  that can be  crumbled, pulverized,,  or  reduced to  powder by
 the mechanical forces expected to  act on the material.  The EPA believes,
 however,  it is useful  to distinguish between material  that can be  easily
 crumbled, etc. to  a powder, i.e.,  friable material,,  and material  that is
 normally nonfriable that as a  result of the forces associated with demolition
 and renovation, may become crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to a powder and is
 therefore, capable of releasing asbestos fibers in amounts similar to friable
material.  Also, although nonfriable material  may be broken or crumbled and
 capable of releasing asbestos, it does not necessarily become friable.   Rather
than modifying the definition of "friable asbestos material," the definition
of "asbestos-containing material" has been replaced  with "regulated asbestos-
containing material" and  defined to include,  in addition to friable materials,
                                     4-12

-------
  nonfriable  materials  that  are  likely to  be  crumbled,  pulverized,  or  reduced  to
  powder  in the  course  of  demolition  or renovation operations; nonfriable
  materials that are  in poor condition  as  indicated by  peeling, cracking, or
  crumbling of the material; and nonfriable materials that are subjected to
  sanding, grinding,  cutting, or abrading.  Additional discussion of the issue
  is presented in Section  7.1.1 of this BID.
 4.11  FRIABLE ASBESTOS MATERIAL - ANALTYICAL METHOD
     Comment:  1.  Commenters 17,  35, and 70 support the proposed changes to
 the definition of "friable asbestos material," specifically the change to
 percent by area.   Commenter 69 argues that to go from percent weight  to
 percent area may have major impact on coverage because there may be wi-de
 discrepancies in  the results  reported by the two methods.   Commenter  69
 provides an  example of this stating that a cement.-based fireproofing  that
 contained 30 percent asbestos  by  area contained less than  1 percent by weight.
 Commenter 70 feels  the definition of "friable asbestos material"  is
 appropriate; however,,the method  referenced  should not be  limited  to  point
 counting,  in view of 47 .FR  1982,  p.  38535, which clarifies  the acceptability
 of "an  equivalent estimation method."   Commenter 78  states  that the definition
 would require asbestos content  to be determined  by transmission electron
 microscopy (TEM)  analysis,  and  that  the high  cost of TEM should be  considered.
 Commenter 78 recommends that the current method  continue to be accepted with
 TEM specified over other  methods.
    2.   Commenter 22 prefers that the method for percent by area not be
 referenced but be included  in final  rule, while commenters 28 and 29 prefer
 that the method be incorporated by reference.
    3.  Commenter 21 suggests  clarifying the definition to avoid
misinterpretation of area as the method of expressing analytical  results;

                                     4-13      -   •;      .

-------
 e.g.,  some persons may interpret "area"  to mean the area of the  building
 surface that contains asbestos.
     Response:  1.   The revisions to the  asbestos NESHAP proposed on  January
 10,  1989 would have changed the  definition of "friable  asbestos  material"  from
 "greater than 1 percent weight"  to  "greater than 1  percent  area" and
 referenced a method for the analysis.  Because the  method referenced actually
 contains two analytical  methods—polarized light microscopy (PLM) which
 currently measures area,  and x-ray  diffraction (XRD) which  measures  weight--
 EPA  has modified the definition  to  specify the use  of PLM to avoid possible
 confusion as to which method is  referenced.   Because the PLM method  measures
 percent area,  the  phrase "by area"  is not  necessary and  has .been taken out "of
 the  definition.  The difference  between  percent  area and percent weight
 depends on the density and  volume of materials in the sample.  These
 relationships  are  described in Asbestos  Content  in  Bulk  Insulation Samples;
 Visual  Estimates and Weight Composition  (EPA-560/5-88-011,  September 1988).
 However,  the fact  remains that the  PLM procedure  used to determine the amount
 of asbestos  in building  materials (Interim Method for the Determination of
 Asbestos  in  Bulk Insulation Samples) EPA-600/M4-82-020, December 1982)
 measures  percent area and not percent weight.  PLM  laboratories  polled at
 meetings  of  the  National Asbestos Council  admitted  that percent  area  is what
 they measure and report.  Accordingly, there should.be little or no  impact on
 the standard by  the  proposed change.
    Poinf counting is  not required for the PLM procedure.  An equivalent
 visual  estimation technique may be used.   Visual estimation may be made during
macroscopic examination by  using a stereobinocular microscope,  result-ing in a
volume estimation of components.   For most samples,  quantitation  by
                                     4-14

-------
 macroscopic examination is preferred.  Visual estimation may also be made
 during polarized light microscopy (PLM) examination, resulting in a projected
 area estimation of components.  However, if point counting is not used and the
 reported asbestos content is less than 10 percent, EPA has revised the
 definition to require the point counting technique using PLM.  Point counting,
 a systematic technique for estimating concentration, may be useful in quality
 assurance activities, especially in  establishing a relationship between point
 counts and visual  estimation procedures.
     The accuracy of quantitation data from either technique of estimation is
 dependent upon several  factors,  including:   sample homogeneity,  asbestos
 content,  asbestos  fiber size,  the presence  of interfering matrix/binder
 material,  and  the  skill  of the nricroscopist.   It is  suggested that the
 quantitation.skill  of the  microscopist  may  be improved  and concurrently
 verified  through the  use of calibration standards.   These standards may
 include well-characterized bulk  materials or  in-house calibration  standards
 formulated by  mixing  known weights of commonly available  fibrous  (asbestos,
 cellulose, glass, etc.)  and nonfibrous  (plaster, clay,  vermiculite, calcium
 carbonate, etc.) materials.
     For some materials,  experience has  shown  that gravimetry  (gravimetric
 sample  reduction) is  a viable technique to aid in the determination of
 asbestos content.  The technique involves the systematic  removal (and
 determination of the  resulting weight loss) of interfering components, and the
 concentration of asbestos  in a residue, the components of which are identified
by PLM.  EPA is currently conducting  research to develop procedures that will
help determine the appropriate analytical  procedure to use based on the type
of material,  the level of asbestos present in the material, as well as other
factors.
                                     4-15

-------
     TEM is not recommended for routine analysis of bulk samples.   TEM may be
 useful  in the analysis of special  materials containing  finely  divided asbestos
 particles.  The EPA is currently reviewing procedures for analyzing  and
 identifying categories of such materials to determine if additional  guidance
 should  be issued to provide for these materials.
     2.   One advantage to including the analytical  method for the
 identification and quantisation of asbestos directly in the  NESHAP is that the
 method  is then readily available to those who  have an interest in  the asbestos
 NESHAP.   A disadvantage of this approach is that,  when  the analytical  method
 is  revised as a result of improvements in methodology,  the analytical  method
 contained in the NESHAP cannot be  changed without  going through lengthy and
 time-consuming procedures to  amend the regulation.  In  this  situation,
 referencing the method,  rather than putting the method  into  the regulation,
 would allow any revisions in  analytical  methodology to  be immediately
 incorporated into the NESHAP.   The EPA considers this aspect to be extremely
 important and for this  reason  has  decided to incorporate the analytical method
 by  reference.   Futhermore,  EPA believes  that most of the individuals  that are
 affected  by this  aspect  of the rule,  i.e.,  abatement contractors and
 laboratories,  are  familiar with  the method  and its location in 40 CFR Part
 763, Subpart  F.
    3.  The  EPA believes  that, by  including the analytical method used to
 determine  asbestos content  in  the definition, future misinterpretation of the
 definition  is  unlikely.
4.12  FUGITIVE SOURCES
    Comment:  Commenter 28 recommends revising the definition of "fugitive
sources" to apply to mills, manufacturing, and fabricating sources  not
controlled by an air pollution control device.

                                     4-16

-------
      Response:  Fugitive emissions are those emissions that are not controlled
  by an air pollution control device, e.g., emissions from windows,  doors,
  waste-piles, roof vents, and conveyors.  Fugitive emissions at milling,
  manufacturing,  and fabricating sources are controlled by Sections  61.142(a),
  61.144(b)(l), and 61.147(b)(1),  respectively.   Therefore,  EPA does not believe
  it necessary to revise the definition as  suggested.
  4.13  GENERATOR
      Comment:  Commenter 83 notes that "generator"  is  not defined in the
  proposed rule and asked 1f the building owner  or the  contractor is the
  generator.
      Response:  As the  commenter  correctly notes,  "generator"  is not defined,
  although "waste generator"  is.   The revised rule will  use  the  term "waste
  generator" where  only  "generator" was  used before.
      The  waste generator at  a demolition or renovation  can  be either the
  building owner  or the  contractor, or both based on the definitions  of  "waste
  generator,"  which  refers to any owner or operator covered by the NESHAP that
  produces  asbestos waste, and the definition of "owner or operator of a
  demolition or renovation activity," which applies to either the building owner
  or the contractor, or both.
 4.14  GLOVE BAGS
     Comment:   Commenter 84 suggests that EPA not endorse  glove bags to  the
 exclusion of other, more effective technological  solutions.
     Response:  The EPA  intends  to allowthe use of glove  bags,  an effective,
 commonly used technology that  1s  consistent with  EPA's wetting requirements.
.The EPA also  allows alternative methods that have been approved by  the
 Administrator.
                                     4-17

-------
 4.15  INACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
     Comment:   Commenter 45 asks if the definition of "inactive  waste  disposal
 site" Includes sites that were inactive 1 year or more  prior to the effective
 date of this  proposal.
     Response:  The revised definition  does not alter the  sources that are
 covered (sites that were operated by mills and manufacturing and fabricating
 operations) and applies to the affected,  existing inactive  sites.  Sites that
 were inactive 1 year or more  prior to  the effective  date  are still covered.
 4.16  INSPECTION PORTS
     Comment:   Commenter 84 explains the importance of adopting  a definition
 for "inspection ports"  and requiring their use by inspectors for the
 observation of asbestos removal  operations without having to enter the work
 area.
     Response:   The EPA  must be afforded the opportunity to  inspect or observe
 a  removal operation.  To the  extent feasible,  owners/operators  should provide
 for compliance monitoring without  the  inspector having to enter  the workplace.
 Inspection ports or some other means of observing  a  removal  operation are
 especially useful  in  areas  where  inspectors are not  allowed  to enter  the work
 site  for liability or other reasons.   Because  the  opportunity for inspection
 is  already required,  EPA does  not  believe  that  a  separate requirement for
 inspection ports  is necessary.
 4.17  INSTALLATION
    Comment:   Commenter  83  argues  that the definition of  "installation" needs
 clarification  and  asks whether a group of residential buildings  would  be
 excluded.  They argue that a group of residential  buildings at one location
being demolished or renovated by one developer should be covered.
                                     4-18

-------
      Response:  A  group  of  residential buildings under the control of the same
 owner or operator is considered an installation according to the definition of
 "installation" and  is,  therefore, covered by the rule.  As an example, several
 houses located on highway  right-of-way that are all demolished as part of the
 same highway project would be considered an "installation," even when the
 houses are not proximate to each other.  In this example, the houses are all
 under the control of the same owner or operator, the highway agency
 responsible for the highway project.
 4.18  LOCATION AND ADDRESS
     Comment:  Commenter 15 requests  that "location  and address"  as  used in
 Section  61.145(b)(4)(vi) be defined  to require  the  street number or the street
 the facility is on or the distance from the  nearest crossroad if no street
 number exists.   The commenter explains that  some notifications only give  a
 post office box number.
     Response:   The EPA  agrees  that location  and  address may not  always  be
 sufficient.  Rather than defining  these  terms, EPA  has revised Section
 61.145(b)(4)(vi)  to  require more specific information.
 4.19 MALFUNCTION
     Comment:  Commenter  93  requests revision of the definition of
 "malfunction" to reference  American National Standards Institute  (ANSI)
 specifications for operating local exhaust systems.
     Response:  The EPA is concerned with malfunctions of air pollution control
 equipment and process equipment and the failure  of a process to operate in a
 normal manner such that increased asbestos emissions result.   Poor maintenance
 and careless operation of equipment or process  leading to  failure are not
considered malfunctions.  The recommendation  that the definition  of
                                     4-19

-------
 malfunction reference the ANSI specifications  for 'local  exhaust systems  could
 be construed as narrowing the definition to  apply only  to  local  exhaust
 systems and,  for that reason, is not acceptable  to EPA.
 4.20  NATURAL BARRIER
     Comment:   Commenter 18 notes that,  in the  revisions  proposed on  January
 10,  1989,  "natural  barrier" is identified as a revised  term  in  instruction
 number 4 to Section 61.141, "Definitions," while it  is  actually  a new  term.
     Response:   As this  commenter correctly points  out,  "natural  barrier"  is a
 new  term.
 4.21  NONFRIABLE
                                        o-
     Comment:   Commenters  15 and  69 assert that the meaning of "nonfriable" is
 unclear because it  was  not  defined in the revisions  proposed on  January 10,
 1989.   A problem may  result if it is considered  the  opposite of  friable.
 Commenter 39 also argues  for a definition of "nonfriable" and asserts that,
 like "friable,"  the threshold  of at  least 1  percent  by area should apply.
     Response:  .The  EPA  agrees  that the meaning of  "nonfriable" is unclear.
 The  EPA considers nonfriable  asbestos material  to be material containing more
 than 1  percent  asbestos by  area  that cannot  be broken, crumbled, pulverized,
 or reduced  to powder by hand pressure, and has added a definition to that
 effect.
 4.22 NONSCHEDULED RENOVATION  OPERATION
     Comment:  1.  Commenters 9, 40,  and 61 assert that the term  "nonscheduled
 renovation operation" should be deleted or substantially modified to clarify
 its meaning within the context of the regulation.  Commenter 9 believes,  for
example, that it is contradictory to state that "planned renovation
operations" can involve individual nonscheduled operations  when  the definition
                                     4-20

-------
  of "nonscheduled renovation  operation"  means  a renovation  that  is  not  planned.
  Commenter 61  states  that  it  is  not  logical  to require  a  prediction of  a
  nonscheduled  event.   Commenter  73 points  out  that  EPA  does  not  discuss the
  meaning of "routine," which  is  used  in  the  definition  of "nonscheduled
  renovation operation."
     2.  Commenter 40  recommends that EPA  revise the definition  to  include
  maintenance and  preventive maintenance  activities as well as actual failure of
  equipment.
     Response:  1.  Although the usage of the term "nonscheduled renovation
 operation" in the context of planned renovations may appear contradictory, the
 term applies to  individual events that cannot be precisely predicted as to
 their specific nature and time of occurrence but,  based on  experience,  will
 occur.   For example,  a petroleum refinery or chemical  plant must routinely
 deal  with  faulty valves,  pumps,  and  pipes and  other failures that occur
 occasionally.   Because such  equipment failures have occurred In  the past,
 plant operators  know  that  similar problems will  occur  in  the future, although
 the exact  date and the exact  location are  unknown.   But the  plant operators
 can be  certain that they will  occur and  can  plan accordingly.  Similarily, the
 use of  the word  "routine"  in  the definition  applies  to  equipment failures
 that, based on past experience, can be predicted.to occur; that  is, they occur
 as  a matter of routine, although the exact date and location cannot be
 predicted.  Activities that do not occur routinely are not covered by this
 definition.
    2.  If  the amount of asbestos that will be disturbed as  part of a
maintenance activity will  exceed the threshold amounts  and the activity can be
planned  (that is, the date and nature of the  work to be done are known  in
                                     4-21

-------
 advance), then the activity is a planned renovation subject to the
 requirements of Section 61.145(a)(4).  Maintenance activities that occur as  a
 result of the routine failure of equipment cannot be precisely predicted and
 would be included in the annual  notification requirement for planned
 renovation operations involving  individual  nonscheduled operations.   A
 maintenance activity performed in connection with a sudden  unexpected event,
 where the amount of asbestos affected exceeds the thresholds,  is  considered  an
 emergency renovation.
 4.23   OUTSIDE AIR
    Comment:  1.  Commenter 49 states that  EPA is expanding the definition of
 "outside air."
    2.   Commenters.66,  77,  and 84 suggest that the definition  of  "outside air"
 should  cover air external to the  removal area,  as well  as outside  glove  boxes
 and containment  areas,  including  air  inside  buildings.
    Response:  1.   The  EPA  is  clarifying the  definition  and  not expanding it,
 as suggested by  the commenter.  The revised  language is  not  intended  to  alter
 the meaning  of the  definition, but rather to  clear up any ambiguity regarding
 what  EPA considers  "outside  air"  to encompass.
    2.   The  EPA  does.not consider the suggested change necessary because dusty
 conditions are an indication of work practice violations, and the
 owner/operator could  be cited for these.  The EPA does not want to be in the
 position .of  having  to prove that  any emissions outside a work area actually
 contain  asbestos; it  is adequate  to rely on the enforcement of work practices
 to ensure that asbestos emissions are kept to a minimum.  Furthermore, the
suggested revision would alter the stringency of the regulation.   Today's
rulemaking is intended to promote compliance and aid enforcement.   The need
for revisions that affect stringency may be considered at a later date.

                                     4-22

-------
  4.24   OWNER OR  OPERATOR OF A  DEMOLITION OR RENOVATION ACTIVITY
     Comment:  1.  Commenter 13 argues that, once an abatement contractor
  leaves the site, he/she is no longer liable because he/she is no longer
  "operating."  Commenter 13 suggests rewording the definition to read as
  follows:  "...in the case of multiple operators both the contractor and the
  asbestos abatement contractor are considered as 'the operator' throughout the
  duration of activity at the site."
     2.  Commenter 33 states that the definition appears to extend
  responsibility beyond owners and operators.   Given the people with various
  responsibilities at a project (such as industrial  hygienists, engineers,
 architects),  it would help to further define  "operate,"  "control,"  and
  "supervise."
     3.  Several  commenters think the definition  is  confusing.  Commenter  61
 argues that the  definition seems  to indicate that  "owner"  and "operator"  are
 interchangable,  while the  waste  tracking form  in Figure  4  implies that
 operator  refers  to  the removal contractor.  Commenter 94 feels that  separate
 definitions are  needed for the facility owner  ("owner")  and abatement
 contractor ("operator") to ensure that they both are held accountable.
 Commenter 55 states that the definition of "owner or operator of a demolition
 or renovation activity" is confusing and that the "owner" should be the
 building owner and the  "contractor" should be defined as the one responsible
 for the asbestos abatement.
    4.  Commenter 83 endorses the addition  of the words "or both" to the
definition of "owner or operator."
    5.  Commenter 17 supports broadening the  definition  of "owner or operator
of a demolition or renovation activity", to  cover  both  the owner of the
facility and the  property owner.

                                     4-23

-------
     Response:   1.   The  EPA disagrees  with  the  commenter's assertion  that the
 contractor cannot  be  held  responsible after  he/she  has  left the work site or
 after he/she has completed his/her work.   Both the  owner and operator can be
 held responsible.   The  EPA does  not,  therefore, believe it is necessary to
 revise the definition.
     2.   The definition  was added to help clarify responsibility for  compliance
 and  includes the owner  of  the  facility as  well as the current owner  of the
 property on which  the facility is located.   It also includes the person in
 charge of  a demolition  or  renovation  operation.  The EPA believes that the
 definition is adequate  and does  not warrant  being revised, but will  provide
 additional  information  to  be issued later  to assist affected parties in
 implementing the revisions.
     3.   In response to  the commenters  who  feel that the definition needs to be
 clarified,  EPA  has decided that  the definition is adequate.  Additional
 information will be provided to  all affected parties at a later date to assist
 in the  implementation of the revisions.
     4.   No response is  necessary.
     5.   The definition  does not  actually broaden the coverage of the rule,  but
 helps  to clarify the  rule  as it  is  currently interpreted.
 4.25  PARTICIPATE ASBESTOS MATERIAL
     Comment:  Commenter 93 recommends deleting the definition of "particulate
 asbestos material."
     Response:  This term is used several  times in the regulation,  for example,
 in Sections 61.142(a), 61.144(b)(2), 61.147,  and elsewhere.   Because this  term
 is not defined in the General  Provisions,  40  CFR Part 61,  Subpart  A,  EPA
believes it is useful  to define the term in this rule.
                                     4-24

-------
  4.26   REMOVE
     Comment:   Commenter 70  argues  that  the definition of  "remove"  should be
  revised  and  suggests that it  should be  changed to include facility components
  that  "contain" asbestos.
     Response:  Because  it is  EPA's intention to regulate any asbestos that is
  removed, the definition of  "remove" has been modified to make it clear that
  asbestos-containing facility components are Included.
  4.27  RENOVATION
     Comment:  Commenter 63 feels that the definition of "renovation" should be
  revised to apply to nondemolitlon asbestos removal  because many procedures
  involve asbestos removal but do not alter components.  Commenter 89 is
 concerned that the definition of "renovation"  is  overly broad and could be
 interpreted to apply to the  trans.fer of stored  shingles  from one end  of a
 warehouse to another.
     Response:  The EPA  believes that  the revised  definition  of  "renovation"  is
 clear  in  that any stripping  or removal  of asbestos-containing material  is
 covered (unless it is a demolition).  As written  in  the  revised  definition,
 stripping or  removal of asbestos  is a form of alteration of  facility
 components.   Therefore,  the  conmenters'  concerns are  covered  by  the definition
 of  "renovation."   The EPA disagrees that the definition is so broad that the
 movement  of stored  transit would be interpreted, as a  renovation; this has not
 been a problem with the definition previously/and with the reference to "the
 stripping or removal of ACM," the intended meaning of "renovation"  should be
 obvious.
 4.28  ROADWAY
    Comment:  Commenter 89 asserts that  the definition of "roadway" is not
consistent with the discussion in the  preamble to  the proposed revisions.

                                    4-25

-------
     Response:  After examining the full  text of this comment and the affected
 parts of the regulation and preamble,  it appears that the commenter has
 confused two separate aspects of the regulation by matching the proposed
 definition of "roadway" with the preamble discussion of the provisions  that
 restrict the use of asbestos material  in roadway construction.
 4.29  TRANSPORT
     Comment:   Commenter 15  ask that "transport" be defined.
     Response:   The  EPA believes that this is  a  commonly understood  term that
 does not require defining.
 4.30  VISIBLE EMISSIONS
     Comment:   1.  Commenters 12,  93, and 54  support the addition of "coming
 from asbestos-containing material"  to  the definition  of "visible emissions."
     2.   Commenter 12  supports  the exclusion of  condensed, uncombined water
 vapor, although  no mention  is  made  of  training  to  make  such a determination.
 They feel  persons certified  for Method 9  are  taught to  make this distinction;
 therefore, observations should  be made by a certified observer.
     3.   Commenters 22  and 23 suggest that expanding the definition  to include
 emissions  that do not  contain  asbestos does not seem appropriate.   Commenter
 93 argues  that deleting "containing particulate asbestos materials" from the
 definition expands coverage beyond just asbestos emissions.  Commenter 20
 recommends that the term "generated from  operations involving" be substituted
 for  "coming from" in the definition.  Commenter 48. objects to the term "coming
from asbestos-containing material" and recommends that the definition in
effect prior to the proposed revisions be retained.  Commenters 28 and 58
argue that EPA should retain the definition in effect prior to the proposed
revisions, and they point out that the assumption that visible emissions from
                                     4-26

-------
  asbestos-containing material  contain  asbestos  does  not  apply  to  nonfriable
  material.        -
     4.  Commenter  70 asserts  that  the definition should also  include  "from
  asbestos-containing waste materials,» and should include emissions  "having
  come" from asbestos material, such as asbestos in amounts clearly visible on
  the ground.
     5.  Commenter  54  suggests that an additional procedure be added to ensure
  proper removal techniques.
     6.  Commenter 80 believes that the definition is subjective and does not
 provide landfill operators with the necessary guidance to comply; commenter 80
 suggests that compliance be determined by air monitoring for asbestos.
     7.  Commenter 21 requests that EPA amend the definition  to include visible
 airborne dust, i.e., dust suspended in the atmosphere, which is  being  emitted
 to the outside air.
     Response:   1.   No response Is  necessary.
     2.   In  EPA's  experience  with the asbestos NESHAP, observers not  certified
 for Method  9 are, nevertheless, able to distinguish  condensed, uncombined
 water  vapor from other visible emissions.  The  EPA sees no need to add a
 certification  requirement to the rule.
     3.   In the proposed  revisions, the definition was changed  so that EPA
 would not have to prove  the presence of particulate asbestos material in each
 plume observed, only that the  visible  emission came from asbestos-containing
 material.  In  milling, manufacturing,  and fabricating operations,  where
preventing a visible emission  is one compliance option,  emissions from the
processing of asbestos and asbestos-containing material  are highly likely to
contain asbestos.   In this situation,  there is little need  to sample and
                                     4-27

-------
analyze emissions for asbestos.   In demolition and renovation activities, work
practices are required, specifically, the adequate wetting of asbestos prior
to stripping.   In the definition  of "adequately wet," the presence of visible
emissions is used as an indicator of whether or not the asbestos has been
adequately wetted.  The presence  of asbestos in the visible emission is not an
issue; rather,  the mere presence  of a visible emission from a stripping
operation is an indication that a required work practice, i.e., wetting
adequately, is  not being performed properly.  As a result, EPA does not
consider this revision to be an expansion of the rule's coverage beyond
asbestos.  The  suggested change in the wording of the definition does not
appear to be substantively different than the language it would replace.  If
nonfriable asbestos-containing materials are crumbled, pulverized, or reduced
to powder in the course of demolition/renovation operations, visible emissions
could under some circumstances result.  However, in demolition and renovation,
visible emissions are used only as an indication of whether the material has
been adequately wetted.
    4.  "Visible emissions" means and has always meant emissions that are
observed in the air by the naked eye.   It has never meant asbestos laying on
the ground.  Asbestos-containing material observed on the ground may under
certain circumstances constitute a violation of those parts of the rule that
deal  with containment of waste, but would not be a violation of the no visible
emissions requirements.
    5.  The NESHAP already requires that certain work practices be followed
during asbestos removal  operations.  A requirement of no visible emissions for
demolition and renovation operations does not exist.   Only where the standard
allows the use of alternate controls procedures (e.g., local  exhaust
                                     4-28

-------
 ventilation) in lieu of wetting and during the collection and processing of
 waste at the site of generation is a visible emission limit an option.
     6.  Under the rule, landfill operators have the option of complying with
 either the no visible emission or the work practice requirements.  The EPA
 considers determining whether an emission to the air is.visible or not to be
 well within the capability of landfill  operators,  whereas air monitoring would
 be more difficult and more costly.  Furthermore,  standard procedures for
 monitoring asbestos concentrations in the air at  landfills have not been
 established.
     7.   The emission limits contained in the  NESHAP already  apply to visible
 emissions  to.the outside  air.   The EPA"also believes that it is  understood
 that visible  emissions  refer to airborne emissions.
 4.31 WASTE GENERATOR
     Comment:  Commenter 55  states  that  the definition of  "waste generator" is
 confusing  in  that  it is not clear  whether the owner  or the contractor is
 responsible for  the  asbestos waste.
     Response:  The EPA does not think that the definition is confusing.  The
 waste generator  is the person or organization whose actions produce the
 asbestos-containing waste material.
 4.32  WASTE OIL
    Comment:  To clarify the term "waste oil," commenter 41 recommends that it
be defined.
    Response:   The EPA agrees in principle with  the suggestion to define
"waste oil," but prefers  to clarify its  meaning  where it  appears  in the
regulation  rather than  adding a  definition.
                                    4-29

-------

-------
                          5.0  MILLING, MANUFACTURING,
                                 AND FABRICATING
 5.1  COMPLIANCE        "
     Comment:  Two commenters question the need for additional regulation of
 these Industries.  Commenter 10 states that asbestos mining and manufacturing
 industries adhere to stringent work practices and regulations and are not in"
 need of additional regulation.  Commenter 28 argues that, given the high
 degree of compliance,  the additional  inspections and recordkeeping
 requirements do not appear warranted.
     Response:  Although most of these  sources do monitor at least once a day
 for visible emissions  and inspect  baghouses  frequently,  EPA's enforcement
 experience has  shown that some do  not  operate and maintain  their equipment   '
 (including monitoring  and inspections)  to  ensure the  high degree of collection
 efficiency that  is possible.   Therefore, these  requirements  are  necessary for
 those  sources.  Where  these  practices are  already  in  place,  any  incurred  costs
 will be minimal.   For  the few sources that do not  already monitor and  inspect
 and keep records for their collection devices, there will be an  estimated
 annual cost per control device of $489 for daily visible  emission monitoring
 and $2,283 for weekly  inspections.   Total recordkeeping and reporting costs
 including costs associated with waste tracking will be an estimated $1.4
million/yr.
                                      5-1

-------
 5.2  APPLICABILITY
     Comment:   Commenter 54 wants the provision  deleted  that  currently  exempts
 from the fabricating requirements "operations that  primarily install asbestos
 friction materials on motor vehicles."
     Response:   The EPA based its exemption  of operations.that primarily
 install  asbestos-friction  materials  (i.e.,  brakes)  on motor  vehicles on
 findings that  indicate that these operations do not cause an atmospheric
 emission problem.1  In addition,  OSHA no  longer permits brakes to be blown out
 (unless  enclosed),  but requires  the  use of  wet rags or  vacuum cleaners
 equipped with  HEPA filters.   These requirements will further reduce emissions.
     Most brake replacements are  done using  brakes that  are prefabricated so
 that any machining is kept to a  minimum.  Small garages and  service stations
 that install brakes  typically do not fabricate brakes,  due in part to the high
 capital  and labor  cost involved  in brake  fabrication, and are not considered a
 problem.
 5.3   VISIBLE EMISSION MONITORING
     Comment:   The  following  comments  were received  on the subject of visible
 emissions monitoring.
     1.   Three  commenters,  17, 18,  and 54, were critical of the 15-second
monitoring requirement, claiming  that 15 seconds is inadequate.   They suggest
that visible emissions should be  monitored more frequently,  e.g., on an hourly
basis or 1 percent of  the operating time.  The lack of visible emissions,
according to commenter 54,  is no guarantee of a properly operating control
system.
    2.  Commenter 53 claims that the use of visible emissions monitoring is  a
subjective,  nonspecific, and insensitive method  to evaluate  exposures  to
                                      5-2

-------
  submicron asbestos fibers,  and states that the National  Institute for
  Occupational  Safety and Health (NIOSH)  suggests that direct-reading
  instruments  are objective and  quantifiable methods  for monitoring emissions.
  Commenter 93  suggests  that  EPA should consider permitting  use of  "broken.bag
  detectors" in  conjunction with the operation of baghouses.
     3.  According  to commenter 88, daily monitoring  and recordkeeping for
  visible emissions  is burdensome without any significant environmental benefit.
     4.  Commenter  12 claims that additional information is required to
  facilitate enforcement of the  visible emission standard for milling,
 manufacturing, and fabricating.  They ask what method is  to be used, Method 22
 or 9?  They explain that Method 22 permits the use of an  uncertified reader
 without using opacity,  but would allow a high bias in observation, while
 Method 9 uses opacity,  requires a certified reader,  and eliminates bias  by
 specifying reader location.
     5.  Commenter 22 notes that Section  61.144(b)(3)  and  elsewhere refers to
 "asbestos  emissions," a term that is  not defined. Should  it  be  visible
 emissions?
     6.  Commenter 18 argues  that ambient air monitoring should be  required
 because  visible emissions  cannot: be monitored at  night.
     Response:   1.   The  EPA believes that daily,  15-second monitoring of each
 control device  for  visible emissions and weekly inspection of each control
 device is  sufficient to detect  malfunctions.  In  addition, longer monitoring
 times  would be  costly and result in a small, undetermined  benefit.   For
 example, visible emission monitoring for 6 minutes is estimated to  cost an
additional  $840,000/yr.   A source can  choose to monitor for longer  than the 15
seconds if their control system  warrants  a  longer observation  period.  For
                                      5-3
w J

-------
 baghouses where  a  visible  emission might only occur when the malfunctioning
 section of  the baghouse goes  through a cleaning  cycle,  it would be in the
 owner/operator's best  interest to monitor for more than 15 seconds in order to
 avoid being found  in violation during an inspection.  In addition, the weekly
 control device inspection  would discover any malfunctions so that, in most
 cases, a control device is unlikely to be malfunctioning for more than 1 week.
    The EPA has  measured emissions from a baghouse at a plant manufacturing
 asbestos-concrete  products (RTI/432U-2874-5).  The study measured the
 micrograms  of asbestos per cubic meter of gas exiting the baghouse.  Normal
 ambient levels of  asbestos are in the nanogram per cubic meter range.
 Although various means of  monitoring these emissions may be more effective
 than visible emission monitoring, they need to be tested and their utility
 determined.
    2.  Visible  emissions  are usually an indication of a problem.  Even when
 visible emissions  are not  observed, asbestos is still being emitted.  This
 type of monitoring is easily accomplished and serves to detect significant
 emissions.  Weekly inspection of control  devices will identify many problems
 before visible emissions occur or when,  due to low inlet gram loadings,
 visible emissions  are unlikely.
    A number of the comments suggested that the Auburn Triboflow particulate
 detector or the GCA fibrous aerosol monitor should be required in order to
 alert owners/operators of  fabric filter leaks sooner and/or more effectively
 than reliance on visible emission observations.   The Auburn Triboflow
 particulate detector does  seem to have some potential  for particulate
monitoring applications in which the particle size distribution  and mass
 emission rate do not fluctuate significantly.   Similarly,  the GCA fibrous
                                      5-4

-------
 aerosol monitor does seem to have some potential for applications in which the
 nonfibrous materials are not a significant portion of the emission stream and
 the rates do not overwhelm the monitor.  Thus, both of these devices may be
 useful.  However, neither of these devices has been evaluated for asbestos
 emission monitoring applications, and no performance specifications have been
 developed.  Thus, EPA does not recommend that either be required by the
 asbestos NESHAP at this time.  These and similar devices will have to be
 evaluated as part of a research and development and quality assurance project
 before they can be recommended for inclusion  in the NESHAP.  •
     3.  Most milling,  manufacturing,  and fabricating operations  already
 monitor daily for visible emissions and many  maintain records of this
 activity.   For those that will,  for the first time,  begin  keeping records  of
 these  activities,  cost  will  be  small,  about $2,000/yr per  plant  for developing
 a  record system ($13,100/430 plants)  and  recording  the  information
 ($838,000/430 plants),  based on  an  asbestos industry  average  of  2.5  control
 devices  per plant.   The EPA  agrees  that the benefit of  these  measures may  not
 be great overall  given  that  many  plants already perform monitoring and
 recordkeeping.  However,  for plants that do not already perform daily visible
 emissions monitoring, these  requirements will  help to ensure  operation of
 control  devices at their  highest  efficiency with reduction in emissions
 proportional  to the  improvement in control device efficiency.
    4.   The  EPA believes  that a no visible emission requirement is more
 stringent than either an opacity  requirement or a requirement that limits the
duration of a visible emission.  With the asbestos NESHAP requirement, there
is, or there is not a visible emission.  There is no requirement  for, nor is
there a need for,  a certification requirement  to determine if a visible
emission is occurring.

                                      5-5                   •

-------
     5.   "Asbestos  emissions"  is  the  current  term.   The  EPA believes  that  this
 term, which  refers to  an  emission  containing asbestos,  is  commonly understood
 and  does  not need  to be defined.
     6.    Most plants that operate  at night also operate during  daylight hours.
 Because the  rule requires visible  emission monitoring during daylight  hours,
 visible emissions  that occur  at  night are likely to also occur  during  the day
 when they would be observed.   In addition, the required weekly  inspection is
 likely to identify any problem with  the control device.
 5.4  WEEKLY  INSPECTIONS                         "   .
     Comment:   1.   Commenters.17 and  29 support the weekly  inspection of
 control equipment  and  the submittal  of associated records,  stating that self-
 monitoring is  inexpensive and  will help ensure continued compliance.
     2.  Commenter  28 argues that EPA should  consider the cost of enforcing
 these requirements; specifically,  EPA  should withhold these requirements  until
 they determine the  cost-to-benefit ratio.
     Response:  1.   No  response is necessary.
     2.  Examination of records to be maintained by the affected sources will
 occur incidentally  as  part of periodic inspections of sources,  which are  a
 part of an enforcement agency's overall compliance and enforcement program.
 The  EPA believes that  the time required to determine that a source is
maintaining records and to examine the records will not be overly burdensome.
 5.5  COMPLIANCE OPTIONS
    Comment:  The following comments were received on the compliance options
available to milling,  manufacturing,  and fabricating.
    1.   Commenter 12 queries that,  where a source elects to use methods
specified in Section 61.152 to clean emissions rather than comply with the no
                                      5-6

-------
 visible emission  standard, what visible emission standard applies?  Would
 general, State visible emission standards be applicable when the source
 complies with the equipment specifications?
     2.  Commenter 84 supports Section 61.147(b)(l) which regulates emissions
 even though they may be emitted to the air inside structures or buildings.
     3.  Two commenters, 70 and 84, state that sources processing asbestos
 should have no visible emissions and comply with control  equipment
 specifications.
     Response:  1.  When a source complies with the equipment specifications of
 Section 61.152, the visible emission limit does not apply.   Any State  limits
 on visible emissions would still  be applicable.
     2.   Section 61.147(b)(l)  restricts  visible emissions  to  the outside air
 from operations inside  buildings  or from  the  building.  If the  emission is
 visible inside the building,  but  not visible  in the  outside  air,  it  is  not  a
 violation.
     3.   To  require compliance with  the visible  emission provision and the
 equipment specifications of Section  61.152 would bean increase in the
 stringency  of  the  regulation and therefore subject to the rulings in the
 "vinyl  chloride case" (NRDC v. EPA, 824 F. 2d 1146 [D.C. Cir. 1987]), which
 requires a  two-step process in regulating hazardous air pollutants.  These
 revisions make changes that do not affect stringency but clarify the rule,
promote compliance, and aid in its enforcement.  These revisions were
determined by EPA not to be subject to the requirements of the vinyl  chloride
case.  The need for revisions that affect  stringency may be addressed at a
later date.
                                      5-7

-------
5.6  MONITORING REPORTS
    Comment:  One comment on reporting and recordkeeping was received.
Commenter 17 favors monthly instead of quarterly reports.
    Response:  Because these reports are all received after the fact, their
purpose is to alert EPA to potential problem sources that can be corrected.
Because visible emissions from milling, manufacturing,'and fabricating occur
infrequently, monthly reports would offer no real advantage over quarterly
            •%                                                               *
reports.
5.7  REFERENCE
1.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Background Information on National
    Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants—Proposed Amendments to
    Standards for Asbestos and Mercury.  Office of Air Quality Planning and
    Standards.  Research Triangle Park, NC.  Publication No. EPA 450/2-74-
    009a.  October 1974.  140 p.
                                     5-8

-------
                                   6.0   ROADWAYS
 6.1  USE OF TAILINGS
     Comment:  1.  According to commenter'2, the discussion on p. 921 of the
 Federal Register on the use of tailings on roadways Is not clear.
     2.  Commenter 2 also believes that the standard for roadways should
 explicitly permit the use of asbestos tailings encapsulated in asphalt, as
 well as in other uses.  Commenter 54 states that Section 61.143 should include
 a provision ensuring that tailings are encapsulated before.they are used in
 roadway construction.
     Response:   1.   The discussion of tailings on p. 921 of the proposal
 preamble was an  explanation of the requirements  of Section 61.143,  Standard
 for Roadways.  This  section allows unbound (not  encapsulated)  asbestos  tailing
 to be  used  to  construct or maintain  a  temporary  roadway at an  asbestos  mine.
 If encapsulated  in a resinous  or  bituminous binder,  asbestos tailings can  be
 used to construct or maintain  a temporary  road at  the  site of  an  asbestos
 mill, usually  located  in close proximity to the  asbestos mine.  Asbestos
 tailings can also be used  in any  road  construction,  as  long as they are
 encapsulated in  asphalt concrete  meeting Federal Highway Administration
 construction specifications.
    2.  The EPA believes that Section 61.143 is clear in its requirement that,
when asbestos tailings are used in roadways, other than those at asbestos mine
sites,  the tailings must be encapsulated prior to being placed in the roadway.
Although EPA is confident that the limited  uses specified in Section 61.143
for tailings are  possible without  significant  emissions, it not as confident
                                      6-1

-------
 that  other uses,  suggested  by commenter 2,  are  advisable  without more
 information on  their fiber  release potential.
 6.2   USE OF ALL ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIAL
    Comment:  Commenter 20  argues  that,  because commercial asbestos  is allowed
                                                                             HI
 in asphalt concrete  (Section  61.144(a)(11))  as  are asbestos tailings, any
 asbestos-containing  material  should be  allowed  to be used in the manufacturing
 of asphalt concrete.
    Response:   In general,  EPA prefers  that  no  asbestos waste be used in road
 construction.   However,  asbestos tailings have  special characteristics that
 make  them suitable for  road construction, including their aggregate
 characteristics and  low asbestos content after  milling.  Furthermore, their
 use is permitted only in asphalt concrete meeting Federal Highway
 Administration  specifications.  It  is unlikely  that asphalt concrete to which
 asbestos-containing material, other than tailings or commercial asbestos, has
 been  added would meet these specifications.
 6.3   CONTAMINATED STONE
    Comment:  Commenter 55 asks that stone contaminated with asbestos be
 addressed  in Section 61.143.
    Response:  The EPA  has investigated the problem of using asbestos-
 contaminated crushed stone on unpaved roads.  Due to its limited geographic
distribution, EPA concluded that the use of asbestos-contaminated crushed
stone on roads could best be dealt with by local authorities rather than
through national regulations.
                                      6-2

-------
                         7.0  DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION
 7.1  APPLICABILITY
 7.1.1  Asbestos-Containing Material
     Comment:  Numerous comments were received on the definition of "asbestos-
 containing material" (ACM), especially as it affected applicability of the
 rules on demolition and renovation to nonfriable asbestos-containing
 materials.  By far, most of the commenters (42,  47,  69,  72,  86, 89, 93, 95,
 and 100)  are concerned that EPA is expanding the coverage of the NESHAP to
 include materials that,  previously,  EPA had  expressly omitted from regulation
 under the NESHAP.  Commenter 95,  for example,  states  that, without guidance or
 exemptions stated in the  rule,  the extension of  the regulation  to  nonfriable
 materials represents a  risk-based  decision.  According to commenter 72,  such
 an  extension  would  be contrary  to  the Administrator's 1974 determination that
 nonfriable materials did not  represent  a threat  to the public health.
 Commenter 69  points  out that  an increased number of facilities would be
 covered,  including  those where no  friable asbestos is present.  Commenters 42
 and 62 state  that the term  "potentially" in the definition of ACM expanded
 coverage  to nonfriafale materials and should be deleted.  Commenter 30 states
 that, although this  may be a positive change in some cases,  covering
 potentially friable material could be overly restrictive and  increase costs
 significantly where material such  as A/C siding had to be removed prior to
demolition.  Commenters  47,  89,  93, and  95 explain  that  use of the  term
                                      7-1

-------
 "broken"  to describe  materials  that are  subject  to  the  rule  is  inconsistent
 with  the  current  NESHAP and expands coverage  of  the NESHAP.   These  commenters
 state that  merely breaking  nonfriable  material does not equate  to fiber
 release.  One  commenter,  89,  notes  that  noncompliance may  increase  where
 nonfriable.  material is  broken during demolition  or  renovation,  but  is  not
 controlled  or  reported  according  to the  NESHAP.
    Several  comments  were received  that  support  the regulation  of nonfriable
 materials.   Commenters  2, 26, 57, 83,  and  85  argue  that all  nonfriable
 material  could be broken  or crumbled and friable and should  be  regulated.
'Commenter 84 explains that  certain  nonfriable materials, e.g.,  asbestos
 flooring, packings, and gaskets,  should  be regulated to protect building
 occupants.   Commenter 53  cites  a  study that showed  that emissions from the
 removal 'of  roof shingles  exceeded the  NIOSH-recommended exposure level and
 OSHA's  PEL.  Citing the need  to be  notified of all  demolitions, commenter 55
 states  that  the exemption of  nonfriable  materials from  the notification
 requirements should be  deleted.  While supporting the expansion of  coverage to
 nonfriable material,  commenter 55 notes  that  building owners would  need to be
made  aware of  this new  requirement.
    Several  commenters  argue that the  rule should be modified to clarify that
certain products  are  nonfriable and, therefore,  not  regulated.  A/C products,
including transite and  exterior shingles,  should be  included among nonfriable
products according to commenters 49, 72,  and 93.   Asbestos-containing flooring
products,  such as tile  and sheet vinyl  flooring,  are considered by several
commenters (15, 47, 48,  55,  84,  and 95) to always be nonfriable and  exempt
from the rule,  with the exception of flooring that was  being sanded  (47,  48).
Commenters 47 and 95 also note that the phrase "resilient floor covering"
                                      7-2

-------
  should  be  used  throughout  the  rule  because  It  Includes  both  tile  and  sheet
  vinyl flooring.   Another commenter, 48,  in  reference  to asbestos  roofing
  products,  argues  that there  is no basis  in  the record for saying  that severely
  weathered  asphaltic material could become brittle.  Also, commenter 28
  suggests that EPA change "asphalt roofing"  to "bituminous resinous roofing
  systems."  One commenter,  16, states that the proposed  inclusion of nonfriable
  asbestos in the regulation might create economic and practical problems as it
  relates to the demolition of buildings containing hard placate, ceiling and
 wall material; they suggest allowing demolition of the building provided that
 these materials are thoroughly wetted during the demolition.   Commenters 21,
 31, 48,  49,'and 93 recommend that the rule be clarified  to exempt all
 nonfriable materials as  the rule  is  currently understood.   Commenter 93  argue
 that in  present day ACM  the asbestos fibers  are locked in  cement or bituminous
 or resinous binders and  that the  materials can  be removed  and disposed of
 without  any significant  release to the  environment.  According to  commenter
 93-,  the  proposed conditional  language makes  determining  applicability  to ACM
 more difficult.
     The  EPA proposed to  exclude from the  rules certain nonfriable  materials
 "in  good condition."  Commenters  28, 48,  59, 81,  and 92  express  a  need for EPA
 to clarify  the meaning of "in good condition."  Commenter 93 notes that  the
 qualifier "in good condition" was not in the EPA's 1974 determination on the
 nonfriable  issue.  Commenter 95 argues that the exclusion from reporting floor
 covering in notifications for renovations, Section 61.145(a)(5), should also
 apply to demolitions.  Commenter 21  expresses support for establishing three
categories  of ACM, i.e.,  friable,  nonfriable but having the potential  to
release asbestos, and .nonfriable material  that cannot become friable or
                                      7-3

-------
 release fibers.   According to commenters 26 and 88,  the  definition  should
 specify an  asbestos  content limit.
     Two comments  were received on  this  definition  that are  editorial  in
 nature.   Commenter 29 suggests deleting this  definition  and covering  the
 "potentially  friable" aspect in the  definition  of  "friable  asbestos material."
 Commenter 26  suggests modifying, the  definition  of  ACM by deleting the part
 describing  nonfriable material  that  potentially can  be broken, etc.,  and
 adding  it to  the  definition of "friable asbestos material"  with revisions that
 would make  nonfriable material  subject  to the rules  only if the nonfriable
 material  became friable,  i.e.,  crumbled, etc.,  by  hand pressure.  In  addition,
 commenter 26  would add an  asbestos content  limit to  the  definition of ACM.
 Without  these modifications,  the term "potential"  makes  the rule more
 restrictive because  nonfriable  material  with the potential  to become  friable
 is covered,  regardless  of whether the material will become friable or  not.
     Response:  In  1973 when  the asbestos NESHAP  rules were  first promulgated
 for  the  demolition of  buildings, EPA wanted to  distinguish  between materials
 that would  readily release  asbestos  fibers when damaged  or  disturbed and those
 materials that were  unlikely  to result  in the release of significant amounts
 of asbestos fibers.  To accomplish this, EPA labeled as  "friable" those
 materials that were  likely  to readily release fibers.  Friable materials, when
 dry, could easily be crushed  using hand pressure.  Later, EPA realized that,
 in some  instances, nonfriable materials that were subjected to intense forces,
 such as the intense mechanical  forces encountered during demolition, could be
crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder.   In these instances,  certain
nonfriable materials  appeared capable of releasing to the atmosphere
significant amounts of asbestos fibers.   Examples of practices that  were
                                      7-4

-------
 observed by  EPA to reduce nonfriable asbestos material to dust capable of
 becoming airborne included the breaking of nonfriable asbestos/cement (A/C)
 panels with  a demolition ball arid removal of nonfriable insulation from steel
 beams by repeatedly running over the beams with a crawler tractor.  In view of
 the damage done to these otherwise nonfriable materials and the resulting
 increased potential  for fiber release,  these and other similar practices
 involving nonfriable asbestos material  were considered to render nonfriable
 ACM into dust capable of becoming airborne.
     As a result,  EPA issued  a policy determination in 1985  regarding, the
 removal  of nonfriable asbestos material  that  was consistent  with  EPA's  intent
 to distinguish  between material  that could release significant .amounts of
 asbestos  fibers during demolition and renovation operations.  This  policy
 determination stated  in essence  that friable  material  and nonfriable material
 that become  (or are  likely to  become) crumbled,  pulverized, or reduced to
 powder are covered.   Specifically, the determination  states that
     "...even  though the regulations  address only material that is
     ?r?Si  V^abl-'  "''V065 not 11m1t 1tself  to mate^ that  is
     friable at the time of notification.   Rather,  if at any point during
     the renovation or  demolition, additional  friable asbestos mater?!P
     is...created from  nonfriable  forms, then  this additional friable
     material  becomes subject to the  regulations  from the time of
     creation...
 The  issuance  of this determination did not alter the intent of the NESHAP, but
 was  consistent with the  intent of the standard that was written to prevent
 significant emissions of asbestos fibers.  The intent of the policy
 determination was to apply narrowly to specific instances where otherwise
 nonfriable materials would be damaged during demolition or renovation to  the
extent that significant amounts of asbestos fibers would be  released to  the
atmosphere.   A statement in  the determination  to  the effect  that  some
                                      7-5

-------
 nonfriable materials may remain nonfriable throughout  demolition  and
 renovation is evidence that this determination  was  intended  to  be narrowly
 interpreted and not used to require  removal  of  all  nonfriable materials.  For
 example,  materials  such as  resilient floor covering, asphalt roofing  products,
 packings,  and gaskets would rarely,  if  ever,  need to be  removed because, even
 when  broken or-damaged,  they would not  release  significant amounts of asbestos
 fibers.   But,  just  as -it is important to  recognize  that  some nonfriable
 materials  do not  have to be removed  prior to  demolition, it is also important
 to  recognize that some nonfriable materials  should  be  removed prior to
 demolition  if,  as a result  of the forces  of demolition,  nonfriable material  is
 likely to  become  crumbled,  pulverized,  or reduced to powder.  For example,  the
 A/C siding  on  a building that is to be  demolished using  a wrecking ball  is
 very  likely to  be crumbled  or pulverized  with increased  potential  for the
 release of  significant  levels of asbestos  fibers.  Such material in this
 instance should be  removed  prior to demolition.
    Since this  policy  determination was made, there has been confusion in its
 application.  As  a  result,  contractors operating in more than one  enforcement
 jurisdiction have encountered different interpretations for similar demolition
 operations.  For  example, there have been instances in  which contractors are
 required, prior to demolition, to remove floor tile .in  one  enforcement
jurisdiction but  not in  another.  Contractors and/or building owners  and
operators are unsure as  to what materials must be removed and what materials
can be left in and are often hesitant to proceed without a  ruling  from EPA,
which can involve significant delays.
    As a consequence, EPA received a  number of requests from State and
regional  enforcement agencies to clarify what is required under  the NESHAP in
                                      7-6

-------
 dealing with nonfriable materials since the  1985 policy determination was
 issued.  In response to these requests, a clarification of the nonfriable
 issue was included in the revisions proposed on January 10, 1989.  These
 revisions are intended to clarify the intent of the original rule.  Basically,
 EPA stated in the January 10, 1989, Federal Register notice, that certain
 nonfriable materials, such as floor tile, roofing products, and packings and
 gaskets that are in good condition,  can be left in buildings being demolished
 because fiber release from these materials,  even if the materials are damaged,
 is relatively small compared to the fiber release from friable materials.
 Other nonfriable products such as A/C products have a greater potential  to
 release asbestos fibers  when heavily damaged and may have  to be removed  prior
 to demolition.           •         '
     In  response  to  the revisions proposed  on January 10, 1989,  numerous
 comments were submitted  to  EPA.   Most  of the commenters argue  that  EPA was
 attempting to regulate nonfriable materials,  which  were explicitly  exempted  in
 previous asbestos NESHAP  rulemakings.  Many  comments stated that the proposed
 revisions did not help to clarify EPA's position on nonfriable material and
 may have made matters worse.
    In responding to the comments, a literature survey was conducted to
 determine if it was possible to quantify the fiber release potential of
 nonfriable materials when the materials are damaged during demolition.  A
 limited amount of data was found for certain nonfriable materials, including
 floor tile,  roofing products, gaskets, packings, and A/C products.  In some
 instances,  the fiber release data were measured during actual  removal
operations,  while other data were trom simulated removal  activities  in
laboratory  settings.  For the materials evaluated,  the potential  for fiber
                                      7-7

-------
 release  appeared  minimal  and  substantially  lower  than  for  friable materials..
 These  findings  in fact  support  EPA's  original  argument that  there is  a basis
 for making  a  distinction  between  materials  that readily  release  fibers and
 those  that  do not.
    As a result of the  comments received on this  issue and the additional
 information gathered  in response  to comments,  EPA has  listed nonfriable ACM
 that does not have to be  removed  prior  to demolition operations  if the
 nonfriable  ACM  are not  in poor  condition.   These  nonfriable  asbestos  materials
 have been classified  as "Category I nonfriable ACM" for  which a  definition was
 added  and are defined as  resilient floor covering, asphalt roofing materials,
 packings, and gaskets.  Resilient floor covering  and asphalt roofing  materials
 are further defined to  specify'the products that  are covered.  The remaining
 nonfria-ble  materials  have been  classified as "Category II  nonfriable  ACM," for
 which  a  definition  was  added.   The need to  remove  Category II nonfriable ACM
 such as  A/C materials,  will continue  to be  evaluated on  a  case-by-case basis.
 For nonfriable  materials  such as  A/C  materials, which  are  likely to result in
 significant fiber release if not  removed prior to  demolition, alternate
 removal  techniques  will be permitted, as long as the material does not become
 crumbled, pulverized, or  reduced  to powder.  For example,  if A/C siding can be
 removed  without seriously damaging the material, wetting the material  would
 not be required.   If  at anytime any of the Category II nonfriable ACM is so
 severely damaged 'that it  is likely to result in significant asbestos
 emissions,  it must  be treated as  friable asbestos-containing material.  The
 EPA considers the deliberate sanding,  grinding, or abrading of all  nonfriable
materials,  including  resilient floor covering,  asphalt roofing material,
packings, and gaskets to  be equivalent to  disturbing friable ACM and,
                                      7-8

-------
 therefore, requires that these activities be controlled according to the
 NESHAP.  Normally, these are activities that are associated with renovation as
 opposed to demolition.  The EPA considers this revision to be consistent with
 its original  policy regarding nonfriable asbestos material and its 1985
 determination regarding nonfriable materials that become so extensively
 damaged that  significant amounts of asbestos fibers may be released.
     The EPA has made two additional changes to clarify the rule's intent
 regarding nonfriable materials.   The EPA has revised the rule to make it clear
 that,  when a  building is burned  intentionally,  all  asbestos-containing
 material  must be removed prior to the burning.   This xovers those situations
 where,  for example,  a fire  department plans to  burn a  building or allow it to
 be burned.  Also,  in the definitions of "asbestos-containing material,"
 "asbestos-containing waste  material," "friable  asbestos  material,"  and
 elsewhere,  the word  "broken"  was  deleted.   Most nonfriable materials  can be
 broken  without releasing significant quantities of  airborne asbestos  fibers.
 It is only  when  the  material  is  extensively damaged, that  is,  crumbled,
 pulverized, or reduced  to powder,  that  the  potential for significant  fiber
 release is  greatly increased.  After considering this  issue  further,  EPA
 agrees with commenters  that retaining the word  "broken"  could be  interpreted
 as  substantially increasing the scope of the standard and, therefore, has
 omitted it.  The EPA is planning to  issue additional information  in the  future
 on  this and other aspects of the-NESHAP to both enforcement officials and the
 regulated community to help in the consistent interpretation and application
 of  the NESHAP provisions.
 7.1.2  Coverage Expanded to  "DistnrhPd" Material
    Comment:  Several comments were concerned with  revisions to Section
61.145(a)(4) and (c)(l)  where  the rule refers to asbestos material that is or

                                      7-9

-------
 would be disturbed by demolition or renovation.   Commenter 84  asks  if the
 phrase "or otherwise disturb"  in Section  61.145(a)(4)  expanded the
 applicability of this standard.   Commenter 86  states that  use  of  the  undefined
 term "disturb" and the broad definition of "renovation"  raises the  concern
 that many typical  activities in  the normal  operation of  a  building  that have
 not  been subject to the NESHAP would now  fall  under the  NESHAP.   Commenters 49
 and  50 argue  that  the revisions  make substantive  changes,  particularly the
 requirement to remove asbestos anytime it  will be disturbed, and  that these
 are  subject to the vinyl  chloride  case.  The EPA  should  define "otherwise
 disturbed"  in Section 61.145(a) (4)  in order to avoid jurisdiction!
 difficulties  in applying  such  a  broad standard, and clarify "disturb" or
 replace with  "break up"  in  Section  61.145(c)(1).
     Commenter 60 asks if  EPA is  advocating  removal of ACM  upon  any  disturbance
 of the material,  contradicting EPA's previous position regarding  the potential
 for  increased exposure due  to  unnecessary  or nonessential  removals.  Commenter
 85 asks for clarification on how "disturbed" is to be interpreted.  For
 example,  would installing anchors  for a new suspended ceiling  in  a  1,000
 square foot roof deck covered  with  ACM constitute disturbing all  1,000 square
 feet,  or should the  actual  amount  scrubbed  off under each  anchor  be added up
 to see if it  totals  at  least 160 square feet?
     Commenter 57 supports the  proposed requirement that asbestos  be removed
 before  it is  disturbed by demolition or renovation.
     Response:   As  used in Section 61.145(a)(4), the phrase "or otherwise
disturb" was  not intended to expand the applicability of the rule; rather,  EPA
 intended  it as  a clarification  only, believing  it to more closely describe  the
original intent of the rule.  Upon further consideration, EPA  agrees with the
                                     7-10

-------
 commenter's concerns over misinterpreting the term "disturbed" and has
 modified the regulation to clarify the degree of disturbance that would result
 In significant fiber release and, therefore, be covered by the NESHAP
. provisions.  In the example cited, 1f the actual area scrubbed off (disturbed)
 to Install anchors for a celling 1s 160 square feet or more, then the activity
 1s subject to the notification and work practice requirements.  In the process
 of Installing the anchors, 1f other parts of the celling are damaged such that
 asbestos would be released, then the area of the damaged celling would have to
 be included 1n determining 1f the NESHAP applies.
     One additional change was made to paragraph (a)(4) to clarify at what
 point 1n a renovation the regulation applies.  The Agency has always Intended
 the asbestos NESHAP to apply from the beginning of the operation,  to all
 renovations which Involve at least the Jur1sd1ct1onal  amount, and consequently
 to impose on the regulated community an obligation to  determine the amount of
 asbestos which will  be stripped or removed and whether the NESHAP applies,
 before commencing a renovation operation.   The regulations are being revised
 to clarify their Intent 1n order to address  a recent court case decision  which
 interpreted the former Section 61.145(d).   U.S.  v.  Fiber Free Co..  et al., NO.
 A:89-0642 (S.D.W.V.  July 31,  1990).   The  revision  states that the  NESHAP
 applies to  renovations  if the amount  of asbestos "to be" stripped  or  removed
 exceeds the jurlsdictional  amount,  thereby clarifying  that the  determination
 of NESHAP applicability is  to be  made  before  the renovation  operation  begins.
 This  change makes  it clear, for example, that  the  first  159  square  feet of
 asbestos  stripped  or removed  1n a renovation  is subject  to the  NESHAP  where
 the amount  of asbestos  ultimately affected exceeds the threshold.
 7.1.3   No Asbestos
    Comment:  Most of the comments (15, 24, 27, 36, 37, 41, 43, 49, 51, 58,
63, 64, 69, 73, 74, 81, 88, 92, and 99) on the revision of Section
                                     7-11   7-11    7-11   -7-11   -'/"ii    7-1V

-------
61.145(a)(2), whereby the  applicability of the demolition and renovation rules
to demolitions where no  asbestos  is present  is clarified, were  unaware that
this  is already  required.  They consider  it  a new provision and express their
reservations about this  provision.  While agreeing with the rationale to
require notification for demolitions even.when no asbestos is present, many of
the commenters express concern that this  rule will dilute the effectiveness of
the NESHAP program.  Most  of the  commenters  argue that the provision is
unnecessary, unworkable, and beyond the intent of Section 112.  They note
that, because EPA is already concerned that  demolition projects involving
asbestos are occurring without notification, adding reporting requirements for
projects having no asbestos will  add to EPA1s burden and detract from
enforcement of known asbestos activities.  This will unnecessarily delay many
demolitions.  These commenters state that EPA  should require notification for
demolition only if the amount of  asbestos is above a certain threshold,  and
not when no asbestos is present.  Commenter  52 believes that this requirement
makes the 308,000 person-hours burden for recordkeeping and reporting an
underestimate.  One commenter, 70, suggests  that owners/operators keep records
for 5 years of structures demolished where no asbestos is present.  According
to commenter 73,  EPA is exceeding its statutory authority to regulate
operations that are not a stationary source  according 40 CFR 61.02.  This
commenter also cites case law, U.S. v.  Ben's Truck and Equipment Inc.,  (DC E.
Cal,  1986) 25 ERC 1295,  which holds that a demolition must involve asbestos
for a threshold requirement to apply.
    Commenter 84 supports adding explicit wording to Section 61.145(a)(2)  that
this  requirement applies even if no asbestos is known to be present;  a
specific provision for a negative declaration is  recommended.   Commenter 92
                                     7-12

-------
  also  suggests  that,  Instead of notification  when  no  asbestos  is  present,
'  notification be  required  when  asbestos  is  discovered in  the course  of
  demolition.
     Several commenters  (17,  29, and  30) support retention of  the notification
  where no asbestos  is  involved  because it helps to monitor demolition activity
  and allows confirmation that no asbestos is  present.
     Commenter  28 states that this was a rule change  requested by enforcing
  agencies.
     Response:  Demolitions are final events,  and buildings are usually
 demolished quickly.  The EPA and delegated States do not have the resources
 necessary to inspect every building to be demolished prior to demolition;
 therefore,  the implementing agency prioritizes its inspections,  concentrating
 its enforcement resources on the sites that are likely to result in
 significant emissions to the air if improperly demolished,  as  well as  on those
 contractors who have not demonstrated a  continuous compliance  program.
     In order to ensure that the building owner or  demolition contractor has
 accurately  evaluated and analyzed  the site  for the presence of asbestos, it  is
 necessary that  the  implementing agency be notified prior  to the onset of the
 demolition.  The  EPA has  repeatedly discovered, after the demolition, that
•asbestos was present  in  spite of building owners'  and  contractors' claims to
 the contrary.
    There is a  strong  economic  incentive for building owners and also for
contractors to  claim  less than  the quantity cutoff levels.  Therefore,  if
there is more than the quantity size cutoff level  of friable asbestos material
in the building, there is likely to be significant emission of asbestos from
the demolition.   The EPA wants to be able to inspect these buildings  to the
                                     7-13

-------
 extent  possible  to  prevent  this  from  becoming  a  significant  loophole  in  the
                                  r
 rule.
    A similar incentive  to  underreport  (and to not.  inspect)  would also exist
 if  there were no reporting  requirements  for facilities with  no asbestos.  As
 such, the  purpose of  the requirement  to  report even when no  asbestos  is  found
 is  not  to  identify  the facilities with no asbestos; rather,  it is to  ensure
 that facilities  are inspected for asbestos and that removal  is performed
 consistent with  the standard.
    A failure to notify,  as required  by  the rule, is a violation, and EPA will
 vigorously enforce  these requirements.   The asbestos NESHAP  requires  that each
 building be  inspected prior to demolition.  The  notification that is  required
 if  a building contains less than the  quantity  cutoff level is not extensive,
 and the cost  is  low compared to the cost of inspecting the building for
 asbestos;  therefore,  we  believe that  this notification requirement is
 reasonable.
  *                         *
 7.1.4   Applicability  Threshold—Volume Equivalent
    Comment:   1.  Commenter-13 asks how 1 cubic meter can be measured when it
 is of.f  a facility component; an estimate of bagged asbestos is inappropriate,
 and a landfill receipt might not work either.
    2.  Commenter 30 observes that the 35 cubic feet is based on 160 square
 feet and a 3  inch thickness; however,  asbestos material is often thinner, so
 the volume should be lowered to 0.25 or 0.5 cubic meter.   Commenters 17 and
 57,  while supporting the volume equivalent,  expressed concern that the current
 160 square feet and 260 feet should be decreased  (similar to the Asbestos
Hazard  Emergency Response Act [AHERA]  trigger  levels)  in  order to reduce
public  health threats  caused by improper removal  of these amounts or less.
                                     7-14

-------
      3.   Commenters  15,  17, 26, and 29 believe that the volume equivalent
 should be helpful.
      4.   Commenters  42,  49, 59, and 62 note that, in some instances, the 35
 cubic feet is a much smaller quantity than either of the present criteria and
 appears  to increase stringency.  Commenter 42 gives the example of a 260 foot
 long pipe with a 6  inch diameter and 2.5 inches of asbestos insulation that
 would just meet the current linear threshold, although with a volume of 120
 cubic feet it would far exceed the volume threshold.   While meeting the
 current criteria,  under the new,  more stringent threshold,  this  amount would
 be subject to the regulation.   As a result of asbestos-contaminated clothing
 and equipment and variations  in the amount of wetting,  commenters  42,  43,  49,
 and 62 explain that the in-place  volume  and the  volume  of stripped and bagged
 material  will  be different.   These commenters argue that,  if a volume  is
 specified,  it should be increased.   Commenters 50 and 58  feel the  volume  -
 requirement  is confusing and  unnecessary.   Commenter 49 explains that  the
 volume of in-place  material may be  difficult  to  determine accurately without
 damaging  the  asbestos.
                             j~*
     If the reason for the volume measurement  is  for use in enforcement cases
 (54  FR 915), commenter  73 suggests  increased  enforcement efforts rather than
 additional reporting burdens for complying facilities.  Commenter 73 also
 recommends that, if  EPA does add a volume amount, a facility should have a
 choice of estimating either length, area, or volume.
    5.  Commenter 83 expresses a need for a threshold  limit that  would
accumulate the current linear and  area thresholds in order to cover projects
where, for example,  150 square feet and 250 linear feet  of asbestos are
involved;  as  currently written,  such a project would be  exempt.
                                     7-15

-------
     6.   Commenter  94  suggests  that  EPA consider using  "units"; one unit, which
 is 260 feet, or  160 square  feet, or 35 cubic feet, would trigger the NESHAP.
     Response:  1.  The volume  equivalent was added at  the request of
 enforcement officials because  they  often arrive at an  asbestos removal
 operation for which no notification was received and find that the asbestos
 has  already been stripped or removed and placed in containers.  At this point,
 it is often difficult to determine  if the 160 square feet or 260 linear foot
 thresholds were exceeded.   The volume of material can be determined by
 estimating the dimensions of or actually measuring the container.  For bags,
 the  amount of material will usually be less than the capacity of the bags
 because  of the weight of wetted asbestos and the potential for tearing an
 overfilled bag.  If the waste  has been placed in rigid containers, the volume
 may  also be less than the capacity of the container because a rigid container
 filled to capacity will probably be difficult to handle manually.  If the
 asbestos material has fallen to the floor or has been stripped and left on the
 floor, it will probably be  necessary to have the material collected and put in
 a container to determine volume, although in this situation it may be possible
 to determine the area of the surface or the length of the pipe that the
 asbestos came from.  The EPA believes that the volume of material in
 containers can be closely estimated.
    2.  The intent of the revisions proposed on January 10,  1989, was to
clarify the NESHAP and to promote compliance,  not to bring additional  sources
under NESHAP control  by lowering the threshold for coverage.   The EPA may
consider changing the threshold for coverage by the NESHAP in  future
rulemakings.
    3.  No response is necessary.
                                     7-16

-------
     4.   It  is  EPA's  intention that the volume measurement be applied to
 material after it has been placed in containers for disposal.  In
 conversations  with representatives of asbestos removal and demolition firms,
 the volume of  material that has been stripped and bagged is usually about
 three times the volume of the in-place material  as a result of voids in the
 material as well  as other items such as clothing and rags.   In arriving at the
 volume equivalent in the proposed rule, EPA estimated the volume of in-place
 pipe insulation on 260 feet of pipe  and then allowed for the increase in
 volume after the  material  is  disturbed and placed  in containers along with
 other waste items.
     5.  The recommended  change would  constitute  an increase  in  the stringency
 of the standard.   The purpose  of the  revisions proposed  on January 10,  1989,
 is to  clarify  the rule and  to  promote compliance.   The EPA may  consider  the
 need for changes  that affect the stringency of the NESHAP at  a  later date.
     6.  The EPA does  not see any advantage to the  suggested  use of "units" to
 trigger  the provisions of the  NESHAP; therefore, EPA will retain  the existing
 threshold amounts.
 7*1.5  Applicability  Threshold—Fxprnpted Operations
     Comment:   1.   Commenters 2 and 18 argue  that all demolitions  and
 renovations  involving any amount, of asbestos should be regulated.
 Commenter 18 also  argues that, even if it  is not possible to inspect all jobs,
 if the activity is regulated,  the owners and operators are more likely to
 follow the work practices due to the threat of being cited for violation of
 the NESHAP.   Commenters 54 and 70 argue that demolitions  involving less than
 the threshold amounts of asbestos should at least be required to follow the
work practices  of Section 61.145(c)  although notification may not  be
                                     7-17

-------
 necessary.   Commenters  29,  54,  and  70  state  that  Section  61.145(a)(2)  should
 be  revised  to  require the proper removal  of  all asbestos,  regardless of  the
 amount, prior  to  demolition.  Because  of  the public  health  threat  from
 improper  removals,  commenter  17 urges  EPA to eventually reduce the
 applicability  thresholds.
    2.  Commenter 87 believes that  Section 61.145(a)(2) contains contradictory
 requirements.   In particular, they  feel that (b)(3)(i) should be replaced by
 (b)(3)(iii), the  provision  requiring advance notice  for government-ordered
 demolitions.              •, . •
    3.  Commenter 30 agrees with  61.145(a)(1),(2) and  (4) that material  that
 has fallen off  facility components  be  treated  the same as stripped material.
    Response:   1.  The commenters'  recommendations to require removal  of all
 asbestos from all demolitions and renovations  regardless of the amount would
 increase the stringency of the  standard.  The  purpose of the revisions
proposed on January 10,  1989,  is to clarify  the rule and promote compliance.
The need for revisions that affect  stringency  may be considered at a later
date.
    2.  The EPA reviewed Section 61.145(a)(2)  and the references to paragraphs
 (b)(3)(1)  and  (iii).  Commenter 87 believes  that the reference to (b)(3)(i)
should be replaced with (b)(3)(iii).  After  reviewing these paragraphs, EPA
believes they are correctly used in Section  61.145(a)(2).   Paragraph (3)(b)(i)
requires a 10-day notice prior to demolition for demolitions involving no
asbestos,  whereas paragraph (b)(3)(111) is concerned with  emergency
renovations and government-ordered demolitions.
    3.  No response is necessary.
                                     7-18

-------
 7.1.6  Affected Facilities
     Comment:  Three comments were received regarding types of facilities that
 are subject to the demolition and renovation provisions.  Commenters 13 and 18
 feel that single family dwellings should be included in the definition of a
 "facility" and, therefore, subject to the NESHAP.
     Commenter 22 believes that asbestos mills should be excluded from
 regulation under the renovation rules because they have adequate experience in
 the safe handling of asbestos.
     Response:   Inclusion of single family dwellings in  the definition of
 "facility" would expand the scope of the asbestos NESHAP.   The  purpose of the
 revisions proposed on  January 10,  1989 is to  clarify and promote compliance
 with the rule.   The need for revisions that affect stringency,  including
 expanding coverage of  the  rule,  may  be considered at a  later date.
     In  response  to comment 22,  EPA sees  no reason for asbestos mills  involved
 in  renovating asbestos-containing  buildings or equipment to not  comply  with
 the rules on renovation.   From  the standpoint of  demolition and  renovation,
 EPA makes no distinction between an  asbestos mill  and any other  industrial
 complex.                                           '                  .
 7.1.7  Offsite Stripping
     Comment:  Commenter 57 expressed concern over operations where facility
 components are removed in  units and stripped offsite.  They argued that
 offsite stripping operations should be discussed explicitly in the rule to
 ensure that they do not escape coverage.
    Response:  The EPA agrees with the importance of controlling offsite
stripping.  However, offsite stripping is covered by the current rule;
therefore, it is not necessary to revise the  rule.
                                     7-19

-------
7.1.8  Roadways
    Comment:  Commenter 89 expresses concern over asbestos-containing
roadways.  They explain that notifications are not required when roadways
constructed with asbestos tailings are demolished or rehabilitated
(renovated), which may involve grinding of the road surface.
    Response:  Because of their aggregate nature, the use of asbestos tailings
encapsulated in asphalt concrete is allowed in road construction.  These
tailings, because of the milling process, typically have a low asbestos
content.  The EPA has long allowed the use of commercial asbestos in the
manufacture of asphalt concrete, although this practice is no longer cpmmon if
it is used at all.  Such materials were occasionally used for special
applications including overlays on bridge and airport runway pavement.
Because the asbestos fibers are encapsulated in an asphalt concrete mixture,
there is little opportunity for fiber release even when the material is broken
up.
7.1.9  Individual  Nonscheduled Operations—Section 61.145faH4Ui)
    Comment:  1.  Commenter 3 states that clarification is needed as to how
the amount of asbestos to be removed over a year is to be predicted.
According to commenters 36,  37, and 75,  it is impossible to accurately predict
this amount.  Commenter 76 explains that at very large facilities,  such as a
major steam-electric power plant,  the amounts of asbestos removed during
unscheduled maintenance can  vary greatly from one year to the next.   They
state that the annual  estimates of asbestos to be removed should be  given wide
latitude with respect to accuracy.   Also,  because there is no practical  way to
predict the part of the plant that will  require unscheduled maintenance, EPA
should clarify that estimates are  facility-wide estimates.  Because  of the
                                     7-20

-------
 difficulties in predicting accurately the amounts, commenter 63 recommends
 making the notification any time during the year, but before the threshold
 quantities are exceeded for that year.
     2.  Commenters 27, 39, 49, and 61 prefer the current NESHAP wording, as
 the new wording would require information on facilities in other locations;
 "one or more facilities" is confusing and should be eliminated.
     3.  Commenter 28 states that Section 61.145(a)(4)(i) should be clarified
 to indicate that an individual renovation project involving amounts of
 asbestos greater than the threshold amounts in Section 61.145(a)(4) is not a
.planned renovation operation that would trigger the notification requirements
 of Section 61.145(b).  Commenter 73 expresses concern  over the  statement in
 the preamble concerning Section  61.145(a)(4)(i)  that,  "when individual
 renovations exceed the cutoff, a separate  notification is  required."   They
 wonder if "cutoff" referred to the  threshold amounts in  Section 61.145(a)  or
 to the amount predicted to  be  removed  over the  calendar  year.   A similar
 comment from commenter 63 states  that  this' section  should  be clarified by
 explaining that  renovations that  are to  have  submitted an  individual
 notification  are not  included  among the  individual nonscheduled  operations.  '
    4.  Commenter  17  views the proposed  time period change  for nonscheduled
 removals to be a relaxation and opposes  it.  Under the proposed  revision, an
 owner/operator could avoid complying by scheduling several   removals over a 2-
year period, e.g., 250 feet on three different occasions between July 1989 and
 December 1989; another 250 feet between January 1990 and May 1990.   The
current "1-year period" would apply as soon as the additive amount  exceeded
260 feet.  They would support the proposal  if the current process were
burdensome, but  have not found the current  process to be  so.
                                     7-21

-------
     5.   Commenters 30 and 73  agree with  the change  to  a  calendar year.
     6.   Commenter 83 argues that  these predictive notifications  serve no
 useful  purpose for the regulator  because it is  not  known when  such projects
 will  actually occur.  A regular accounting  of amounts  removed, e.g., on a
 quarterly  basis,  would provide  more useful  data.
     Response:   1.   The revisions  to Section 61.145(a)(4)(i) proposed on.
 January 10,  1989,  did not substantially  alter the provision that allows
 certain facilities that perform renovations frequently,  such as  twice a week,
 to  avoid excessive notification requirements.   The  EPA does not  expect
 predictions  of the quantity of  asbestos  to  be removed to be accurate.  Such
 predictions  are usually based on  an owner/operator's experience  with asbestos
 removal  in previous years.  If  available, information on asbestos removals
 from  other facilities can be used.   In any  case, the owner/operator should
 provide their  best estimate of  the  amount of asbestos to be removed.  The EPA
 understands  the difficulty in predicting accurately the  quantities that would
 be  involved  and does not  expect a  high degree of accuracy.
    2.   The  EPA does not  intend for a company that has facilities in different
 locations, e.g.,  in different cities or  states, to include estimates of the
 amount  of  asbestos  to be  removed from the facilities in  different locations in
 their notification  for individual  nonscheduled renovations.  The phrase "one
 or more  facilities"  in  Section  61.145(a)(4)(i) means one or more buildings or
 structures at  a single  location.  The definition of "facility" refers to
 "...institutional,  commercial,  public,  industrial,  or residential structure,
 installation,  or building...," whereas  the term "installation" is defined  to
mean "...any building structure or any  group of buildings or structures  at a
single demolition or renovation site that are under  the control of a  single
                                     7-22

-------
  entity..."   The  EPA  does  intend,  for  example,  that  a  large  industrial  facility
  (e.g., a power plant)  include  in  its  prediction of  the amount of asbestos to
  be removed as part of  individual  nonscheduled  operations the quantities of
  asbestos likely  to be  removed  from the entire  facility, where a number of
  different buildings and structures will be involved.  Because the definitions
  of "facility" and "installation" make it clear that Section 61.145(a)(4)(i)
  applies to buildings and structures at a single location, the phrase "one or
 more facilities" is unnecessary and has been deleted.
     3.  The EPA does not intend for scheduled renovations,  such as  those that
 are part of a scheduled maintenance activity, to be included in the
 predictions made for nonscheduled operations.  A separate notification  is
 required for a planned, scheduled renovation that  will exceed the threshold
 amounts for asbestos.  Events that are to  be included  in  the prediction made
 according  to  Section  61.145(a)(4)(i)  include nonscheduled renovations,
 regardless  of asbestos  quantities, that  are  likely to  occur,  based  on past
 experience, but  for which  the exact date of  occurrence cannot be predicted.   A
 nonscheduled  renovation differs from an emergency  renovation  in that, while
 nonscheduled  renovations can  be anticipated  based  on experience, emergency
 renovations cannot be predicted.   Commenter  73  correctly  identifies the
 statement in  the  preamble calling  for  a separate notification whenever an
 individual renovation exceeds the  cutoff as inconsistent with EPA's intent.
 This statement would apply to a planned, scheduled renovation exceeding the
 cutoff, but not to a nonscheduled  renovation, regardless of the amount of
 asbestos involved.
    4.   Section 61.19 of the General  Provisions was added  previously to
prevent this type of potential circumvention  and to apply  in  general to
                                     7-23

-------
circumvention of all standards promulgated under this subpart.  In addition,
even if exempted from the notification requirements because of the quantities
involved, all renovations must comply with the OSHA work practices and
engineering controls for asbestos removal.
    5.  No response is necessary.
    6.  The EPA does not believe that the advantage, if any, gained by a more
frequent accounting of the quantities of asbestos removed is sufficient to
warrant a change in the rule.  Only by requiring separate, advance
notifications would enforcement personnel know ahead of time of removals.
However, by their very nature, nonscheduled renovations often preclude advance
notice of specific dates of removal and a requirement to submit an individual
notice for each renovation would be excessive for facilities where renovations
occur very frequently.
7.1.10  Emergency Renovations—Section 61.145(aH4Hli)
    Comment:  According to commenter 20,  Section 61.145(a)(4)(ii), as
proposed, creates a loophole for emergency renovations that allows
owners/operators to ignore the notification,  control procedures,  and disposal
requirements even though they may be regulated under the planned renovation
provision of (a)(4)(i).  They recommend adding to (a)(4)(ii) "plus the
additive amount .estimated in paragraph (a)(4)(i)."
    Response:  The commenter's statements are addressing an existing provision
of the rule and not a revision proposed on January 10, 1989.  The EPA stated
previously (40 FR 48292, October 14, 1975) that "the basic characteristic that
distinguishes a planned renovation from an emergency renovation is the degree
of predictability of their occurrence.  In planned renovations,  the amount of
asbestos to be stripped or removed within a given period of time  can be
                                     7-24

-------
 predicted, whereas no such prediction can be made for emergency renovations.
 Therefore, by their unexpected occurrence, emergency renovations cannot be
 included in notifications given for planned, individual, nonscheduled
 renovations.
 7.1.11  Format
     Comment:  In light of the other applicability provisions of Section
 61.145(a)  and the requirements of Section 61.145(c)(l)  to remove asbestos
 prior to demolition,  commenter 28 questiones the necessity of Section
     Response:   Although EPA agrees  that Section  61.145(a)(l)  may be somewhat
 redundant in light of the other applicability  provisions  and  61.145(c)(1),  EPA
 has  retained Section  61.145(a)(l) to  avoid  any confusion  that might result"
 from its  absence  and  also to  make clear the coverage of the rule.
 7.1.12  Building  Survey
     Comment:   Three commenters  argue  that EPA  should include  in  the rule
 mandatory asbestos surveys.   Commenter  4 states that EPA  should  require
 surveys for  all buildings  prior to and  separate from any  demolition  or
 renovation activity for these buildings.  Commenter 4 states  that such
 building  surveys  could  become part of a public record and the absence of a
 survey would be a violation.  They also comment that, if the  survey  indicated
 that a structure was asbestos free,  all notification and enforcement costs
would be  eliminated.  Also, commenter 4 explains  that a demolition without
proper notification could be easily established later.
    Commenters 57 and 84 state that EPA's requirement to survey buildings
prior to demolition and renovation  is  implicit  and should  be  explicitly
required to be performed by an accredited asbestos inspector.   Commenter 57
                                     7-25

-------
 also  notes  that OSHA requires  a building  survey by  a  competent  person  and  EPA
 should  similarly require  a site-specific  survey before  demolition,  with
 details on  how the  building will  be  demolished  and  how  the  asbestos will be
 controlled.
    Response:   The  EPA  currently  requires  that  a facility be  inspected for
 asbestos prior to demolition or renovation.  As a result of the survey,
 information  on the  asbestos material  present, the nature of the demolition or
 renovation,  and measures  that  will be taken to  control  emissions of asbestos
 must  be reported to EPA.   Commenters  57 and 84  are  correct  in that  it is an
 implicit requirement and  not stated  explicitly  in the rule.   The final rule
 expressly requires  a 'facility  survey  for asbestos prior-to  demolition or
 renovation.  Although previously  implied,  this  'revision clarifies EPA's '
 position  on  the requirement to  perform building surveys.  The EPA also
 considered the suggestion  to require  that  surveys be performed by an
 "accredited" inspector or  by a  "competent" person as required by OSHA.  OSHA's
 requirement  to  have  a competent person perform  an engineering survey prior to
 demolition  (29  CFR  1926.850) is to ensure  that  the structural  integrity of a
 structure is sufficient to  prevent worker  injury  caused by the unplanned
 collapse of  any portion of  the structure;   a search for asbestos is not
 required.  The  EPA believes that  it would be inappropriate in  this rulemaking
 to require that an accredited inspector or competent person perform the survey
 although the use of an accredited inspector would help to ensure a proper
 inspection as would following AHERA inspection procedures.
    Commenter 4's suggestion to require in advance of demolition or renovation
the survey of all buildings would increase the stringency of regulation by
requiring all owners and operators to survey their facilities  for asbestos
                                     7-26

-------
 even when no demolition or renovation operations were planned.  The revisions
 proposed on January  10, 1989, are intended to clarify the rule and promote
 compliance.  The need for revisions that affect stringency may be considered
 at a later date.  Nor is it clear that, at a later time when a building was to
 be demolished or renovated, an additional survey might not be required to
 confirm the earlier survey or gather additional  information necessary for the
 demolition or renovation.  This resurveying and  retesting might be an
 unnecessary additional cost.
 7.2  NOTIFICATION
 7.2.1  General
     Comment:   Several commenters consider the notification procedures  to be
 burdensome.   Commenter 26 argues that  the notification  requirements  are  too
 complex and  only establish  a  paper program.   Commenter  63  is  troubled  by the
 increased  and more  stringent  notification requirements  and believes  that the
 lack  of flexibility  in notification  requirements will inhibit the  ability to
 schedule outages for  maintenance.  They argue that the more stringent  the
 requirements, the more  likely  it  is  that  sources will not  notify.  Commenter
 67 believes that the  notification  requirements are not flexible; emphasis
 should  be on keeping  EPA apprised, not on paperwork.
    Commenter 23 states that the notification procedures should not be relaxed
 to encourage compliance, although a simpler notification process is needed.
 Commenters 28 and 63 claim that EPA failed to recognize the cost of project
 delays  resulting from notification requirements.   The cost of purchased
 replacement power during project delays,  and the  ramifications if replacement   '
power is not available, have not been evaluated.
    Response:   The EPA does  not intend  that the notification  requirements for
renovation  result in  disruption of important industrial  processes  such  as

                                     7-27

-------
power production, although  EPA believes that  in  some  instances,  it  is
appropriate to  stop certain  activities to comply with the notification waiting
period.  When the removal is part of a planned and scheduled
repair/maintenance activity, there should be  no  additional burden associated
with notifying  in advance because the operation  was planned in advance.  If a
removal operation is necessitated by an unscheduled and unplanned event, then
the operation is covered by  the emergency renovation provisions  and is not
subject to the  same waiting  period as a planned  and scheduled event.  Other
removals are necessitated by unscheduled events  that, although unscheduled,
can be predicted from past experience and are to be reported to  EPA in
advance.  Such  reports estimate the amounts and.  nature of these  unscheduled
removals.
7.2.2  Reason for Updating Notices
    Comment:  Commenter 15 suggests that, to  avoid being flooded with minor
revisions to update notifications under Section  61.145(b)(1), add a qualifier,
e.g., "if amount changes by 20 percent."
    Response:   The EPA agrees with the commenter's suggestion and has modified
the requirement to update notices, requiring that an updated notice is
required when the amount of asbestos involved changes by 20 percent or more.
The EPA notes that the current rule is interpreted to require certain actions
when there is a change in the applicability status of an operation.   For
example, a contractor that notified EPA of a demolition that involved
quantities below the threshold,  but later discovers additional  asbestos that
puts the operation over the threshold,  must then  update their notification  and
comply with the work practices'  requirements.
                                     7-28

-------
 7-2.3  Identifying Updated Notices
     Comment:  Commenter 15 suggests that the revised notices required by
 Sections 61.145(b)(l) and 61.145(b)(3)(iv) should be clearly identified as
 such.
     Response:  The EPA believes this is a good comment and has added a space
 on the example notification form to allow the^notifier to indicate if the
 notice is an updated version.                 .
 7.2.4  Where to Send
     Comment:  Commenter 15 and 25 request clarification  under Section
 61.145(b)(2) on whether the notice has to be  sent to  both EPA and  the
 delegated authority.   If so, they argued  that this  was excessive.
     Response:  This  can vary from region  to region.   The  owner/operator  should
 talk with the appropriate  enforcement  agency  to see where they  should send
 their notices.
 7'2'5  Citing  Period  Between  Notiflrat.jon and Beginning  Work—61.145(bU3Un
     Comment:   1.   Commenter 21  supports EPA's revision to  clarify the
 definition of the  waiting  period  between  notification and  initiation of
 asbestos  vs.  nonasbestos work.
     2.  Commenter  46 suggests that EPA make it clear in the regulation that
 the  preparation procedures  that do not disturb asbestos are exempt from the
 notification  waiting period.
     3.  One commenter suggests  replacing "and" with "or"  in "(a)(l)  and (4),"
 in Section 61.145.
    4.  Commenter 83 argues that activities that  are an  integral part of
abatement, even if no asbestos  is disturbed, should not start  before  the
scheduled start date.
                                     7-29

-------
    Response:   1.  No response is necessary.
    2.  The EPA explained in the preamble to the revisions proposed on January
10, 1989, that  preparation activities that do not disturb asbestos are not
included in the notification waiting period.  The EPA believes that this point
is clear and that it is unnecessary to revise the regulation.
    3.  The EPA agrees with the commenter and has made the change.
    4.  The EPA does not consider it necessary or appropriate to require
contractors to  delay activities that do not disturb asbestos until the
scheduled start date.
7.2.6  Individual Nonscheduled Renovations—Section 61.145(b)(3)fii)
    Comment:  1.  Commenter 40 requests that EPA address the procedure for
complying with  the Section 61.145(b)(3)(ii)  annual  notice requirement for the
year that the rule goes into effect.
    2.  Commenters 41 and 43 ask whether a separate notice is required when an
individual project exceeds the threshold and whether a notice is required for
each project after the original estimate has been exceeded.
    3.  Commenter 63 recommends that the notification be submitted at any time
during a calendar year, but before the notification quantities are exceeded
for that year.
    4.  Commenter 77 recommends that EPA require prior telephone notice for
each job with monthly, after-the-fact written accounts.
    Response:   1. Commenter 40 raises a good point.   The revised notification '
requirement for individual nonscheduled renovations would not apply until the
calendar year following the year that these  revisions take effect.  Until
then,  the previous requirements would apply.
    2.  For each individual  nonscheduled renovation  that occurs,  either after
the threshold is reached or the original  projected  amount for the year is

                                     7-30

-------
  reached,  a  separate notification  is  not  required.   However,  for any planned
  and  scheduled  renovation  that  exceeds  the  threshold amounts,  a separate
  notification is  required.   In  addition,  a  notification  is  required  at  any  time
  during a  calendar year that the threshold  is  exceeded even if the
  owner/operator did  not expect  to  exceed  the threshold and, therefore,  did  not
  submit an annual notification  in  advance.
     3.  if it is known that the amount of asbestos  to be removed will, or  is
  likely to, exceed the threshold amounts,  EPA prefers to have the notifications
 at the beginning of the calendar year for planning purposes.
     4.  The EPA believes that some renovations would occur-on weekends or
 holidays  when it would not be possible to report by telephone before the
 project begins.  Furthermore,  many operations  would consist of small repair or
 maintenance  operations and would  result in  a large  number of  calls  to EPA.
 For these  reasons,  EPA sees no  advantage  to a  monthly, after-the-fact report
 over an advance notice.
 7.2.7  Emergency  Renovation—sprt-icm  61.145(b) (3) (11 i)
     Comment:  The following comments  were received  on the notification
 requirements  for  emergency  renovation.                                    •
     1.. Commenter 65 suggests that EPA allow telephone .notification  for
 emergency  renovations  as well as for  notifying EPA  of changes  in work dates
 and work practices.   Commenter  63  states  that it may not be possible to make a
 complete and accurate  notification within  1 working day and that the
 notification should be required within 5 working days after the emergency
occurs.  Or,  as commenter 63 notes, an informal telephone notice would be
given within 1 working day.  Given the nature of most emergency removals,  this
change will not  hinder enforcement.  Also, delete the word "before"  in the
                                     7-31

-------
first line of paragraph  (b)(3)(iii).  Commenter 84 agrees that, for emergency
renovations, notification by telephone (or fax copier) prior to removal be
permitted, followed up in writing.  This would allow enforcement agencies to
determine if an inspection is necessary and eliminate questions on how to
comply with emergency operations.
    2.  Commenter 41 questions the usefulness of notification after an
emergency renovation and suggests that this information be kept on file at the
site and available for inspection.
    3.  Commenter 63 states that the quantity of asbestos to be removed as
part of emergency renovations cannot be estimated prior to their occurrence
and so should not be included in the annual notification.
    4.  Commenter 31 requests that EPA clarify the requirements for emergency
notifications; otherwise, contractors may take advantage of gray areas, making
it difficult to have equitable bidding processes.
    Response:  •!.  The EPA prefers a written notification and is prepared to
accept and will take no action against an owner/operator who submits an
incomplete notification of an emergency renovation postmarked not later than 1
working day after renovation begins and follows it up with a revised and
complete notification.  The EPA is of the opinion that facsimile technology
(fax) is not yet sufficiently reliable to be considered an acceptable means
for transmitting notifications.
    2.  The EPA does not agree that notification by the following working day
for an emergency renovation serves no useful  purpose.  An emergency renovation
can go on for days, even weeks or months, giving enforcement officials ample
opportunity to inspect the operation.
    3.  The EPA does not require annual  predictions of the quantities of
asbestos to be removed as a result of emergency renovations.   Annual

                                     7-32

-------
 predictions are required for  individual  nonscheduled  renovations  that  can  be
 predicted based on past experience.   Emergency renovations are  unexpected
 events that cannot be predicted.
     4.  While favoring equitable bidding, EPA has no  authority  to regulate
 business transactions.
 7.2.8  Ordered Demolitions
     Comment:  Commenter 13 recommends that Section 61.145(b) (3) (iii) be
 revised to require a notification that is postmarked or received a working day
 prior to beginning the demolition of a facility ordered by a  government
 authority.  They argued that several  days could conceivably lapse before EPA
 received notification of such  a demolition, .depriving EPA of  the opportunity
 to monitor the demolition  and  confirm that the demolition was  a building in
 danger of imminent collapse.
     Response:   Although  EPA understands  the concern  expressed  by this
 commenter,  EPA believes  that there  are sufficient  reasons  to warrant these
 notification requirements in addition  to  safeguards  to discourage  abuse  of
 this provision.  Typically, a  demolition  is ordered when a building has  been
 declared unsafe and in danger  of collapse as a result  of damage  caused by
 fire.  A representative from the fire department or a  building inspector
 employed by the appropriate government agency makes this determination.  These
 structures must typically be demolished immediately and cannot await an
 inspection by EPA..  Furthermore, to discourage abuse of this provision,  the
notification that is submitted  must identify the government representative who
ordered the demolition and  the  date the order  was  issued and the date the
demolition was  ordered to begin.
                                     7-33

-------
7.2.9  Notification Period
    Comment:  1.  Commenter 15 argues that the 10-day notice for renovations
will result in a significant increase in incomplete notifications or
subsequent revisions with resulting confusion.  This will be especially true
for schools where final contractor selection is not made until a few days
before the project starts; the contractor information on the form may be blank
until a contractor is selected.
    2.  Due to numerous factors beyond the owner or operator's control,
commenter 43 argues that the 10-day advance notice of the exact date of
removal is an unnecessary administrative requirement that will severely impact
the regulated community.  Commenter 43 recommends that EPA allow
owner/operators to furnish an approximate schedule with a specific date before
which no removal activities can occur.
    3.  Commenter 63 explains that in the electric utility business emergency
situations, such as equipment breakdowns and malfunctions, occur frequently.
In such unplanned situations, a 10-day notification waiting period is
unreasonable? a notification as soon as possible,  or 1 day before asbestos
removal work begins, would be reasonable.
    4.  Given the urgency of some renovations,  as  in industrial  settings,
commenter 17 proposes an optional  5-day notification period for renovations as
long as enforcement has time to monitor the project, in addition to the 10-day
period.  The 5-day notification would-be allowed in areas covered by State or
local  agencies with a proven record of inspection.                 ^
    5.  Because of the time constraints of ships in for repairs  as  well  as the
lack of advance information on  the nature of ship  repair work,  commenter 37
suggests allowing notification  for shipyard renovations  by telephone or fax
                                     7-34

-------
  "as early as possible before, but no later than the following work day,"
  similar to emergency renovations.
     6.  Commenter 76 requests that EPA waive the 10-day notification for
  situations in addition to emergency renovation, e.g.,  where unexpected
  asbestos -is found, and allow notification by telephone or allow the provision
  for contingency plans to cover this situation;  halting activities for 10 days
  could be a hardship.
     7.  Commenter 4 argues that the changes in  the notification requirements
 will  have significant adverse effects  on small  operators who do not have the
  latitude to move crews  among several  removal  sites to  satisfy notification
 requirements.   They claim that the change from  "calendar days"  to "working
 days"  increases the actual  waiting time  before  a project can start.   It  is
 also  very difficult,  according to commenter 4,  to  predict  in advance  the exact
 starting date of a project.   Commenter 4 questions  whether it would be a
 violation  if asbestos removal  did not start on  the  exact date.   They  argue
 that  small  entities  will  be  disproportionately  impacted.
    8.   Commenter 23  requests  that EPA consider ways to  streamline the
 notification process.
    9.  According  to commenter 94, circumstances beyond  the  control of the
 owner/operator make the 10-day notification unrealistic  for  renovation;  "as
 early as possible..." has been sufficient for enforcement purposes.
    10.  Commenters 23,  26, 29, 30, 32,  73, and  81  support the 10-day written
 notification period for all planned demolitions  and renovations.
    11.  Commenter 66 argues that EPA should require receipt of notification
by correct office, instead of postmarked, 10 days prior to  start of project
because the contractor often mails the notice  to the wrong  office.   Commenter
66 also recommends allowing the use of overnight mail service.

                                     7-35

-------
     12.   Commenter  84  argues  that  compliance  should  be  based  on  receipt  by  the
Administrator,  not  postmark.
     13.   In commenter  84's  experience, 5 days  is  adequate  notice  before
removal begins, which  is normally  8 to 10 days prior to the actual  stripping.
     Response:   1.   The EPA  believes that proper planning should make  10  days
an adequate amount  of  time  without being overly burdensome.   If,  as commenter
15 suggests, the 10-day notification period will  result in some incomplete
notices,  a revised  notice should be submitted when the missing information  is
obtained.
     2.  Many renovations, such as  renovations in  schools, office  buildings,
commercial buildings,  and industrial facilities,  already provide  advance
notice for planned, scheduled renovations.  If the renovation is  not planned
or is an  Individual nonscheduled renovation, then provisions other than the
10-day waiting period  apply.
     3.  The type of situations described by commenter 63 would typically be
covered by the provisions for emergency renovations; the 10-day waiting period
would not apply.
     4.  The EPA adopted'the 10-day notification period for national uniformity
and  because proper  planning by owners and .operators of demolition and
renovation activities  should make 10-day notice feasible.  Also, most
enforcement agencies need the 10-day notice.
     5.  Although ship  repair activities do appear to present a different set
of problems from other regulated sources under the NESHAP,  EPA believes that
the  standard is adequate to deal  with ship repair operations without making
exceptions to the NESHAP.  Shipyards can provide notifications in advance and
update them when they have more complete information on  the work to be
performed.

                                     7-36

-------
     6.  If a notification was previously submitted and additional asbestos  is
 discovered as part of a renovation, the owner/operator must submit only an
 updated notice without any additional waiting.  If no notification was
 submitted for a renovation, the owner/operator must stop all asbestos-related
 activities and submit a notification and wait the required 10 days before
 resuming any activities that affect asbestos.  The EPA believes, however,  that
 because of the.careful  planning that usually precedes renovation, the
 discovery of unexpected asbestos is unlikely.  In  demolition,  where  the
 discovery of unexpected asbestos is a more  common  event,  requirements were
 added in the notification  and work practice revisions proposed on January  10,
 1989,  as well  as  in  the waste disposal  provisions  that will  help ensure the
 proper handling and  disposal  of  asbestos that is unexpectedly  found.
     7.   The  EPA agrees  that  the  change  from "calendar" to  "working" days will
 increase the  actual  waiting  time before a project  can  start, and appreciates
 that this  change may  be  troublesome for small  operators.  However, EPA  does
 not  believe that many small  operators will  be  affected, and notes that  the
 average  firm  size  is  getting  larger and that more  and more the asbestos
 removal  work  is done  by specialized abatement  contractors.  The  EPA
 acknowledges that  it  may at times be difficult to  predict the exact starting
 date of  a project.  The rule contains a provision  for renotifying if there is
 a change in the start date.  As  long as asbestos removal  did not begin before
 the date given on the notification, it would not be a violation, but  failure
 to renotify of a changed start date would be a violation.
    8.  The revisions streamline the notification  process  by deleting  the
certified mail requirement  and adding a provision  for renotification utilizing
a combination of telephone  and overnight delivery  in  some  instances without an
                                     7-37

-------
additional waiting period.  The EPA is interested in streamlining the
notification process and will continue to seek opportunities to do so.
    9.  The EPA considers that in many instances it is possible to provide 10
working days' notice.  The new provisions for renotification proposed on
January 10, 1989, will make it easier for contractors to comply and lessen the
adverse implications for contractors and EPA of giving a starting date on a
notification that subsequently must be changed.
   10.  No response is necessary.
   11.  To require receipt of notice to demolish or renovate 10 days prior to
removal operations-instead of postmarked 10 days in. advance would be
equivalent to a 12 or 13 day prior notice.  The EPA experience has been that,
in most instances, the requirement for a notice postmarked 10 days prior to
removal allows enforcement 5 to 7 days to inspect a removal operation, which
has been adequate.
   12.  Most notifications are mailed to EPA.  Because of some variability in
the time required for notices to arrive at EPA's offices from the day mailed,
it would be difficult to know when to mail  a notice in order for it to arrive
at EPA by the specified time.
   13.  No response is necessary.
7.2.10  Distinction Between Removal  as Part of Demolition or Renovation
    Comment:  Commenter 18 asks if a building in which the asbestos is removed
before being demolished is a renovation or a demolition,  or both.   Commenter
18 also asks if all  the asbestos is  removed as part of a renovation and then
the building is demolished, is a 10-day notice for the demolition  required?
    Response:  If the asbestos is  being removed in order to demolish  the
building,  the removal  is considered  part of the demolition operation.   The
                                     7-38

-------
 asbestos could be removed as part of a renovation; at a later time and in an
 unrelated activity, the building could be demolished.  In this situation, the
 asbestos removal would be part of a renovation activity.  However, a
 notification would still be required for the demolition of the asbestos-free
 building to give EPA the opportunity to verify that all of the friable
 asbestos had been removed.
 7.2.11 Renotification
     Comment:  Numerous comments were received on the proposed renotification
 requirements.   Although a few favored the requirements as  proposed and a  few
 thought the requirements should be more stringent,  most of the commenters
 thought they were burdensome and unworkable  as  proposed.   The comments are  as
 follows:
     1.   Commenter 18  considers  the  renotifi cation requirements a  relaxation  of
 notice  requirements that will cause  difficulty  in scheduling  inspections  and
 could be  used  to  circumvent  the  rule.
     2.  Commenter 18  suggests requiring a significant permit  fee prior to
 allowing  schedule revisions.
     3.  Commenter 28 disagrees with the NADC comment in the proposal preamble
 that renotification by telephone should be allowed; commenter 28 recommends  a
 10-day notice for all projects.
    4.  Commenter  18 argues that rescheduling should not be allowed if the
 contractor has never been inspected or if an  unresolved enforcement action is
 pending.
    5.  Commenters 15 and 30 agree that pinpointing the start date should
 improve the effectiveness of enforcement programs.   Commenters 15,  18,  and 84
argue that the  same requirement  should also apply to completion dates.   For
                                     7-39

-------
projects of long duration, commenter 84 recommends monthly or quarterly
updates.
    6.  Commenter 21 suggests that the renotification provisions be made more
flexible by allowing the actual start date to vary by a couple of days for
projects lasting longer than 5 days before requiring the owner/operator to
renotify.
    7.  Commenters 21, 25, 26, 36, 37, 41, 42, 45, 46, 49, 50, 58, 59, 60, 61,
62, 65, 69, 71, 73, 74, 76, 87, 88, and 94 suggest that EPA allow the use of
some other means besides certified mail for renotification, such as same day
telephone or telefax messages, when a 5-day written notice would further delay
the project.  This would be simpler and less time-consuming.  Commenter 41
also suggests that,.when it is feasible to provide a 5-day written notice,
i.e., delays are known at least 5 days in advance, then such notice would be
provided.  Also, as commenters 46, 49, 50, 58, 60, 62, 69, and 73 suggest,  a
telephone notice could be followed by a written notice.
    8.  According to commenters 23, 24, 36, 37, 41, 42, 43, 45,  46, 49,  50,
51, 58, 59, 63, 64, 73, 75* 76, 78, 87, 88, and 94, there are numerous
unforeseen factors, such as equipment mobilization problems, personnel
availability, weather, or other project difficulties,  that can cause a removal
project to start on a date other than the one submitted in the original
notification.  These commenters explain that the proposed renotification
requirements, with their additional waiting requirements,  could  result in
unreasonable project delays and significantly increased project  costs.
Several of these commenters and commenter 84 suggest that EPA allow a project
to start within some reasonable period of time,  such as a couple of days,  of
the original start date without having to renotify EPA in writing.   The  EPA
                                     7-40

-------
 should provide for some flexibility In predicting the exact start date.  In
 the experience of one of the coiranenters, jobs usually start within a day or
 two of the scheduled date.
     9.  Commenters 23, 24, 27, 43, and 49 argue that the proposed
 renotification requirements will  result in additional  burdensome paperwork for
 EPA and the owner/operator because of the need to submit extra forms with each
 change in start date.
    10.  Commenter 58 asks  that EPA explicitly state  that a delay in  the start
 date is not a violation of the rule.
    11.  Commenter 69 notes that.the provision in  Section 61.145(b)(3)  that
 prohibits removal  work from starting  on any  day other  than the one specified
 in the revised notice  could be interpreted to prohibit starting work at any
 time if work cannot  start  on the  new  start date.
    12.  Commenter 83 states that  the  wording  of Section  61.145(b) (3)  suggests
 that a project start date  may only be  changed once.
    13.  Commenter 84 is  concerned  that  the renotification  provision will  be
 used to circumvent the  10-day notification requirement by  notifying EPA of a
 project far in advance,  then  rectifying upon assigning the contract 5 days or
 3  working days  in  advance of  the start date.
    14.   Commenter  87 expresses doubt that the renotification requirements
would  aid compliance because commencing asbestos removals before the  startup
date 1s currently a violation.
     Response:  1.  The EPA does not consider the renotification requirements
to be a relaxation of the notification provisions.  Previously, an
owner/operator would  be complying  with the rule as long as a notification was
sent the appropriate  number of days in advance.  They were not  required to
                                     7-41

-------
notify EPA of any change in start dates, occasionally resulting in an
Inspector arriving at a job that was finished or had not yet started.
     2.  As many commenters have noted, changes in start dates are common and
often beyond the control of the owner/operator.  The EPA simply wants to be
kept informed of these changes so that they can inspect work sites while
removal is taking place and not arrive at a site where the work has been
completed or has not begun.  The EPA does not see any advantage in requiring a
fee each time there is a change in the start date.
     3.  The EPA agrees that 10 days' notification is appropriate for
demolitions and renovations that can be planned for and scheduled.  In some
situations, however, such as emergency renovations or government-ordered
demolition of buildings that are in danger of imminent collapse,  EPA considers
shorter notification periods appropriate.  For renotification,  a 10-day
additional waiting period would be excessively burdensome.
    The EPA has considered the suggestion that telephone renotification be
permitted and has determined that providing for the use of the telephone,
followed by a written notice, would be in the best interests of both the
regulated community and EPA.  The EPA does not want to interfere with commerce
by requiring a 5-day waiting period for a written renotification when a
telephone call followed by a written renotification would suffice.  Nor does
EPA wish to make useless visits to jobs that have been rescheduled because a
written renotification of a change in start date was not received in time.
     4.  Changes in job start dates are a common occurrence in  any
construction activity, including asbestos abatement activities.   The EPA does
not intend to prohibit such changes,  but wishes to be kept informed of changes
in order to efficiently schedule inspections.
                                     7-42

-------
      5.  For the same reasons that start dates are often rescheduled,
 completion dates are also likely to change.  Although EPA considers It-
 Important to be kept apprised of start dates for removal operations, requiring
 owners/operators to continue to notify EPA throughout the project as to the
 expected completion date would be an excessive reporting requirement.  The EPA
 should be able to use the information on the original notification to estimate
 the duration of a project in order to determine the new completion date based
 on the new start date.
     Regarding the suggestion to  require monthly or quarterly reports for
 removal  jobs of long duration,  EPA sees no  advantage  to  requiring such  reports
 and believes that revisiting the site  while the job is ongoing would be  more
 useful.                             -
      6.   Because the revised regulation will  permit -renotification by
 telephone followed  by a  written  notice,  EPA does not  consider it  necessary  to
 allow the start date to.  vary by  a  couple of days,  even for projects  lasting
 longer than  5 days.
      7.   See  response to comment 3.
      8.   See  responses to comments 3 and 6.
      9.   The  EPA acknowledges the fact  that the written renotification will
 require  additional effort from the regulated community.  However,  EPA
 considers this  additional effort necessary to enhance enforcement  and improve
 compliance.
    10.  Commenter 58 is correct in the understanding that a change in start
 date  is not a violation of the rule.  The EPA believes that this is commonly
 understood and does not think that it is necessary  to state it in the rule.
    11.  It is not our intention  to limit to one the number of changes in
start dates.   The EPA considers  such  an interpretation unlikely,  but will
                                     7-43

-------
consider discussing this  in future  information  releases on the asbestos
NESHAP.
    12.  See response to  comment 11.
    13.  For operations where removal will begin earlier than the original
start date, EPA has modified the provisions to  require at least 10-days notice
in writting.  In this situation, industry should not be unduly burdened and
EPA will be assured of adequate advance notice.
    14.  Previously, the  rule only  required at  least 10 days' advance notice.
The owner/operator could  notify EPA a month in  advance to satisfy the
requirement for at least  10 days' notice and then begin the'project before the
reported start date.  The EPA considers the revision proposed on January 10,
1989, necessary in order  to correct that flaw in the NESHAP.
7.2.12  Notification Prior to Stripping
    Comment:  Commenter 15 agrees with the clarification that notification is
needed before asbestos stripping begins, versus before demolition, and
Including both dates in the notification is much needed.
    Response:  No response is necessary.
7.2.13  Renoti fi cati on/Updati no
    Comment:  Commenter 28 recommends amending Section 61.145(b)(5)  to require
the use of a form similar to the notification form (Figure  3) when amendments
to the notification are submitted.
    Response:  The EPA agrees with  the commenter's suggestion and has modified
the rule to require the use of a form similar to the one contained in the
revised rule whenever submitting a  revised or updated notice.  The EPA has
also included on the example notification form a place to  indicate that the
notice being submitted is a revised notice..
                                     7-44

-------
 7.2.14  Method of Notifying EPA—Section 6i.l45fbK2)
     Comment:   Several  comments were received on  the requirement to use
 certified mail  for notifying EPA.  Most of the commenters  object to the use of
 certified mail  over other methods.
     1.  Commenters 23,  24,  25,  42,  78,  59,  and 65  consider the  certified mail
 requirement to  be unnecessary for EPA to achieve the intended purpose  of the
 notification  process.   It was stated that certified mail would  require a trip
 to  a post office,  which is  a deterrent  to timely notification.   Commenters  23,
 24,  41,  and 78  argue that notification  by telefax  machine  may be more
 practical  than  certified  mail.   Commenters  25, 65,  and 83  suggest that
 notification  by telephone or telefax be  allowed, followed  by a written
 notification.   Commenters 24, 25, 42, and 65 observe that  regular mailing of
 notices  works satisfactorily and  should  be  allowed.  Commenters  28 and 66
 favor  allowing  the  use  of overnight mail.
     2.   Commenter 59 argues  that, if a State agency has jurisdiction,  the
 method of notifying  should be left up to the State agency.
     3.   Commenter 32 argues  that all notifications should be in writing
 because  telephone notification does not result in a legally enforceable
 written  record.  Also,  commenter 32 states that allowing the use of telephone
 would promote sch-edule changes for minor reasons  that would not  otherwise be
 considered.
    Response:   1.  Several  of the commenters object  to the required use  of
 certified mail even though EPA proposed  the use of  certified mail as a  way of
 ensuring that  owners/operators had proof of notification.  In view of the
negative comments  and after reconsidering the issue, EPA  has decided not to
require certified  mail  although its  use  would be  allowed.  The use of the
                                     7-45

-------
 regular mail  system,  i.e.,  U.S.  Postal  Service,  has worked  satisfactorily  in
 the  past and  will  continue  to be allowed.  Also, because  the  rule  specifies
 postmark "...or  deliver...," private overnight mail delivery  is  permitted  .
     Regarding the  use of telephone  facsimile  (fax) machines to transmit
 notices,  EPA  does  not consider these systems  to  be sufficiently  reliable,  at
 this time, to allow their use.   Often,  it is  difficult to know whether a
 transmission  was successful.  The EPA may consider the use of facsimile
 machines  in the  future when their reliability has been improved.
     The  EPA does not consider it necessary to allow the use of the telephone
 for  the  original notification of a  demolition or renovation activity covered
 by this  standard.
     2.  Where States or local authorities enforce their own asbestos
 regulations,  they may choose the notification procedures.  But if a State  is
 delegated authority for enforcing the NESHAP, then they must adhere to-the
 NESHAP's requirements.
    3.  The EPA is in agreement with the commenter who favors written
 notifications over telephone notifications and will  continue to require the
 former.
 7.2.15  Method of Notifying—Section 61.145(bU3)
    Comment:  1.   Commenter 17 suggests that  EPA omit  all  references  to
 "postmarked" because the certified mail  option will  contain  the information
when the notice was received.   Also, commenter 17 thinks  the postmark option
 is subject to abuse because a contractor could process several  envelopes
through a postage meter and then  postpone actual  delivery  of the  notices.
    2.   Commenters 29  and  30 support the use  of certified  mail.
    3.   Commenter 92 requests  that receipts be given for delivered  notices.
                                     7-46

-------
     Response:  1.  The EPA believes it is necessary to retain the postmark
 provision of the rule because, even though it may be possible to have a notice
 postmarked 10 days prior to removal, it may not always be possible to ensure
 receipt of the notice by EPA 10 days before.  Concerning the possible-abuse.of
 the postmark, a postmark is the official  cancellation given to a piece of mail
 showing the post office and date of mailing. .A postmark is not the same as
 the markings made on mail by a postage meter.
     2.  See the first response in Section 7.2.14 of this BID.
     3.  The EPA agrees that a receipt should be given for a hand-delivered
 notice.  But rather than adding such a requirement to the rule,  EPA believes
 that the individual delivering the notice should simply request  a receipt.
 7.2.16  Information Required—General
     Comment:   1.   According to commenter  14,  the proposed revisions  requiring
 detailed information  will  result  in a large  increase  in incomplete  and/or  late
 notifications,  and will  require increased enforcement  efforts  and. additional
 staff.
     2.  Commenter 23  questions  the need for  the  detailed  information.  The
 commenter  questions the  relevance  of the  information on the size  and use of
-the  facility.
     3.   Commenter 23  also argues that the requirement for separate estimates
 of the amounts of friable and nonfriable asbestos makes the notification
 complicated; EPA  should focus on the. type of work to be performed and the
 general  estimates of  the amount of asbestos to be removed.  They also argue
 that this  information would provide competitors with the ability to compare
 cost estimates.
    Commenter 23 believes that it would be difficult in many cases to provide
a full description of demolition or renovation work and techniques as required

                                     7-47

-------
because abatement  contractors may not possess the  information on the general,
nonasbestos-related demolition and renovation procedures.
    Response:   1.  Initially, an increase in incomplete notifications may
occur.  However, the number of incomplete notifications is expected to decline
as the regulated community gains experience with the new requirements.  A
modest increase in or a reprogramming of enforcement effort may be required as
a result of the revisions proposed on January 10,  1989.
    2.  The EPA considers the information on size  and use of a facility
important because  it may be useful to an inspector who is evaluating a
notification from  the aspect of whether or not asbestos might be present and
the amount potentially present.
    3.  The information on the amounts of friable  and nonfriable asbestos will
be useful to an inspector who is prioritizing inspections; facilities
containing more nonfriable material may not be as high an inspection priority
as a facility with more friable material.  The EPA considers it unlikely that
this information could be used to someone's advantage any more than is
currently done.
    The EPA agrees that an abatement contractor may not have information on
general demolition or renovation procedures.  In those instances,  the
abatement contractor should note this on the notification.
7.2.17  Information Required—Responsibility for Notification
    Comment:  To better inform building owners  of the regulatory requirements,
commenter 21 suggests requiring building owners,  or their representative,  to
sign and be identified on the demolition contractor's notification.
    Commenter 36 requests that EPA make it  clear that the  independent
abatement contractor can complete and submit all  necessary forms.
                                     7-48

-------
      Response:   Regarding  the  commenter's  suggestion  to  require the facility
  owner  or  operator  to  sign the notification,  EPA  does  not  consider it  necessary
  and  notes that  requiring  both signatures  may in  some  instances  slow up  the
  notification process.  The fact that the  building owner/operator  has  not
  signed the notification in no way alters  their responsibility  under the
  NESHAP.
      The EPA agrees that the contractor doing the asbestos removal can carry
  out  the notification responsibilities and is perhaps is in the best position
  to do so.  This does not,  however, release the facility owner/operator from
  responsibility for ensuring that the removal is performed in accordance with
  the NESHAP.
  7-2-18  Information Required—Identification of Owner/Operator
     Comment:   Commenter 28 suggests  including "abatement contractor" in
 addition  to  the name of the owner or operator in  Section 61.145(b)(4)(i).
 Commenter 54  recommends that,  in addition  to the  facility  owner/operator and
 abatement contractor,  any  other involved contractor/consultant should  be
 identified.
-    Commenter 61 suggests  revising Section 61.145(b)(4)(i) to  clarify  whether  '
 "owner  or operator" means  that the notice  is  to be given by the  facility owner
 or removal contractor.
     Response:   The  definition  of "owner or operator of a demolition  or
 renovation activity" as proposed on January  10, 1989 encompasses not only the
 owner or operator of the building, but also the owner or operator  of the
 demolition or renovation operation, and thus  includes abatement contractors.
 However, for clarity, we have  added to Section 61.145(b)(4)(i)  a requirement
 to include information on the abatement contractor.
                                     7-49

-------
    Section 61.145(b) states that notice shall be given by the "owner or
operator."  The EPA must receive notice from one of these parties but is not
placing any restriction on which one actually provides the notice.  In each
individual case, there may be both an owner and an operator, or there may only
be one or the other, thus EPA cannot be more specific about who should provide
the notice.
7.2.19  Information Required—Description of Facility
    Comment:  1.  Commenter 61 recommends that Section 61.145(b)(4)(iii)  be  '
revised to clarify that, for renovations, the required description pertains
only to the portion of the facility being altered.
    2.  According to commenter 28,  the information on age, size,  and prior use
of a facility is of questionable enforcement value;  because it has provided
little useful  information,  it should be deleted and  replaced with a  term like
"description," which will  provide more useful  information.
    Response:   1. The EPA agrees and has modified the rule to require that,
for renovations as well  as for demolitions, the information on size,  number of
floors, age, and present or prior use applies only to the "affected"  part of a
facility when the entire facility is not involved.
    2.  The EPA believes that this  information has been useful  to enforcement
officials in reviewing notifications.  Information on type and age of facility
may indicate the likelihood of asbestos being present.  Information  on the
size of a facility can be used to evaluate the reported estimates of the
amounts of asbestos in a facility.
7.2.20  Information Required—Asbestos Detection
    Comment:  1.   Commenter 4 asks  what response  other than "visual  and bulk
sample analysis"  would be appropriate for the  notification requirement to
                                     7-50

-------
 report the method of asbestos detection.  Commenter 28 argues that the same
 answer would always be given, "building inspection," and should be deleted
 because it would be of little use.
     2.  Commenter 24 suggests that, for the method of asbestos detection as
•well as other information requirements, a one-time or annual submittal should
 be allowed instead of submitting the same information with each notification.
     3.  Commenter 30 supports the requirement to report the method of asbestos
 detection, stating that it would bolster their licensing requirements.
     4.  Commenter 35 supports the requirement,  but suggests that the  preamble
 to the final  rule shou-ld  clarify the level  of detail  intended.
     5.  Commenters 35 and 42 ask if a building  owner  could  assume  that certain
 material  contains asbestos and treat it as  such,  or would bulk  sampling always
 be required?
     6.   The requirement to report  the  method  of detection is unnecessary,
 according  to  commenter 43.   It is  their opinion that reporting the quantity of
 asbestos should  be  sufficient.
     Response:  1.   The EPA  expects  that, typically, polarized light microscopy
 (PLM)  will be the method  used  to analyze bulk samples of suspect material. •
 Other  less reliable methods are available, and EPA would question negative
 results using these methods.   The availability of these other methods  is the
 basis  for  requiring the information on detection methods.  To help clarify
 this requirement, EPA will modify the rule to require that the owner/operator
 report the method of detection "and analysis."
    2.  Because the response to this notification requirement can usually be
brief, EPA sees no reason why the information cannot be submitted with each
notification.   Furthermore, a one-time report from a few owners/operators
would be difficult to keep track  of.

                                     7-51

-------
    3.  No response is necessary.
    4-.  The EPA considers a brief answer adequate as long as the required
information is reported.
    5.  An owner/operator may assume that suspect material is asbestos and
treat it as such.  On their notification, they should report that they
"assumed the material to be asbestos."
    6.  See response no. 1.
7.2.21  Information Required—Quantity of Asbestos
    Comment:  Numerous comments were received on the notification provisions
in Section 61.145(b)(4)(v), particularly in regard to the requirement that the
amounts of nonfriable and potentially friable materials be reported in
addition to the amount of friable material.
     1.  Commenter 28 argues that, because most nonfriable material has the
potential to be broken, crumbled, etc., there is no need to provide separate
estimates of the amounts of friable, nonfriable, and potentially friable
materials.  Therefore, commenter 28 suggests deleting the sentence calling for
separate estimates.  In a similar vein, commenter 64 explains that, because
nonfriable material could become broken and, therefore,  friable, it might be
difficult to provide separate estimates of the amount of friable material and
the amount of nonfriable material.  Commenter 83 favors  the reporting of
nonfriable and potentially friable material  regardless of the presence of
friable asbestos.
    2.  Commenter 30 supports the requirement to report  the quantity of
nonfriable material that may be significantly damaged.
    3.  Commenters 18 and 30 note that "reduce"  in Section 61.145(b)(4)(v)
should be "reduced."
                                     7-52

-------
     4.  Commenter 32 recommends that pipes be measured In linear units and
 surfaces in units of area; the commenter suggests that EPA clarify when
 asbestos quantities are to be reported in volume.  Commenter 41 states that
 there was a need for consistency in the use of units in the applicability
 section, 61.145(a), and the notification section, 61.145(b).   Commenters 41,
 58,  59,  63,  64, and 73 argue that it would be more feasible to'use one
 measurement rather than continually calculating all  three.   Commenters 58,  62,
 and  75 explain that it was often difficult to determine the volume of in-place
 material.  Commenter 62 believes this requirement will  cause  unnecessary
 exposure when  workers attempt to determine the depth of the asbestos  in order
 to determine volume.   Commenter 32  and 59 agree that being  able to report  in
 units of volume was often  beneficial.
     5-.   Commenters  36,  37,  39,  41,  43,  46,  47,  48, 50,  58,  59^  61,  63,  65,  72,
 74,  93,  and  95 are  critical  of the  requirement to report  the quantity  of
 material  that  is  unlikely  to become friable or crumbled,  pulverized, or
 reduced  to powder.  The  commenters  consider this  requirement inappropriate
 when  there is  little  or  no  risk  of  significant  fiber release from  these
 materials.   Several of these  commenters argue  that this requirement would not
 increase  compliance or aid  enforcement.  Commenter 95 suggests that, if  EPA
 persists  in  its belief that  it needs information on nonfriable material that
 is unlikely  to become friable or be crumbled,  etc., it should only require an
 acknowledgement on the notification that.such asbestos is present.
    6.  Commenter 42, 49, and 75 argue that the requirement to report
materials that do not have the potential to be broken,  crumbled, etc.,  is
overly broad and would cover asbestos that will not be  removed during a
renovation project.   They suggested  that EPA should clarify that the estimate
                                     7-53

-------
 should  only  cover material  that  will  be  removed  or  disturbed  during  a
 renovation and  not  all  the  material  in a facility.
     7.  According to commenter 45, the language  of  Section  61.145(b)(4)(v) and
 the  definition  of "renovation" require a notification to be sent  for any
 modification to a facility, even when asbestos is not present.
     8.  Commenter 48 recommends  that  EPA clarify the notification requirements
 to avoid having renovations submit notifications when the only asbestos
 involved is nonfriable  materials that will-not become friable or be  crumbled,
 etc.
     9.  Commenter 73 believes that it will be difficult and is unnecessary to
 provide estimates of the .amounts that both have and will not have the
 potential to break  down.  This is particularly true when an estimate is being
 made of the amount  of asbestos to be  removed annually.  Commenter 64 notes
 that removal of nonfriable material could be required under "certain
 conditions" that would  cause it to become friable or release significant
 amounts of asbestos fibers.  They argue  that it would often be difficult ahead
 of time to know if  these "certain conditions" exist before a removal project
 begins.
     Response:   1.   The  EPA believes that some nonfriable materials do not
 become friable  (crushable with hand pressure) or release significant levels of
 asbestos fibers even when'left in buildings that are being demolished.   The
 EPA believes these materials should be distinguished from those materials that
are friable or are likely to release significant levels  of fibers when
severely damaged.
    2.  No response is necessary.
    3.  This paragraph has  been  modified, thereby removing  the need  to  make
this correction.
                                     7-54

-------
      4.   The  EPA Intended  for  linear  and area  units to be used for 1n-place
 materials  and  for volume  to be used  1n those  Instances when the material 1s
 already«off  the facility  components  and the 1n-place amounts are not known.
 This has occurred, for example, when an Inspector arrived at a removal site
 where no Information was  available on the amount of in-place asbestos and the
 Inspector  had  to  determine 1f the operation 1s subject to the NESHAP.  The EPA
 did not Intend  for asbestos quantities to be reported 1n volume in addition to
 linear and area units.  The EPA has modified the rule to clarify this point.
     5.  The  EPA has determined that the following asbestos-containing
 materials are normally nonfrlable and under most conditions,  are exempt from
 the removal  requirements prior to demolition:   resilient floor covering,
 asphalt roofing material,  packings, and gaskets.  If these  materials are
 sanded,  ground, or abraded,  they must be treated according  to  the NEHAP.
 However,  this does not eliminate the  need  to report  in notifications the
 quantities  of these materials.  The EPA uses this  information  when
 prioritizing  Inspections of  demolitions  and  renovations.
     6.  Only  the asbestos  that will be  affected  by the demolition or
 renovation  must be reported.   We  have modified the rule to require the
 reporting of  only that material that  is  in the affected part of the  facility.
     7.  Renovations where  no asbestos is present are not subject to  the
 notification  requirements, unlike demolitions involving no asbestos or amounts
 below the threshold.  Renovations Involving nonfriable asbestos that 1s
 unlikely to become friable, and will not release significant amounts of
asbestos fibers, are not subject to the NESHAP, Including the notification
requirements.   Renovations that are likely to result  in damage  significant
enough to cause the material  to become friable, or release significant amounts
                                     7-55

-------
of  asbestos  fibers  to  the  air,  are  subject  to  the  NESHAP.   Because of  these
and other comments,  the  rule  has been  revised  to clarify under what
circumstances  renovations,  as well  as  demolitions  involving nonfriable
asbestos, are  subject  to the  rule.
    8.  See  response no. 7.
    9.  The  EPA has modified  the rule  to clarify under what circumstances
renovations  and demolitions involving  nonfriable asbestos that is unlikely to
become friable or release  significant  asbestos emissions when damaged, and
nonfriable material that is likely  to  become friable or release significant
amounts of asbestos to the air, are subject to the rule.  The EPA will also
issue additional information at a later time to provide additional
clarification.
7.2.22  Information Required—Address—Section 61.145fbU4UvD
    Comment:  Commenter 28 recommends  revising Section 61.145(b)(4)(vi) to
require the  city, street address, State, and county of the demolition or
renovation activity.
    Response:  The EPA has clarified location to include street address,  city,
county, and  State where -the demolition or renovation is taking place.  We have
also modified the rule to require information on building number or name and
floor or room number, if appropriate.  This will help enforcement personnel
locate the demolition or renovation activity at facilities  where  there are
numerous buildings, or within a building that contains numerous  floors and
rooms and only a single room is involved.
7.2.23  Information Reouired—Dates—Section 61.145(b) (4) (vii)
    Comment:  Commenter 23 recommends eliminating the requirement in  Section
61.145(b)(4)(vii)  for scheduled starting and completion dates  and allowing
                                     7-56

-------
 approximate dates with specific dates supplied by telephone.  Commenter 23
 recommends the use of different notification procedures depending on the size
 and time required to complete a job.  According to commenters 24, 43, and 63,
 requiring information on the dates of demolition or renovation, especially the
 completion dates, are unnecessary.
   .  Commenter 28 argues that the dates of demolition or renovation in Section
 61.145(b)(4)(viii) are sufficient for enforcement;  the removal  dates (Section
 [61.145(b)(4)(vii)]  are unnecessary.  Commenter 29  supports requiring
 scheduled dates for  both  abatement work and demolition/renovation work.
     Commenter 84 argues that information on the days  of the week and hours  of
 operation are important and should be required.
     Response;  The EPA needs the  contractor's considered best estimate of the
 starting  and  completion dates in  order to determine the  duration  of  the job
 and  plan  inspection  visits  to the  job  site.  By  revising the rule  to  allow
 telephone renotification  followed  by  a written  renotification of a change in
 start date without additional  lengthy delays, EPA has made  renotification
 easier; hence,  it  should  be  less burdensome for the regulated community.
 Rather than complicate matters/ EPA prefers to use only one notification
 procedure.  The EPA notes that asbestos removal  operations may take place only
 during a  small fraction of the time in which a demolition or renovation is
 performed.  For that reason, asbestos removal dates  are a vital  part of the
 Information that EPA needs to plan for inspection visits.  Only  one commenter
 addresses the need for specifying days of the weeks  and hours of the day on
 the notification.  The EPA is aware that weekend and night  removals do take
place.  Nevertheless, EPA does not consider  it necessary to require that  such
specific information  be provided  in the notification.
                                     7-57

-------
7.2.24  Information Required—Dates for Individual Nonscheduled Renovations-
        Section 61.145(bU4Hvii)
    Comment:  Commenter 20 recommends that EPA revise Section
61.145(b)(4)(vii) by adding  "for notifications submitted under paragraph
(b)(3)(ii)- of this section,  include the beginning and ending dates of the
report period" in place of "planned renovation operations involving..."  They
explain that this change would help clarify that an annual notification is
required  and that separate notification is required on actual projects.
    Response:  The EPA allows facilities to submit an annual notification for
individual nonscheduled renovations.  For planned renovations that are
scheduled and that involve quantities of asbestos above the threshold,
separate notifications are required for each project.  Separate notifications
are not required for individual nonscheduled renovations, even if the amount
of asbestos exceeds the threshold.
7.2.25  Information Required—Methods—Section 61.145(bU4Hix)
    Comment:  Commenter 15 states that the "methods to be employed"
information required in Section 61.145(b)(4)(ix)  needs to be clearly
described, i.e.,  cutting, scraping, wires  cut and carefully lowered,  etc.
They explain that "nature and methods" has always been unclear.  Commenter 28
argues that this  information is usually the same  brief answer;  therefore,
delete Section 61.145(b)(4)(ix)  and (x).   Similarly,  commenter 43  argues that
providing a description of procedures" to prevent  nonfriable materials from
becoming friable  is unnecessary and should be deleted.  Commenter  25  explains
that their description of methods and procedures  was  very lengthy  and the  same
for each job; they feel that EPA should allow them to file this information
once and refer to it in each notice.
                                     7-58

-------
     Response:  In Section 61.145(b)(4)(ix),  "methods" refers to
 demolition/renovation procedures.  Information on methods,  even if brief in
 nature, is of use to EPA.  For example,  if the response to  the
 demolition/renovation procedure is implosion versus floor-by-floor demolition,
 even such a brief response will help an  inspector prioritize inspections.
     The EPA needs enough information on  the  methods to  judge whether or not it
 appears likely that the removal will  be  done in compliance  with the NESHAP,
 and information on procedures to prevent nonfriable materials from becoming
 friable is necessary in order to make such a judgment.   Although  EPA believes
 it is appropriate and beneficial  for an  owner/operator  to have  a  detailed
 procedure for their abatement activities,  it is not necessary for EPA to have
 such a detailed accounting of the procedures.
 7*2*26  Information Required—Trained Supervisor—Section 61.145(bU4Uxii1
     Comment:   1.   Commenters  49 and 62 recommend that the notice  not  require
 the name  of the trained  on-site supervisor because  they may  have  several that
 are qualified  and  not  know ahead  of time which  one will  supervise the job;  a
 certification  thai  a trained  individual will  be used should be sufficient.
     2.  Commenters  73  and  84 believe  that  the new training requirement may
 create  some problems and confusion.   They argue that EPA should clarify that a
 contractor's trained supervisor or a duly authorized representative of the
 owner/operator should be able to supervise the demolition or renovation, and
 that a  facility owner does not need to provide such expertise.
    3.  Commenter 66 recommends expanding notification information to include
the contractor's state registration number and the training  experience of an
on-site supervisor(s).
    4.  Commenter 63 explains  that a facility owner may  not  know the name of
the trained on-site supervisor when he/she notifies  EPA  for  the  contractor.

                                     7-59

-------
In this case, the owner should be allowed to certify on the notification that
the removal contract specifies that the contractor's on-site supervisor be
trained.
    Response:  1.  The EPA agrees with the commenters that a certification to
the effect that a job will be appropriately supervised is adequate.  In fact,
Section 61.145(b)(4)(xii) requires only such a certification; the form in
Figure 3 contains a statement calling for the trained person's name.  The EPA
has revised the example form to be consistent with the requirement in Section
61.145(b)(4)(xii).
    2.  The EPA agrees and has modified the rule to require that a trained
person supervise removal operations, and not just the owner or operator of the
demolition or renovation.
    3.  Because of differences among States and Regions and where
notifications are sent and because, in some instances, facility owners may be
submitting the notifications, EPA feels that a national regulation requiring
State registration numbers would be confusing to many regulated sources and
would not necessarily aid enforcement or increase compliance.  Regarding the
commenter's recommendation to include information on training experience,  EPA
feels that the requirement to certify training in the NESHAP carries
sufficient legal authority without requiring details of the training.
    4.  See response no. 1.
7.2.27  Information Required—Ordered Demolitions—Section 6l.l45(b)(4)fx111)
    Comment:  Commenter 30 supports the requirement to include the date that
the order to demolish was issued and the date that the demolition was ordered
to begin.
    Response:   No response is necessary.
                                     7-60

-------
 7-2.28  Information Required—Emergency Renovations—Section 61.145(b)(4)(xivl
     Comment:  1.  Commenter 28 recommends a format change; they suggest that
 Section 61.145(b)(4)(xiv), the emergency renovation information, be renumbered
 as Section 61.145(d).
     2.  Commenter 29 supports the proposed notification requirements for
 emergency renovations;  it allows the owner/operator to address the real
 environmental  problem  and then worry about the paperwork.
     3.  Two commenters  note that Section 61.145(b)(4)(xiv) did not include the
 nonroutine failure  of  equipment as a reason for performing an emergency
 renovation.  Commenter  59 states that Section  61.145(b)(4)(xiv)  should be
 revised to allow an emergency renovation for nonroutine  failures of equipment
 to be  consistent with the definition of "emergency  renovation."   Commenter 62
 states that this provision  should be revised by adding  "or disruption  of
 normal  industrial operations"  to be consistent with  the  definition  of
 "emergency renovation"  and  Figure 3.
     Response:   1.   The  EPA  sees  no advantage in creating a new paragraph  (d)
 for the emergency renovation  information that  is  required  in  the notification.
 The EPA considers it more appropriate  to keep  this information requirement
 with the  rest of the notification  requirements.
    2.  No  response is  necessary.
    3.  The  EPA  agrees  with the commenters that, as proposed, an apparent
 inconsistency exists between the definition of  "emergency  renovation," the
 notification requirements of Section 61.145(b)(4)(xiv),  and item XIV in
 Figure 3.  After further considering the problem, EPA believes that to allow
nonroutine failures  involving only unsafe conditions to qualify as an
emergency renovation would impose an unreasonable financial burden on those
                                     7-61

-------
 sources  that  experience  a  sudden,  unexpected  equipment  failure  and would  be
 required to provide  10 days'  notice.   The  EPA believes  it  is  necessary  to
 provide  greater  flexibility for  renovations necessitated by sudden,  unexpected
 events.  Therefore,  the  asbestos revisions also consider a renovation
 necessitated  by  the -sudden, unexpected disruption of normal industrial
 operations to be an  emergency renovation.
 7.2.29   Information  Required—Discovery of Unexpected Asbestos—Section
         61.145fbU4Uxv)
    Several comments were  received regarding  the notification requirements for
 the discovery of unexpected asbestos.
    1.   Commenters 13 and  84 argue that this  revision will  provide a loophole
 to avoid following other work practices..  Commenter 13 notes that '
 unacceptable actions could result and cause needless work in contacting
 contractors and  revised notices.  This commenter recommends that EPA require
 work to  stop immediately,  followed by written notice before starting work
 again.   Commenter 84 suggests that it be handled with a telephone notice
 followed by a written notice.  Commenter 92 also favors adding a notification
 requirement for the discovery of unexpected asbestos.
    2.   Commenter 17 suggests that EPA require the owner/operator to report if
 such contingency plans were ever implemented.
    3.  Commenters 17 and 76 support the requirement for owners/operators to
 have a contingency plan in the event unexpected  asbestos is discovered.
 Commenter 68 believes that the requirement for contingency  plans should
alleviate some of the concern among demolition contractors  about being found
in violation when new or additional  asbestos  is  discovered.
                                     7-62

-------
     4.  Commenter 30 recommends that some provisions be added to control  the
 runoff of asbestos-contaminated water resulting from the wetting procedure
 required to keep newly discovered asbestos wet.
     5.  Commenter 4 wonders what other response would ever be provided besides
 "stop demolition.and abate newly exposed asbestos."  Commenter 28 favors
 deleting this requirement as useless because the response would always be the
 same,  "wet down the material."  Commenters 43 and 79 consider the requirement
 unnecessary and state that it should be deleted.'  Commenter 79 explains that
 the existing provisions are adequate to handle the discovery of unexpected
 asbestos.
     6.   Commenters  24 and 87 recommend  that  EPA allow  a  one-time submittal or
 an annual  submittal  rather than  submitting the plan  with each notification.
 Commenter  42 argues  that,  because  such  contingency plans would be voluminous,
 EPA should  allow the plans to  be kept at the  work  site, and be available  for
 Inspection,  rather than submitting the plans  with  each notification.
     7.  Commenter 55 explains  that an owner/operator would have  to provide EPA
 with a manual of procedures  for all  response  actions because  it  is not always
 possible to  know in  advance what will be encountered.  They argue that this  is
 not practical.   Nor  is it  practical, according to commenter 55, to wait 10
 days for renotification while a hazardous condition remains unabated, or a
 building is left vacant, which is costly for the owner.
    8.  Commenters 59 and 83 state that contingency plans should not be part
 of the notification.   Commenter 59 argues that contingency planning for the
discovery of unexpected asbestos  should  be  part of supervisor training and not
a plan submitted with every notification.   They explain that,  for a
contractor,  contingency plans could change  from job to  job,  while a  facility
like an  electric generating plant would  have  the same contingency plans.

                                     7-63

-------
    9.  Commenters 62 and 87 question the ability to give a detailed abatement
plan for an unknown situation.  Commenter 62 suggests that the provision
should be revised to require use of the original plan to the maximum extent
possible, while commenter 87 suggests allowing a general statement of plans to
satisfy the requirement.  Commenters 73 and 87 support the requirement for
contingency plans, but recommend that EPA not require submission of elaborate
plans.  Commenter 73 notes that the discovery of additional asbestos materials
will probably result in the same demolition or renovation methods being used
as described in the original notification, and they suggest allowing a simple
reference to this fact in the notification.
    Response:  1.  This provision provides owners/operators with an
alternative procedure in the event that asbestos is unexpectedly discovered or
nonfriable material becomes friable.  Previously, EPA would have required that
the demolition or'renovation be halted and EPA be notified if no notification
had been sent in the case of renovation or,  in the case of demolition,  a
notification was sent to EPA that reported the amount of asbestos as being
below the threshold.  Such delays can be very costly for facility
owners/operators as well  as for contractors.   Under the asbestos revisions,
the owner/operator must have a contingency plan in the event that unexpected
asbestos is discovered;  moreover,  rather than halting operations to notify
EPA, the owner/operator may continue the operation and remove the newly
discovered asbestos without delaying the project.  An amended notification or
a new notification must be submitted,  but there is no waiting period before
continuing operations or removing the asbestos.   If the newly discovered
asbestos cannot be safely removed,  the asbestos-containing  material  must be
kept wet and the entire asbestos-contaminated wastepile (or the  portion  that
                                     7-64

-------
 is contaminated) disposed of as asbestos-containing waste material.  The  EPA
 believes that the cost of the requirement to dispose of the contaminated
 wastepile as asbestos will discourage contractors from using this as a way to
 avoid removing asbestos.
     2.  Because a revised notification would have to be submitted if a
 significant additional amount of asbestos is discovered,  EPA will be made
 aware of instances where new asbestos is discovered.  This will serve the same
 purpose as the report that commenter 17 recommends.
     3.  No response is necessary.
     4.  The Clean Air Act does  not confer the authority to address runoff
 problems.   However,  the rule does  require leak-tight containers that will  help
 restrict the movement of asbestos-contaminated  water.   Additionally,  if the
 wetting is  too  carelessly performed and  large amounts of contaminated runoff
 result,  the operator may  be  in violation  of  the requirement  to  properly
 contain  waste.   In  some  locations,  operators  will have  to  comply  with State
 and  local regulations.
     5.   The  EPA considers this provision  an important part,of the  notification
 because  it will force owners/operators to consider how they will deal with
 unexpected asbestos or previously nonfriable material before the fact.  •
 Further, it  is not clear to EPA that the response would always be the same.
    6.   The plan that EPA is requesting as part of the notification should
 provide  general  information on procedures to deal with unexpected asbestos or
 previously nonfriable asbestos material  that becomes  broken,  crumbled,
pulverized,  or reduced to powder;  very detailed  and voluminous  descriptions
are not expected.   The EPA does  expect a plan to be submitted with each
notification, however.  Owners/operators,  of  course,  may prepare.plans at  any
level of detail  for their own use.
                                     7-65

-------
     7.   Regarding  the  second part  of  comment no.  7,  under  this  provision,  the
 owner/operator does  not  have to  notify and wait before continuing  the
•demolition or renovation.
     8.   The  EPA  intends  that the required training on the  asbestos NESHAP
 cover the notification requirements,  including the need for contingency plans.
     9.   The  EPA's  intention in requiring information in the notification on a
 contingency  plan is  to ensure that owners/operators  have considered this
 possibility.  The  EPA  understands  that the exact  nature of each situation  in
 which unexpected asbestos is discovered cannot be known in advance.  The
 required contingency plans do not  necessarily have to be detailed  and
 elaborate plans.   Rather, they can be a general plan or approach in the event
 that new asbestos  is discovered, including the intent to remove the asbestos
 according to the procedures outlined  in the original notification, if
 appropriate.
 7.2.30   Notification Form
     Comment:  Several comments were received on the sample notification form,
 Figure 3 in  the proposed revisions.  Most of the commenters consider the form
 too  detailed and confusing.  The following comments were received.
     1.   Commenters 15,.54, and 57 think the form was difficult to read and
 confusing.  Commenter 15 also states that the form did not allow enough space
 for  recording information.  Commenter 54 states that there appeared to be an
 inconsistency between the information required by Section 61.145(b) and that
 required in Figure 3.  While supporting the requirement for a more detailed
 notification, commenter 57 thinks the language was confusing and needs to be
 simplified.  They suggest that the addition of a table summarizing trigger
 levels and their notification deadlines would be helpful.   They state that
                                     7-66

-------
 cross-references  to other provisions  using  section numbers was confusing.
     2.  Commenters 23, 28, 39, 49, 62, and  76 state that the notification form
 was too detailed  and required unnecessary information.  Commenter 28 states
 that, because government-ordered demolitions and emergency renovation occurred
 so infrequently,  the items requesting such  information should be deleted from
 the form~a simple letter of explanation would suffice in those instances.  In
 addition,  commenter 28 agrees that EPA should provide a form that could be
 used to "standardize notifications, but states that a simpler form is needed-
 the proposed version would take too much time to complete.   Commenters  39,  49,
 and 62 argue that there is no basis for requiring owners  and operators  to
 supply the information  requested on controls to  be used at  disposal  sites.
 Commenter  49 also thinks  the  requirement to  report quantities  of  non.friable    -
 material may exceed EPA's authority.   Commenters 15,  23,  and  28 provide
 examples of notification  forms  they thought  to be simpler than that  proposed
 while  containing adequate information.
     3.   Commenter 63 supports the  use  of  a form  "similar" to that presented in
 Figure  3 because this allows  facilities to create their own form on  a word
 processor,  which will expedite notification  preparation.  Commenter  75 thinks
 that,  in general,  the form in Figure 3 is useful  but should be provided as a
 single, one-page form that could be photocopied for use.  Commenter  76
 requests a multicopy form that could be used to notify EPA and serve as a
 waste tracking form.  They explain that this would simplify the process  and
 probably enhance compliance.
    Response:  1.  In response to the comments that the form was  hard to  read,
the form is presented in the  asbestos revisions  as a form  that can  be
photocopied for use if so  desired.   The typesetting process  used in the
                                     7-67

-------
January  10,  1989, proposal did not permit the display of the information as it
Is in the final  rule.   In addition, revisions have been made to simplify the
form and make it more understandable.
    In response  to the  comment that there appeared to be inconsistencies
between the  information required in Section 61.145(b)(4) and Figure 3, EPA has
made minor modifications to the form to bring Section 61.145(b)(4) and Figure
3 more in line with each other.  It should be noted that the form in Figure 3
is a suggested form; as long as the information requirements of Section
61.145(b)(4) are met, different formats for presenting the information are
permissible.  It is the intent of EPA that the use of a format similar to that
in Figure 3  will help to standardize the information submitted in
notifications to EPA.
    The EPA  agrees with the suggestion that a table that summarizes trigger
levels and notification deadlines might be helpful in clarifying the
applicability and notification requirements.  The EPA believes this
information  is more appropriately suited for inclusion in an information
release that would assist enforcement officials and the regulated community in
applying the rule to their specific situations. ' The EPA is planning to issue
additional information about the rule shortly after promulgation and will
consider adding such a table.
    2.  Note that EPA is requiring a form "similar" to the form in Figure 3.
Persons may  modify the form to fit their individual needs,  as long as they
supply the required information.   However,  in response to comments that the
form is too  detailed and contains unnecessary information,  the form in
Figure 3 has been modified.   The  item that  requested information on the waste
disposal  practices was removed from the form in response to the three
                                     7-68

-------
  commenters who  feel  it  is  inappropriate  to  request  this  information  from
  owners and operators of demolition  and renovation operations.   The EPA  has
  decided to retain the information on the form pertaining to ordered
  demolitions and emergency  renovations even  though,  according to one  commenter,
  a very small percentage of the notifications are for these kinds of
  operations.  Because these are example forms, individuals may choose not to
  include a place for that information on the form, choosing instead to submit
  this information separately when necessary.
     In response to the comment that disagreed with the requirement to supply
  information on the quantity of nonfriable material,  see Section 7.2.21 of this
 BID.
     3.   In response  to commenter 75's  requests,  the  example form is presented
 as a single page form.   In  response  to  commenter 76's  request  for  a form that
 can  be  used both for notification and as-a  waste tracking form,  EPA has
 considered such  a  form but  rejected  the idea.  One reason for  not  having a
 combined  form  is the amount of information  that  would  have  to be on a single
 form.   The EPA prefers having  as  simple a form as  is possible that provides
 the  necessary  information.  The  EPA  does  not believe a  combined  form  is  in
 keeping with this  objective.   Another disadvantage of the combined form  is
 that, while owners and operators  of  demolitions  and  renovations will  be
 submitting a notification and  using  a waste  tracking form, other sources such
 as milling, manufacturing, and fabricating only  have a need for a waste
 tracking form.  A combined form is not necessary for these sources and may be
 confusing.
 7'2*31  Lack of Notifications as Basis  for Estimate of Noncompliance
    Comment:  Commenter 9 notes that in  Region VIII,  the lack of notifications
being sent to EPA is  due  to  the fact  that  they are being sent to the  local  or
State authority instead of to  EPA.
                                     7-69

-------
    Response:  The  EPA's estimate of  50 percent noncompliance  for  the
requirement to notify, which  served as the basis for estimating noncompliance
with removal and waste disposal  requirements, was based on the situation  in
one Region.  The EPA intends  to  improve the estimate of noncompliance as
Information becomes available in a future rulemaking to revise the asbestos
NESHAP.
7.2.32  Periodic Reports
    Comment:  Commenter 18 recommends that, in Section 61.145(b)(3)(11),  EPA
should require reports at least .once  a year, preferably quarterly, on
demolition/renovation activities covered by annual notices submitted for
Individual nonscheduled renovation.
    Response:  The EPA does not see any advantage in requiring periodic
updates from owners/operators who submit an annual notification for individual
nonscheduled operations.
7.2.33  Notification for Individual Nonscheduled Operations
    Comment:  Commenter 20 recommends that Section 61.145(b)(3) (iii)  be
revised to require notification as early as possible before or at least by the
following working day for individual  nonscheduled renovations.  As proposed,  ,
the commenter argues that the rule encourages circumvention by emergency and
nonscheduled renovations.  Commenter 20 also states that,  because nonscheduled
renovations above the cutoff must provide a separate notification apart from
the long-term notification required in Section 61.145(b)(3) (11),  a reasonable
notification period must be specified.
    Response:  The EPA does not intend for owners or operators of facilities,
such as large industrial  facilities that perform renovations  on a very
frequent basis,  to provide a separate notice for each renovation.   Such  a
                                     7-70

-------
 requirement would result in an excessive number of notifications that would be
 burdensome to both industry and enforcement agencies.  These facilities are
 permitted to predict the amount of asbestos that will be removed over a long
 period of time as a result of individual nonscheduled renovations.  Scheduled
 renovations involving amounts of asbestos above the threshold amounts must
 provide EPA with -a separate notification for these.  Regarding the commenter's
 concern over notifications for emergency renovations, the asbestos revisions
 require notification as early as possible or by the following working day,
 which EPA believes is an appropriate requirement.
 7.3  CONTROLS
 7.3.1  Exemption from Removal
     Comment:   1.   Commenter 18 argues  that  Section  61.145(c)(1) (i)  provides
 too large a loophole  because  it  does not specify the  amount of concrete  or
 other similarly  hard  material  that must  be  present  to exempt  removal  prior to
 demolition.   Concrete-based paint or another hard material could be used to
 encase  asbestos-containing materials to  take advantage of this rule.  This
 commenter states  that Section  61.145(c)(l)(1) should  be modified to require  -
 that  the  encasing material be  of such strength and thickness that asbestos
 fibers  could not be released during demolition or renovation.  Commenter 18
 also  questions the reason behind requiring wetting of encased materials if the
 release of asbestos is not expected.
    Commenter 84 recommends that the  exemption from removal  prior to
demolition in Section 61.145(c)(1)(i)  should be provided only when  the
encasing material is a structural component, or when removal  presents  an
unreasonable safety hazard.
    2.  Commenter 93 wants the exemptions of Section 61.145(c)(l) to apply  to
renovation in addition to demolition.   Also,  commenter 93  recommends that

                                     7-71

-------
Section 61.145(c)(l)(111) be  revised by deleting  the phrase  "during demolition
and renovation,"  and  changing the rest of the paragraph to read  "...such as,
asbestos packings and gaskets, asbestos cement materials, asbestos bituminous
or resinous roofing felts and coatings, and vinyl flooring."
    Response:   1.  The exemption for facility components encased in concrete
is not'a new provision and  is intended and typically'interpreted to apply to
instances where,  because of the hardness of the encasing material, it would be
extremely difficult to get  to the asbestos in order to remove it.  In
addition, EPA believes that,  when asbestos encased in concrete is left in a
facility that is  demolished,  the opportunity for  fiber release is quite small.
The requirement to wet such material when exposed is a precaution required in
the event that the underlying asbestos would become exposed.  The EPA is not
aware of any instances where  this provision was used Tn order to circumvent
the requirement to remove asbestos before demolition.  If, however,
information 1s brought to EPA's attention that this provision is being used to
circumvent-the regulation,  EPA may consider the need to revise the regulation,
Including this paragraph, at  a later date.  The revisions proposed on January
10, 1989, address nonrisk-based revisions to clarify and promote compliance
with the NESHAP.  Similarly,  commenter 84's recommendation to exempt only
structural components would alter stringency.   The need for revisions
affecting stringency will be considered at a later date.
    2.  After considering the request by commenter 93 to  include renovation in
the exemption from removal   in Section 61.145(0(1) in addition to demolition,
EPA believes that is not necessary to make the recommended change.   Because of
differences between a facility that Is to be demolished and one  that  is  to  be
renovated, EPA believes that situations that would require such  a decision  are
not as likely to be associated with situations involving  renovation.

                                     7-72

-------
     Regarding the  request by commenter 93 to delete the phrase  "during
 demolition or renovation," EPA has revised this paragraph to explicitly exempt
 certain nonfriable materials.  The EPA believes that the exemptions will most
 often apply to demolitions, where an entire structure is being dismantled or
 wrecked.  In renovation, the process is usually much more controlled, and ACM
 is being intentionally removed or stripped.   The EPA thinks that the need for
 exemption from removal as part of a renovation will not occur frequently.
     The EPA takes issue with part of the suggested change to the nonfriable
 materials listed in Section 6l..l45(c)(l)(111).   In particular,  EPA rejects the
'addition of "asbestos-cement materials"  to the list.   It is EPA's position
 that asbestos-cement materials  have the  potential  to  release significant
 amounts of asbestos fibers  if severely damaged  or  fractured.  The decision to
 allow these materials to remain in a  facility  to be demolished  should be made
 on a case-by-case basis,  taking into  account the type of asbestos-cement
 material,  the  type of demolition,  and any  other relevant factors.   The  other
 suggested  changes to  the list of materials in Section 61.145(c)(1)(iii)
 involved modification of the terminology used to indicate the affected
 nonfriable  materials.   As a result of this comment  and others that  suggest the
 use  of  different  terms,  EPA has modified the terms  used  to describe the
nonfriable materials.
7'3'2  Work Practices—Clearance Tn^ection/Cleanup
     Comment:  Commenter 15 states that EPA should add a work practice
requiring the owner or operator to conduct a clearance inspection to ensure
that all debris is wetted and collected for disposal.   Commenter 77 recommends
that EPA set clearance standards as 0.01  f/cc.
    Response:   A clearance requirement may  be appropriate for facilities that
have undergone  an abatement  and  will be reoccupied;  however,  it  is  not clear

                                    7-73

-------
 that under the Clean Air Act such a requirement could be added.
 7.3.3  Work Practices—Waste Storage
     Comment:   1.   Commenter 18 suggests  that Section  61.145(c)  require that
 after ACM is  removed,  it is placed in  leak-tight containers and  stored in  a
 secure,  covered,  and enclosed area until  disposed of.
     2.   Commenter 87 notes  that,  in the  introductory  paragraph of Section
 61.145(c),  "section" should be "paragraph."
     Response:   1.   The  rule requires that all  asbestos  from a demolition or
 renovation  be  kept wet  until  collected for disposal  (Section 61.145(c)(6)).
 Waste must  be  put  into  leak-tight containers  for disposal  (Section
 6l.l50(a)(l)(111)).  Although the rule does  not  explicitly  regulate  storage,
 any  waste that is  stored on-site  must be  in  leak-tight  bags.  Waste  generators
 are  responsible for taking  their  waste to a  disposal  site as soon  as  it is
 practical to do so (Section 61.150(b)).
     Revisions  requiring  additional  storage work  practices would  alter the
 stringency  of  the  rule.   Because  the purpose of  the revisions proposed on
 January  10, 1989,  is to  clarify the  NESHAP and promote  compliance, revisions
 that would  alter the stringency of  the rule are  not being considered.  The
 need for revisions  that  would  affect stringency  may be  considered at  a later
 date.
     2.   The EPA agrees and  will change "section" to paragraph.
 7.3.4  Work Practices—General
     Comment:  Two commenters recommend that EPA adopt work practices similar
to those required by OSHA, and EPA under AHERA.  Commenter 50 argues that,
because removals may increase risk, EPA should implement work practices
consistent with OSHA and AHERA to protect workers and building  occupants.
                                     7-74

-------
 Commenter 57  states  that  EPA  should  require  that work  areas be  restricted  and
 signs posted  similar to OSHA  and AHERA  regulations.  Commenter  54 argues that
 the absence of visible emissions does not guarantee that safe removal
 practices  are being  used; proper removal techniques should be required.
     Response:  Because the purpose of this rulemaking  is to clarify the
- current rule and promote compliance, revisions that would alter stringency,
 such as the additional  work practices recommended by these commenters, cannot
 be considered at this time.  The need for revisions that alter stringency may
 be considered at a later date."  It should be noted  that removal  operations
 covered by the asbestos NESHAP are also subject to  the  OSHA regulations,  and
 removal  operations at schools  are subject to the NESHAP in  addition  to OSHA
 and AHERA rules.   These regulations do  not contradict each  other.
   .  In  response  to commenter 54's recommendation to require work practices  on
 removal  jobs  in  place of  a visible  emission  limitation, EPA does not have a
 visible  emission  requirement for asbestos stripping and removal  operation.
 Work practices are required  in all  cases.  The  only time a  visible emission
 requirement applies is  during  the collection  and processing of waste for  '
 disposal  (Section  61.150).   Section 61.150 allows a choice between complying
 with work  practices or meeting the visible emission  requirement.
 7.3.5  Work Practices—Section fii.i45fcU3)
    Comment:   1.  According to commenter 27, there  seems to be a conflict
between Section 61.145(c)(3) and the preamble explaining this section.
Commenter 27 explains that the regulation does not contain any provision for
an inspector to reinterpret the decision of the Administrator for the use of
alternate methods, while the preamble implies that he is given  the  authority.
Commenter 27 asks EPA to clarify  this provision  and  preclude a  revaluation  of
                                     7-75

-------
the method so  long as the work is being done  in accordance with  the  procedures
Identified in  the request for variance.
    2.  Commenter 89 argues that, in Section  61.145(c)(3), the phrase  "in  a
facility" is redundant and should be deleted.
    Response:   1.  The.EPA reviewed the proposed revisions to Section
61.145(c) (3) (ii), which allows EPA approval of alternate methods, and.  Section
61.145(c) (3) (iii), which requires that a copy of the EPA's approval  of the
alternate method be kept at the site available for inspection.   The  EPA also
reviewed the discussion of this provision in the preamble (54 FR 917,  3rd
column).  The  preamble discussion states that, "so that inspectors can readily
determine if alternative methods have received Administrator approval, a copy
of the approval is required to be kept at the demolition or renovation site
for inspection."  Neither Section 61.145(c)(3)(ii) and (iii) nor the preamble
allow an inspector to alter or reinterpret an approval given by  the
Administrator.  The EPA does not intend for inspectors to be able to
reinterpret or nullify an approval given by the Administrator.
    2.  As used in Section 61."145(c) (3), the phrase "in a facility"  is not
redundant because it deals with stripping asbestos-containing materials from
facility components while they are still in the facility.  The asbestos
revisions will make this clear.
7.3.6  Work Practices—Section 61.145(cU2).   fc) (3).  (c) (4). and fcU6)
    Comment:   1.  Commenter 20 makes several  recommendations for changes to
the work practice provisions in Section 61.145(c)(2),  (c)(3) and (c)(4).  They
suggest requiring no visible emissions in addition to the existing wetting
requirements in Section 61.145(c)(2) and (3).  In  Section 61.145(c)(4), they
recommend requiring both wetting and the use  of local exhaust ventilation
during stripping in addition to no visible emissions.

                                     7-76

-------
     2.  Coromenter 94 states that, assuming "material contained in leak-tight
 wrapping" (Section 61,145(c)(6)(iv))  refers to the existing cover prior to
 removal, EPA recommends that all  exposed asbestos be adequately wet or
 encapsulated.
     Response:   1.  The recommended work practice revisions would be a change
 in the stringency of the regulation.   The purpose of the revisions proposed on
 January 10,  1989, is to clarify  the rule and  promote compliance.   The need for
 revisions that would alter stringency may be  considered at a later date.
     2.  The  leak-tight wrapping  in Section 61.145(c)(6)(iv)  does  not refer to
 the existing material  covering the in-place asbestos.   For example,  it does
 not include  a  metal  jacket covering asbestos  pipe insulation.   "Leak-tight
 wrapping" refers  to  material, such as plastic sheet, wrapped around  an
 asbestos-covered  facility component prior to  or  after the  component  is removed
 in fact from a facility.   However,  as the commenter  recommends, any  exposed
 asbestos  must  be  kept  wet because  it  is  not yet  in a leak-tight container.
 7.3.7   Work  Practices—Section 61.U5fcH5l
     Comment:   The  following  comments  were  received on the  removal  and  reuse of
 large,  asbe'stos-covered facility components.
     1.  Commenter  20 suggests that  a  provision be added to prohibit visible
 emissions during the removal, transport, storage, or reuse of asbestos-covered
 facility  components.
    2.  Commenter  30 is concerned that some problems may arise from the
 removal of large pieces of asbestos-covered equipment that become damaged
 during transport and contaminate  the new area.
    3.  Commenter 33 notes that  this provision seems contrary to EPA's efforts
to tighten controls on asbestos and also seems contrary  to the insulation
provision, Section 61.148.
                                     7-77

-------
     4.   Commenter 84 wants EPA to remove the word "stored" from Section
 61.145(c)(5)(i)  because it opens the opportunity for permanent storage or
 disposal.   Commenter 99 recommends that additional  measures,  including
 periodic inspection, reincapsulation,  relabeling,  and removing loose asbestos,
 are  needed to prevent the deterioration of asbestos on equipment that is
 stored  for an indefinite period.
     5.   Commenter 70 recommends that labels be  retained on large facility
 components covered with asbestos after they are removed to alert subsequent
 owners  to  the presence of asbestos.   These components are  often  demolished,
 salvaged,  or  sold and then renovated,  stripped,  or  salvaged.
     6.   Commenter 99 asserts  that this provision does not  address
 decommissioned equipment that remains  in place,  where the  asbestos
 deteriorates.
     Response:  1.   The EPA rejects the suggestion to  prohibit  visible
 emissions  from the removal, transport,  storage,  and reuse  of large asbestos-
 covered  facility  components as  Inconsistent with the  other demolition  and
 renovation  controls.
     2.   If  the component  cannot  be moved  and reused without disturbing the
 asbestos, then it  must  be  stripped of  its asbestos  (Section 61.145(c) (5)(i)).
     3.   The EPA sees  no contradiction  in  adding this provision because several
 requirements must  be  met that ensure that the reuse of such components does
 not  constitute a threat to public health.  In addition, the provisions of
 Section  61.148 (insulating materials) apply to the use or reuse of the
 insulating materials  that are friable.  Attempts to reuse friable asbestos
material are much more  likely to release significant amounts of asbestos when
 compared to the reuse of a facility component where several precautions must
be taken to avoid the release of asbestos.

                                     7-78

-------
      4.   The  EPA  considers  storage  to  be  a procedure  that  is  already allowed by
  the  NESHAP.   Inclusion of  storage  in  Section  61.145(c)(5) was  done  to  ensure
  that this  activity  is properly regulated.  Regarding the  recommendation  for
  additional requirements to prevent the deterioration of asbestos on stored
  equipment, EPA believes the regulation adequately prevents this from
  occurring.  Material that is damaged or disturbed (and EPA considers this to
  include material, for example, that has deteriorated to the extent  of  falling
  off  the equipment) must be stripped.  Stored equipment must also be  labeled
  and  remain in a leak-tight container or wrapping.
      5.  In that the asbestos revisions require large facility components to be
  labeled during storage,  EPA considers the comment to have already been
 addressed.
     6.   The EPA agrees with the comment that  the rule does not address -
 decommissioned equipment  that  remains in  place.   If,  however,  the asbestos is
 disturbed or is stripped,, or the  component  is  removed from the facility,  the
 owner/operator must  comply with other provisions of  the  rule.
 7-3.8  Work Practices—Section  fil -I45fc) (6)
     Comment:   1.   Commenter 84  recommends to EPA that the  types  or sizes  of
 components  allowed to be disposed of dry  in Section 61.145(c)(6)(iv)  should  be
 limited.   Leak-tight wrappings as defined would  be anything from canvas
 jacketing  to metal shielding.  Commenter 84 recommends that EPA specify a
 minimum acceptable wrapping.
    2.  Commenter 80 asks EPA to clarify the requirements for wetting asbestos
 materials to prohibit the use of liquids that would be deemed RCRA hazardous
 waste or Toxic Substances Control  Act (TSCA)  restricted wastes.  They also
 suggest that EPA require waste  generators  to certify  that they have complied
with this prohibition by a certification on  the waste shipment record.

                                     7-79

-------
     Response:   1.   As  long  as  materials  can be  handled  and disposed of
 according  to the NESHAP,  EPA sees  no  reason to  restrict either the types or
 sizes  of facility  components that  can be  handled according to Section
 61.145(c)(b)(iv).   Nor does EPA  see any  reason  for concern over the types of
 leak-tight containers  if  they  are  truly  leak-tight.  In response to commenter
 84's recommendation  to set  standards  for  acceptable wrapping, EPA considers it
 Impractical to  identify in  advance what  is leak-tight for all waste under all
 handling situations.
    2.  There are  a  number of  commercial  wetting agents available, and EPA
 expects that the vast  majority of  contractors will use one of them along with
 water  to wet asbestos-containing material.  In  the training required by this
 rule,  contractor personnel will be instructed in proper wetting techniques and
 materials.  Although there may be a few isolated instances of wetting ACM with
 RCRA hazardous  waste or TSCA restricted waste,  EPA does not expect that such
 practices  will 'become  general  and does not consider it necessary to revise the
 rule to address this possibility at this  time.
 7.3.9  Work Practices—Chutes—Section 61.145(cU6Ulin
    Comment:  The  following four comments were  received on the use of chutes
 during demolition  and  renovation.
    1.  Commenter  54 observes  that Section 61.145(c)(6)(iii)  does not address
 what happens to asbestos material entering or exiting chutes  used in  removal,
 nor what happens to the chute when it is no longer needed.
                                                           t
    2.  Commenters 57 and 87 argue for reducing the height  at which chutes
must be used.  Commenter 87 suggests they be used at  a  height of  15 feet,
while commenter 57 suggests that EPA should require dust-tight chutes  at
heights of 10 feet or more as  some States do.
                                     7-80

-------
      3.   Commenter 84  recommends  that  the chute  requirements be  updated  to
 allow for technological advances, e.g., truck-mounted vacuum systems, and
 include  performance,  inspection, and  maintenance standards for  such systems.
      Response:  1.  Asbestos material  entering chutes must be adequately
 wetted,  and material  exiting chutes must be placed in leak-tight containers.
 The  EPA will review the matter of the disposition of chutes when they are no
 longer needed and may consider addressing it in a future rulemaking if it
 appears to be a significant issue.
     2.   The suggested change in heights at  which chutes  must be used would
 alter the stringency of the regulation; this rulemaking  is intended to clarify
 and promote compliance with the NESHAP.  The need for revisions  that would
 alter stringency  may be considered  at  a later date.
     3.   The NESHAP  does not prohibit the use of truck-or-trailer-mounted
 vacuum  systems  as long as  the  other  requirements are  met,  such as  the  wetting
 requirements and  containment in leak-tight  containers for  disposal.  However,
 at this  time, EPA is  not establishing  requirements for these kinds  of  material
 handling or  vacuum  systems.  Performance and design standards could  be
 considered  later  as part of a  later  rulemaking to consider additional, more
 stringent revisions.
 7.3.10   Work Practices—Section fil .iA5(r) (7)
    Comment:  The following comments were received regarding the requirements
 for demolitions occurring in freezing weather.
    1.  Commenter 79 requests that EPA define "to the maximum extent possible"
 as used in Section 61.145(c)(7)(ii)  in  order to clarify the responsibilities
of the owner or operator regarding the  removal  of facility  components in  units
or sections.
                                     7-81

-------
    2.  Commenter 87 suggests that EPA reduce the number of-temperature
readings to a minimum of one per day.  When it is obvious or weather forecasts
call for below freezing temperatures all day, this would reduce the costs of a
requirement that has doubtful environmental benefits.
    3.  Commenter 82 suggests that EPA add a notification requirement to the
provisions allowing suspension of wetting under freezing conditions.
    Response:  1.  The EPA expects that decisions to remove components in
units or sections will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, taking factors
such as accessibility and safety into consideration.  Therefore, EPA believes
that it is inappropriate to attempt to be more specific.  The EPA will
consider addressing this aspect in guidance to be developed at a later date.
    2.  The EPA considers it important to document below freezing temperatures
if an owner or operator is claiming an exemption from the wetting requirements
for this reason.  The EPA considers the time and cost of taking a temperature
reading three times a day to be minor.  Reliance on weather forecasts has the
disadvantage that there can be substantial  variations in temperature from one
location to another.
    3.  Because of day-to-day fluctuations  in temperatures in many parts of
the country, a notification informing EPA of the intent to suspend wetting for
freezing temperatures may not be very useful  by the time EPA would receive it.
In a demolition or renovation that is going to occur during a period that is
likely to be below freezing for the entire  period or part of the period, the
owner or operator can include on the currently required notification that
wetting may be suspended and describe the precautions that will  be taken in
lieu of wetting.
7.3.11  Work Practices—Exterior Nonfriable Products
    Comment:  Commenter 72 recommends that  EPA work with the building industry
to establish work practices for handling exterior nonfriable products,  such as
                                     7-82

-------
  asbestos  cement  shingles.   Currently,  the  National  Institute  of Building
  Science is  developing  such  work  practices  that  will  be  available to  the
  public.
     Response:  The  EPA will  look forward to  reviewing the work  practices
  developed by the National Institute of Building Science.
  7-3.12  Work Practices—Waste.Water
     Comment:  Commenter 30  requests that EPA address the process of  filtering
  shower water prior to  disposal.  Commenter 57 argues that strict controls need
  to be specified for handling wastewater from wetting operations.  They note
  that water that runs off or evaporates on the site could leave asbestos-
 containing dust,  a residue that could become airborne.
     Response:   The suggested revisions would alter the  stringency of the
 regulation.   The  purpose  of the revisions proposed on January  10, 1989 is to
 clarify and.promote  compliance with the rule.  The need  for  revisions that
 alter  stringency  may be considered at  a later date.
 7.3.13  Exemption from  Removal— Section  61.145(cUl)
     Comment:  The following  comments were received regarding the exemption
 from the requirements to  remove asbestos prior to  demolition.
     1.  According to commenters 18  and 20, Section 61.145(c)(1) (ii) will  make
 enforcement  actions difficult because it will probably be used by persons  who
 failed to give notice and were caught demolishing  a building.  Commenter  18
 suggests that the. rule  should be  changed to be limited to situations where
 asbestos could not have reasonably been anticipated to be present.  Commenter
 18 also suggests listing in the regulation where asbestos may be found.
Commenter 20 argues that this provision will encourage contractors to not
identify the friable asbestos prior to demolition.   Commenter 20  recommends
deleting this provision.
                                     7-83

-------
    2.   For consistency with the preamble and other parts of the  rule,
commenter 35 states that Section 61.145(c)(1)(iii) should be revised to
require  that, when the listed nonfriable materials (packings, gaskets, asphalt
roofing, and vinyl floor tile in good condition) become friable,  then they
must be  removed.
    3.   Commenter 49 suggests that EPA promulgate rules to cover  situations
where unexpected asbestos is found in amounts that will trigger the
notification requirements.
    4.   Commenters 57 and 66 recommend that EPA set standards for the handling
and removal of nonfriable materials to ensure that the material does not
become friable.  Commenter 57 argues that nonfriable material should not be
completely exempted from the rule, especialTy with regard to demolition,
because  all material can become friable during demolition or renovation.
    Response:  1.  In response to commenter 18's point that Section
61.145(c)(l) (11) would be used as an excuse for not giving notice, EPA is
modifying the rule to clarify the requirements for notification when no
asbestos is present; i.e., notification is required prior to demolition
regardless of the amount or presence of asbestos.   When asbestos is discovered
after the-demolition, the asbestos must be removed if it is safe to do so.   If
not, the asbestos material and contaminated  debris must be kept wet and
disposed of in a landfill.  Given the higher cost  of disposing of asbestos,
EPA believes these requirements will  discourage  persons from trying to use
this provision to avoid removing asbestos prior  to demolition.
    2.  See 7.1.1,  Asbestos-Containing Material.
    3.  Procedures are contained in the asbestos  revisions to cover the
discovery of unexpected asbestos,  including  removal,  if possible,  and wetting
                                     7-84

-------
 and disposal of the asbestos and  asbestos-contaminated  debris.   In  addition,
 the notification provisions require that procedures be  developed prior to
 demolition in the event that asbestos is discovered unexpectedly.
     4.  See 7.1.1, Asbestos-Containing Material.
 7.3.14  Wetting Exemption for Renovation—Section-61.145(c)(3)
     Comment:  The following comments were received on the exemption from
 wetting in renovations in Section 61.145(c)(3) (i).
     1.  Commenter 23 supports safety as a basis for an exemption from  the
 wetting requirements.
     2.  Commenter 28 recommends that,  in Section 61.145(c)(3)(i)(B)(2), the
 word "capture"  be changed to "contain" to differentiate from emission control
 using local  exhaust ventilation.
     3.  Commenter 41 recommends that,  because the Administrator would
 obviously  be overburdened by requests  for approval  to  use removal methods that
 do not involve  wetting,  the  rule should  provide  for approval from the
 Administrator "or  his  designated representative."
     4.   Commenters  41, 42, 65,  63, 65  argue that Administrator  approval  of  the
 listed  methods, Section  61.145(c)(3)(i)(B)(1)(3), should  be  unnecessary as
 long as  one of the three is used.  They suggest  that EPA  use OSHA's approach
 and determine under what conditions wet methods  are not appropriate, such as
 work on  live electrical equipment.  It would be  the responsibility of the
 owner or operator to demonstrate that the other method(s) was necessary  if
 requested to do so by EPA.  Commenter 42 recommends that, once an approval to
 use alternatives to wetting is obtained by an  owner/operator for a specified
type of work, it should remain effective  for all  such work without requesting
additional  approval  each  time.   Commenter 63 suggests that EPA allow the use
                                     7-85

-------
 af the  alternative  procedures  and  that  they  be  reported  in  the  notification,
 which would  allow EPA  10 days  to review the  information  and contact  the
 owner/operator  if a problem  is expected; they estimate that otherwise, it
 would take a minimum of 30 days to get  a response from the Administrator.
    5.  Commenter 84 recommends that, in addition to the request for a
 determination that  wetting is  not  feasible,  EPA should require  the
 owner/operator  to also submit  supplementary  information on the  method(s) to be
 used to minimize emissions.  The Administrator could then stipulate  the
 controls to  be  used.
    6.  Commenter 84 asks if the approval of an alternative method as allowed
 in Section 61.145(c)(3)(ii)  was to be on a case-by-case, project-specific
 basis, or on an unlimited basis for a particular'control technology.  They
 encourage EPA to promulgate  a  rule that recognizes engineering  solutions and
 emission control devices.  Air cleaning equipment that is recognized as
 effective and is maintained  could be used in place of wetting.
    7.  Commenter 87 suggests  that EPA  establish a limit for airborne asbestos
 concentration,  such as 0.2 f/cc, and leave the technique of meeting the limit
 up to the owner/operator.
    8.  Commenter 65 states  that, because a glove-bag system,  leak-tight
 wrapping, and local exhaust  ventilation are all  acceptable means of control
 for stripping asbestos from  components that have been removed, it is
 reasonable to presume that these same methods would be acceptable for use
 inside a facility.
    9.  Commenters 77 and 79 suggest that EPA develop a procedure under
Section 61.145(c)(3)(i) and  (11) to expedite the process  whereby an
owner/operator requests and receives Administrator approval  to use  a method
                                     7-86

-------
  other  than  wetting  In order  to  avoid  delaying  projects  that:may be  urgent but
  are  not  emergencies.
      10.  Commenter  62 argues that EPA should allow the  use of nonstandard
  abatement methods,  other than dry removal, subject to the Administrator's
  approval.   They state that this would allow full compliance with the
  no visible  emission requirement at a  reasonable cost for those jobs where
  standard techniques would be too costly and time-consuming.  Commenter 67
  requests that EPA allow for alternatives to the emission controls in Section
 61.145 and notes that they were cooperating in an informal  interagency group
 to evaluate cost-effective ways to perform roof removals.
     11.  Commenter 59 suggests  that  radiological  contamination should be added
 as another reason for not wetting asbestos.  They note  that they had received
 exemptions  previously in order  to dispose of  the  radiologically  contaminated
 asbestos  waste in a  waste disposal facility for radioactive waste.   The
 radioactivity in.the asbestos cannot be  monitored because of the beta
 radiation attenuation  that  results from  wetting.
     12.   Commenter 21  encourages  EPA to  require prior approval in writing  for
 exemptions from wetting  in  Section 61.145(c)(3).
                                                                   j-*
     13.   Commenter 30 agrees  with the  requirement  in Section 61.145(c)(3)  to
 keep  the  Administrator's written approval on-site for inspection.
    14.   Commenter 84 argues that EPA  should increase the stringency of the
 provisions that allow dry removal; EPA should require,  for example,  air-tight
 enclosures kept under negative pressure and ventilated  through a HEPA filter.
    Response:  1.  No response is necessary.
    2.  The EPA agrees that "contains"  is a more appropriate term and will
substitute it for "capture."
                                     7-87

-------
    3.  The definition of "Administrator" in Section 61.02 of the General
Provisions (Subpart A), which also applies to Subpart M~National Emission
Standard for Asbestos, includes the Administrator of EPA or "his authorized
representative."
    4.  The EPA considers wetting to be the most effective method of
preventing asbestos fibers from becoming airborne.  The EPA agrees with OSHA
in that the instances in which wetting cannot be used are very limited.  The
EPA wants to retain the responsibility for determining whether wetting would
damage equipment or pose a hazard.  The EPA does not approve which of the
three methods can be used; that is the owner/operator's decision to make.  It
should also be noted that EPA, like OSHA, intends for glove bags to be used
with wet removal methods inside the glove bag,  if possible.
    5.  The EPA believes that supplementary information on the controls is not
warranted if the owner/operator will  be using local  exhaust ventilation,  a
glove bag system, or leak-tight wrapping.  If,  however, the owner/operator
wants to use a method other than these three or wetting, then, as commenter 84
suggests, EPA must receive additional  information on the proposed controls
before issuing a decision approving or disapproving  the alternate method.  The
procedure for this is contained in Section 61.145(c)(3)(ii) of the asbestos
revisions.
    6.  The EPA has and will  continue to approve alternative methods according
to Section 61.145(c)(3)(ii)  on a case-by-case basis.  The EPA believes that
such a case-by-case approach  is warranted given that the unique conditions
that prevail  at each demolition operation often warrant different controls.
    7.  In principle, EPA agrees with  the commenter's suggestion of
establishing an endpoint,  such as airborne asbestos  concentration,  and letting
                                     7-88

-------
 the owner/operator  select  the  method  for  achieving  the  limit.   The  EPA  has  set
 such performance  standards  for the  control of  several pollutants  and  realizes
 that OSHA has established  an airborne asbestos level to protect workers.  At
 the present time, however,  EPA does not have sufficient information to  decide
 if such a limit is  appropriate for safeguarding the public health or  at what
 level such, a limit  should be set.  Many questions must first be addressed
 before EPA would consider such  a performance standard over the existing
 regulatory approach, i.e., the  use of work practices.  Wetting, the principal
 work practice required by the NESHAP,  has proven  effective in significantly
 reducing airborne asbestos levels when done correctly.   The-EPA may consider
 conducting a research effort at, some time in  the  future  to address the use of
 airborne fiber levels as an indication of the adequacy of  certain  work
 practices,  such  as wetting.
     8.   The  EPA  believes commenter 65  misunderstood  Section 61.145(c)(3)(1)  as
 it applies to  listed alternative methods.   This paragraph  allows their use
 regardless of whether the facility components have been  removed or are still
 in the facility  as long  as  the  Administrator  has determined that wetting would
 unavoidably damage equipment or present a  safety hazard.
    9.  The EPA  agrees with  the commenter's concern over avoiding  lengthy
 delays in projects while  awaiting approval to use a method other than wetting.
 The EPA believes that, if the owner/operator submits the necessary information
 along with the notification 10  days in advance of removal work, EPA will
 provide a response by the day removal is scheduled to begin.   If the
 owner/operator believes they will need a response  earlier in  order to plan
 their removal,  they should submit the necessary information further in  advance
of the removal  start date.
                                     7-89

-------
    10.  As noted before, EPA believes that wet removal methods are
consistently the most effective means of reducing airborne emission  levels and
intends that, except under certain prescribed circumstances, wetting always be
used, whether alone or in conjunction with another abatement technique.
Section 61.145(c)(3) describes the circumstances under which wetting may not
be required in a renovation, Section 61.145(c)(7) describes the circumstances
under which wetting may not be required in a renovation, and Section 61.145(c)
describes the conditions under which dry removal is allowed.  In response to
commenter 67's note regarding the study of alternatives to roof removal, as
they noted, EPA'will be involved and hopes to use- the information from the
tests in future rulemakings on the asbestos NESHAP.
    Commenter 62 makes reference to complying with EPA's no visible emission
Hm1t under Section 61.145, the standards for demolition and renovation.
Visible emission limits do not apply to operations regulated by Section
61.145? work practices are required.  However,  in Section 61.150,  the waste
disposal requirements have the no visible emission limit as an alternative to
work practices.
    11.  The EPA believes such an exemption could be made for safety reasons.
    12.  The EPA does require that the owner/operator must have received the
"written" approval  of the Administrator to suspend wetting.
    13.  No response is necessary.
    14.  The revisions suggested by commenter 84 would increase the stringency
of the rule.  The purpose of the revision proposed January 10,  1989,  is to
clarify and promote compliance with the rule.   The need for revisions to alter
stringency may be considered at a later date.
                                     7-90

-------
 7<3-15  Vetting Exemptions in Freezing Weather—Section 61.145fc)(7)
     Comment:  The following comments were received on the provisions that
 suspend wetting in freezing weather.
     1.  Commenter 20 recommends that facility components removed in units or
 sections (Section 61.145(c)(7)(11)) be removed in accordance with the
 requirements of Section 61.145(c)(3)(1)(B),  which requires alternative control
 to wetting.-  Commenter 20 argues that this provision encourages'the'scheduling-
 of work during colder parts of the year to avoid the wetting requirements.
     2.  Commenter 57 suggests narrowing the  exemption from wetting by
 requiring the use of surfactants that would  reduce the freezing point of
 water.  Also, they and commenter 84 recommend that other work practices be
 used and that the required temperature readings  be taken in  the work area.
     Response:  1.   Although EPA  generally agrees  with the  suggested  revision,
 it would alter the stringency of this rule.   The  purpose of  these  revisions  is
 to clarify  and promote compliance with  the NESHAP.   The  need  for revisions
 that would  alter  stringency may  be considered  at  a  later date.
     2.   The EPA agrees  with the  suggestion to  require  that the  temperature
 readings be taken  in  the work  area and  has modified the  rule  accordingly.
 Response no.  1 above  would  also  apply to the other suggestions  for more
 stringent work practices and the use of surfactants.
 7.3.16  Adequately Wet
    Comment:  Numerous comments  (3, 18, 21, 23, 25, 28, 33, 35, 42, 49,-50,
 55, 58, 62, 63, 68, 73, 83, 84, 93, and 94) were received on the subject of
 adequate wetting.   Several commenters call for a more objective method for
determining when something is "adequately wet."  For example,  it is suggested
that an airborne concentration could be established.  The definition  is
                                     7-91

-------
 confusing to  others and,  it is  suggested,  should  state  that  where water
 droplets  are  visible on  the material  and  no  (visible  emission  is  present,  the
 material  is adequately wet.  Commenters explain that  some  materials  cannot be
 adequately wet  according  to the definition,  and such  materials  should  be
 allowed to be coated with a liquid.   A simple moisture  determination test is
 also  suggested.   Commenters argue  that EPA should  retain the. existing
 definition of "adequately wet"  because the revision does little to ijnprove the
 definition.   Dropping the last  sentence is also recommended.
    The EPA is  urged to expand  the definition of  "Adequately wet" to clarify
 that  large pieces of bagged asbestos  do not  have  to be  reduced to small pieces
 to be wet and that bags do not  have to contain standing water.
    One commenter suggests that the area of  removal should be kept misted  or
 fogged during removal  operations to control  dust emissions.
    Response:   In the definition proposed  on January  10, 1989, EPA used the
 term  "particulates"  to be more  precise than  "dust," although they have
 essentially the same meaning.   The observation of particulates is an
 indication that friable ACM is  not being adequately wetted.  Dust or
 particulates  do not  have  to  be  shown  to contain asbestos? they are merely  an
 indication that the  material is not wet enough to prevent airborne dust or
 particulate emissions  when  handled.
    In the definition, the phrase  "mixed or coated" was replaced by "mix or
 penetrate."  This was  again an attempt to be more precise in -defining the end-
 point.  However, penetrate means "throughout" for sprayed-on friable  ACM and
 "penetrate the surface" on molded insulation  and ceiling tile.   For packaging
of waste such as molded pipe insulation  or ceiling tile, where  the waste is
not required to  be wetted throughout  prior to removal  (scraping/stripping)  for
                                     7-92

-------
 effective control  of asbestos emissions,  additional  wetting may be needed to
 prevent emissions  if the container was inadvertently broken.  In this case,
 the additional  application of water or aqueous  solution appears to be more
 effective if applied during packaging  of  the  waste rather than  when it was in
 place.
     Several  commenters  suggest that  one way of  helping  to define adequately
 wetted  would be to use  some means  of quantifying the  condition  of being
 "adequately  wet," for example,  a moisture measurement method or a method  to
 measure airborne fiber  concentrations.  A screening study of the  feasibility
 of  developing more- objective measures to determine adequate wetting was
 performed.   It appears  that, a moisture measurement method  and device  for
 determining  "adequately wet" have  not been established.   Development  of a'-test
 method  would require the time and  resources associated with a research effort.
 The EPA notes that the current approach works and that EPA plans to stick with
 it until something better becomes available.
    The use of TEM or optical fiber counts to determine whether proper
procedures are being used to remove the asbestos has  been suggested.  The
options that are possible using the monitoring of fiber concentrations "are:
    1.  To use airborne  fiber concentration  (either TEM or optical) to
        determine  the acceptable endpoint.  In this case,  EPA would not care
        how the  asbestos is removed as  long as the fiber concentration limit
        is met.
    2.   To use fiber  concentrations to  show that the required procedures
        (wetting, packaging,  etc.)  are being used correctly.
        Some  questions that  need to be answered are:
        •  Should TEM or optical methods be used?
                                    7-93

-------
        •  Should passive or aggressive sampling be done?
        •  Should samples be long-term (8 hour) or should they be short-term
           (15 minutes)
        •  How should specific activities be sampled?
        •  Are there data correlating the use of proper wetting procedures
           with fiber concentrations?
    Although measuring fiber concentrations would be a departure from EPA's
requirements of using procedures that reduce fiber concentrations during
removals, EPA is recommending that a feasibility study be performed to address
the above questions.  Such a study may eventually provide useful information.
The EPA agrees that any approach that is selected needs to solve the problem
that removal  contractors are now raising—on a real-time basis as the work
proceeds, the contractor needs to know when his wetting needs to be improved
so that he/she can take the necessary action to comply with the NESHAP rule,
    In summary, EPA has decided to retain the definition proposed on January
10, 1989, and will develop and circulate additional  information on acceptable
wetting methods.
7.3.17  Glove Bags
    Comment:   The following comments were received on allowing the use of
glove bags.
    1.  Commenters 23 and 30 support allowing the use of glove bags and leak-
tight wrapping as an alternative to local  exhaust ventilation in instances
where the Administrator determines that the use of wetting in a renovation is
not possible.
    2.  Commenter 21 explains that there  is a contradiction  in the OSHA and
EPA requirements on glove bag use;  where  EPA's  position has  been that a glove
                                     7-94

-------
 bag is a small total enclosure and a substitute for total room enclosure  using
 plastic sheets, they claim that OSHA has been interpreting its rule that  glove
 bags are an additional control device, to be used inside a contained area
 while the contained area is under negative pressure.  They suggest that this
 interpretation almost precludes the use of glove bags.  Commenter 21
 recommends that EPA's requirement be consistent with OSHA and that EPA and
 OSHA come to an agreement on the use of glove bags and publish their agreement
 in conjunction with the proposed revision to Section 61.145(c)(4) permitting
 the Administrator to approve controls  equivalent to  wetting,  e.g.,  glove bags,
 etc.
     3.   Commenter 21 disagrees with  the proposal  preamble  statement  that glove
 bags can  be  used  with  dry removal  and  urges  EPA  to discourage this practice
 because  such practices  are  likely  to result  in significant contamination
 outside  the  glove  bag.   Proper care and training in glove bag use is needed;  a
 3- or 4- day course  is  inadequate.
     Response:   1.  No response  is  necessary.
     2.  Differences  in  EPA and OSHA requirements stem largely  from the
 different objectives of the two'agencies.  The OSHA is responsible for
 controlling  exposure of workers removing asbestos as well as other workers who
 may  not be directly  involved in asbestos removal  but (because they are working
 nearby) may be exposed if certain precautions are not taken.   The EPA,  under
 Section 112 of the Glean Air Act, is responsible for controlling air pollution
 to the extent necessary to protect the  public health  with an  ample margin of
 safety.  Therefore, although glove bags may be adequate for EPA's  purposes,
OSHA objectives may require additional  controls because of  the proximity to
the exposure  source of the population they are responsible  for protecting.
                                     7-95

-------
 The  EPA generally  agrees with  the  commenter,  however, that  EPA  and  OSHA  should
 at some time meet  jointly  to address  the  use  of glove bags, although  it  cannot
 be a part of this  rulemaking.   The goals  and  products of such a meeting  would
 have to be worked  out between  the  two agencies if and when  they agree  to
 consider this  issue.
    3.  The EPA  intends for wet removal methods to be used  with glove  bags as
 stated in the  preamble.  This  intent  is further emphasized  by referencing OSHA
 glove bag procedures, which include wetting,  in the definition  of glove  bags.
 7.3.18  Technology vs. Paperwork
    Comment:   Commenter 9  argues that, in the interest of protecting human
 health and the environment, it  would  be more  appropriate to focus on advances
 in technology,- e.g., glove bags, instead of on paperwork exercises of  dubious
 public benefit.  They claim that their asbestos compliance program is
 continuously frustrated by regulations that change frequently at the State and
 Federal level.
    Response:  The revisions are intended to enhance enforcement and improve
 compliance, while  remaining neutral on stringency.  The EPA may consider the
 need for revisions, including changes that incorporate advances in technology,
 that would alter the stringency  of  the standards at a later date.   The EPA
 recognizes that the asbestos revisions require additional  recordkeeping and
 reporting; however, EPA is requiring only the additional  amount needed to
 enhance enforcement and improve  compliance.
 7.3.19  HEPA Filters
    Comment:   Commenters 18 and  84  recommend that EPA require all  local
 exhaust ventilation (LEV)  systems to be equipped with HEPA filters.
    Response:  The EPA allows the use of HEPA filters with LEV systems, and
many LEV systems incorporate HEPA filters, but EPA does  not require  their use.

                                     7-96

-------
 LEV systems may be operated without producing visible emissions or must meet
 the air cleaning requirements of Section 61.152, which include design and.
 operating specifications for fabric filters, scrubbers, and HEPA filters.  To
 require that HEPA filters be used would increase the stringency of the rule.
 The purpose of these revisions is to clarify and promote compliance with the
 rule.  The need for revisions that would alter stringency may be considered at
 a later date.
 7.3.20  Negative Pressure Systems
     Comment:  The following comments were received regarding the use of
 negative pressure systems.   Cornmenter 28 suggests revising the NESHAP to allow
 the use of negative pressure systems in lieu of wetting.   They cite the use of
 higher efficiency HEPA filters  in conjunction with negative pressure systems
 that would reduce emissions to  the outside  air;  they  also  cite the  fact that,
 in order to  comply with the OSHA  standard,  employees  would use wet  methods
 anyway.   In  addition  to negative  pressure systems,  commenter 77  recommends  the
 use of airlocked  decontamination  units  where  glove  bags are  not  used  and the
 adoption  of  clearance  standards,  such as 0.01 f/cc.
     Response:  Wetting  is an effective  method for preventing asbestos from
 becoming  airborne.  Studies have  shown  that wetting with plain water can
 reduce airborne fiber concentrations by about 60 percent and wetting with
 amended water can reduce concentrations by about 90 percent.  Negative
 pressure systems use dilution to reduce the workplace airborne asbestos
 concentration rather than preventing the release of fibers.  Wet removal
 followed by prompt collection and bagging of waste is a proven procedure for
minimizing asbestos concentrations.
    In response to commenter 77,  the recommended revisions  would increase
stringency.  The purpose of the  revision proposed January  10,  1989,  is to

                                     7-97

-------
 clarify  and  promote  compliance.   The  need  for  revisions  to  alter  stringency
 may be considered  at a  later  date.
 7.3.21   Restrict Access  to Work Areas
    Comment:   Commenter  57 suggests that EPA require  that work  areas  be
 restricted and signs posted to prevent  unauthorized entry during  renovation
 and demolition.
    Response:  The EPA agrees with the  need to restrict  access  to asbestos
 removal  work areas but believes that the OSHA  rules (Section  1926.58(e))
 adequately restrict  access.
 7.3.22   Control Options—No Visible Emissions  vs.  Equipment Specifications
    Comment:   Regarding  Section 61.145(c)(3)(i)(A)(1) and (4)(ii), commenter
 18 does  not want to  allow an option of  complying with equipment specifications
 for air  pollution  control devices or meeting the no visible emission  limit.
    Response:  Requiring compliance with the equipment specifications and the
 no visible emission  limit would increase the stringency  of the  rule.  The
 purpose  of the revisions proposed on January 10, 1989, is to  clarify  and
 promote  compliance with the rule.  The  need for revisions to  alter stringency
 may be considered  at'a later date.
 7.3.23   Training
    Comment:   Numerous comments were received on the provisions to require a
 trained,  on-site supervisor at all demolition and renovation operations.
    1.  Commenters 17, 18,  26, 83, and 92 support the training provision, but
would prefer that the trained person be on-site during all  phases  of the
asbestos  abatement operation.
    2.  Commenters 23, 54,  59, and 84 support  the requirement  for  at least one
trained on-site supervisor.   Commenter 4 supports uniform training criteria
                                     7-98

-------
 acceptable to both EPA and OSHA.  Commenter 83 states that the training
 requirements should be consistent in the NESHAP, OSHA, and AHERA regulations.
     3.  Commenter 28 states that the demolition contractors they have talked
 with do not agree with the NADC recommendation that each on-site supervisor be
 trained.  Commenter 28 explains that most contractors have one supervisor who
 is responsible for several simultaneous demolitions and to hire and train
 additional ones would be cost prohibitive.
     4.  As proposed,  commenter 39 explains  that Section 61.145(b)(4)(xii)
 requires a certification that an "owner or  operator" trained  in the NESHAP
 supervise the removal  operation.  They argue  that this could  be interpreted to
 prohibit the industrial  hygienist from supervising the operation  because
 he/she might not be the  "owner or operator  of a demolition  or renovation
 activity."  For consistency,  commenter 39 wants Section  61.145(c)(8)  revised
 to read "...with at least one  on-site  person  trained in  the provisions of this
 regulation..."   Commenters 58  and  75 support  the  training requirement as  long
 as the trained  person  can be one of their employees  on an employee  of the
 contractor.                                         •
     5.   Commenters 50  and 68 recommend  that asbestos project designers and
 abatement  workers be trained in  order to ensure the quality of the  asbestos
 work, while commenter 54  states  a need  for planners and managers to be
 trained.   Commenters 26 and 83 suggest that the "trained person" should be an
 AHERA accredited contractor/supervisor; in addition, the workers should be
 accredited.  Commenter 76 states that all workers must be familiar with safe
work practices and relevant rules and,  therefore,  the training requirements
are unnecessary and should be deleted.   Commenter 57 recommends that both
supervisors and workers be trained.
                                     7-99

-------
    Commenter .66 recommends that an EPA-established curriculum be used.
Commenters 18 and 66 recommend that a refresher course be attended every 2
                                                                              i
years.  Commenters recommend that the EPA training center submit to EPA a list
of persons passing the course and EPA should issue a dated certificate to be
kept at the job site.
    6.  Commenter 21 recommends that persons providing the training be
EPA/AHERA accredited.
    7.  Without a quality assurance program and a means of enforcement,
commenter 28 argues, the training requirement will have minimal  results and
should be deleted.  The commenter suggests shifting resources to assist States
in developing their own licensure programs.  They also argue that additional
resources would be needed to monitor the courses and certifications.
Commenter 28 also states that a training requirement should be delayed until
EPA can quantify the benefit of training and has established a contractor
training program.
    8.  Commenter 28 argues that, if contractors need training,  then so do
waste haulers and disposal site operators.
    9.  Commenter 32 recommends that EPA specify what evidence of training is
required.
    10.  Commenter 23 states that there appears to be some duplication between
the proposed training requirements and OSHA training requirements,  which also
cover health effects and worker protection.  They recommend that EPA specify
the incorporation of the proposed training within existing training programs.
Commenters 49, 58, and 62 recommend that EPA make clear that either AHERA or
OSHA training and certification are adequate to comply with the  NESHAP.
                                     7-100

-------
     11.  Commenter 80 recommends that EPA Include training in the recognition
 of RCRA hazardous waste and TSCA-restricted wastes, which might otherwise be
 used for wetting.
     12.  Commenters 57 and 66 recommend that EPA require certification of
 training.  Commenter 66 recommends keeping such certification at the job site.
     13.  Commenter 57 argues tfrat the training requirement should be effective
 immediately rather 1 year after promulgation',  while commenter 18 suggests that
 the effective date should be 6 months after promulgation instead of 1 year.
     14.  Commenter 76 agrees that removal  work should  be done under the
 supervision of a qualified individual, but that it  is  not necessary for that
 person  to be at the  job  site In  order for  a  project  to be under  his/her
 supervision.   Regular contacts between workers  and their supervisor  (and  if
 the  supervisor is kept informed)  are  sufficient to ensure that work  is  done  in
 a  responsible manner.
     15.   Commenter 83 states that,  it was  their understanding that a  statement
 certifying  that at least one on-site  representative was  trained  in the  NESHAP
 will satisfy  the NESHAP-no other certifications were  necessary.
     16.  Commenter 92 suggests that EPA consider a training requirement for
 the  individual  who prepares the new and expansive notification or at the least
 the critical  elements of the notification,  such as Section 61.145(b)(4)(iv),
 (v), (x), and  (xv).
    17.  Commenter 63 explains that, as a result of the increased need for
 training resulting from the NESHAP,  EPA or the States should establish a
 training program in each  State and develop  a training schedule available to
 the public.  They recommend that  the requirement for a  trained on-site
supervisor should become  effective 1 year after the  training programs  are
established.
                                     7-101

-------
     Response:   1.   The  EPA believes  that  the  role  of  the  trained  supervisor is
 to  be  on-site  often enough to  ensure that workers  understand  and  are  using
 procedures  for complying  with  the  NESHAP  and  to  provide occasional  instruction
 if  necessary.   The  EPA  does not  consider  it necessary for the trained
 individual  to  constantly  .monitor abatement -procedures.  Furthermore,  the  same
 supervisor  is  often responsible  for  more  than one  job.  It would  be very
 costly if additional  persons had to  be hired  and trained  in order to  have a
 trained supervisor  full-time at  each job.
     2.  The  EPA does  not  intend  for  this  training  to  replace  other training
 requirements;  in fact,  many of the existing training  programs  already include
 material on  the NESHAP  and would satisfy  Section 61.145(c)(8).  With minor
 additions,  EPA  believes that the OSHA training,requirement would  satisfy the
 NESHAP.
     3.  Because EPA is  not requiring the  trained on-site  supervisor to be at
 the  site at  all times,  EPA does  not  think that there will  be many instances
 where  additional supervisors will have to be hired.  Where a currently
 employed supervisor must  receive training, the costs of attending a 3- or 4-
 day  course are  not  excessive.
     4.  The  EPA does not  intend  to restrict the trained on-site representative
 to just the owner or operator of the demolition or renovation activity.   It is
 the  intent of this  requirement that other trained persons  can be used as long
 as they have the authority  to effect changes in the demolition or renovation
 necessary to comply with  the NESHAP.  As a result of this  comment, EPA has
modified Section 61.145(b)(4)(xii)  to be consistent with the intent of this
provision.
    5.  In response to the commenters who  recommend that project designers,
planners,  managers,  and workers all receive  training,  EPA  believes that  having

                                     7-102

-------
 at least one trained Individual on-site Is the most economical and effective
 approach to obtaining compliance with the NESHAP.  The EPA agrees that having
 a trained individual involved in designing the project would help to ensure
 compliance, although it is EPA's opinion that whoever*the trained on-site
 supervisor is will  likely be involved in planning the abatement project.
     In response to  comments that the trained person should be an AHERA-
 accredited person,  although such an individual  would fulfill  the NESHAP
 requirement,  EPA does not feel  that it is necessary to  have such training to
 ensure compliance with the NESHAP.
     In response to  commenter 76,  EPA agrees  that  all  workers  should  be
 familiar with safe  work practices and relevant  rules, but this is  not
 sufficient reason to delete the training requirement.   Even workers  who know
 safe  work practices  and are familiar with  the relevant  regulations often
 disregard rules for  a variety of reasons.  A trained on-site  supervisor can
 help  to  reduce  the frequency of these  infractions.
    In response to commenter 66, EPA will be developing training materials
 that  can  be used  alone  or  in conjunction with existing training programs.
 Regarding  the commenters who recommend that refresher courses be taken  every 2
years, EPA agrees and has modified the rule to require refresher, courses.   The
 EPA considers such additional training important to maintain familiarity with
the NESHAP as well as to keep abreast of any changes in the NESHAP.
    In response to the commenter who suggests that training be done at EPA
training centers and that a list of persons passing the course be distributed,
because EPA intends  to allow training by other sources in  addition to that
provided at EPA-supported training centers, a list of persons  who pass  the EPA
center courses would not include persons receiving their training elsewhere.
                                     7-103

-------
     6.   The EPA does not believe that it is necessary for the instructor to be
 AHERA-accredited.   This would exclude many qualified instructors.
     7.   The EPA disagrees that the training requirement will  be ineffective
 without a quality  assurance program.   The owner/operator will  still  be
 responsible for compliance with the NESHAP and  is  not likely  to accept blindly
 what is offered in the training as everything required by the NESHAP.   The  EPA
 believes that being exposed to what the  NESHAP  requires has the potential to
 Improve compliance among those who intend to comply.   The EPA believes that
 promulgating the training requirements,  and not waiting to justify the
 provision by a cost-benefit analysis,  will  do much  to promote  compliance.
     8.   The EPA believes that by educating demolition and renovation owners
 and  operators,  compliance with the other relevant provisions,  especially waste
 disposal,  will  be  improved.   The EPA  will  be developing guidance, including
 guidance on waste  disposal,  that will  be useful to  all  persons  affected by  the
 NESHAP.
     9.   Many asbestos  training courses provide  a certificate or diploma to
 individuals who  successfully  complete  the  training.   These would suffice as
 evidence of training.
     10.   Commenters 49,  58, and  62 are correct  in their understanding that
 either AHERA or  OSHA training  would suffice as  long as the NESHAP provisions
 are  included in  those  training programs.   The EPA agrees with  commenter 23's
 suggestion  that  it is  appropriate to incorporate the NESHAP training into
 existing training programs.
     11.  To  the  extent that the training  covers  wetting and wetting  agents,
 Improper wetting techniques and agents will be addressed.  The EPA anticipates
that the vast majority of contractors will use commercially available wetting
                                     7-104

-------
 agents and does not foresee problems due to use of hazardous wastes or
 restricted wastes for wetting.
     12.  The EPA requires a certification on the notification that an on-site
 representative has received training in the NESHAP.  In addition, the rule
 requires that, evidence of this training be kept at the job site and be  .-
 available for inspection.
     13.  Given the potentially large number of persons who may need to attend
 a training course as well as the time needed to add NESHAP materials to some
 training programs,  EPA believes that 1  year is appropriate.
     14.  No response is necessary.
     15.  This is correct.
     16.  The EPA will  develop  additional  information  to  assist  in the
 implementation  of.the  NESHAP,  including guidance on complying with the
 notification provisions.
     17.  As  mentioned  above, EPA  considers existing training programs  that
 incorporate  materials  on  the NESHAP  sufficient  to meet the  training
 requirements.  While favoring  the establishment of training programs in each
 State,  EPA does  not believe it  is necessary to wait for them before requiring
 trained on-site  supervisors at  all asbestos demolition and renovation sites.
 7.3.24  Work Permit
    Comment:  Commenter 57 recommends that a work permit system be required in
all asbestos-containing buildings to ensure that asbestos is not disturbed
improperly.  Such a system normally  entails work permits  issued  by a building
manager or asbestos coordinator before anyone does  work in  the building.
    Response:  The EPA  generally agrees  with  the commenter  that  it is
important to monitor and control all  activities  in  a building that might
                                    7-105

-------
disturb asbestos material.  For such a system to be effective, the building
must have first been thoroughly inspected to identify all of the asbestos
material.  Although, at this time, EPA is not considering a provision to
require all buildings to be inspected, or a permit system prior to disturbing
asbestos, these or similar provisions may be considered as part of a later
rulemaking to improve compliance.
7.3.25  General
    Comment:  Commenter 4 states that the revisions currently proposed offer
significant improvements, that it is imperative that additional revisions be
made to the notification requirements at this time, and that other changes
could offer very desirable improvements.
    Response:  The EPA agrees that the proposed revisions offer significant
improvements.  Regarding notification requirements, EPA notes that the final
rule does provide for telephone renotification of a change in the start date
of a demolition or renovation followed by a written notification, and no
longer requires a contractor to wait 5 days to begin a removal job.  The EPA
will consider other changes in a future rulemaking.
7.3.26  Strinqencv/Compl iance
    Comment:  Several comments were received on stringency/compliance as they
relate to revision of the demolition and renovation section.
    1.  Commenter 4 prefers more effective regulations, not necessarily less
stringent ones.
    2.  Commenter 4 asserts that any regulation that increases the cost of
compliance tends to encourage violation.
    3.  Commenter 28 questions the NADC assertion that simplification would
promote compliance.
                                     7-106

-------
     4.  Commenter 49 states  that  flexible  and  clear  regulations  win  encourage
 compliance.
     Response:  1.  The EPA also prefers more effective regulations, and
 considers this proposal to be a step in that direction.
     2.  The EPA agrees that  excessively costly regulations might cause some to
 ignore the rules.  However,  EPA considers the costs associated with the
 proposed revisions to represent a small increase in the costs of demolitions
 and renovations.
     3.  Although  EPA is sympathetic to the idea of simplification and attempts
 to make its rules as simple and clear as possible,  it also rejects the blanket
 suggestion that simplification promotes compliance.   To the extent that
 simplification increases  understanding  on  the part  of the regulated,  it may
 make compliance easier.
     4.  The EPA considers  the proposed  regulations  to be  flexible in  that
 owners and operators  are provided  options  to choose from  in determining how
 they will  comply  with the  regulations.   The EPA agrees  that clarity in  the
 rules,  to  the  extent  that  it  increases  understanding, may  facilitate
 compliance.
 7.3.27  Unnecessary Burden
     Comment:   Several comments of  a general nature addressing the burden that
 would  be imposed by the proposed revisions were received.
     1.  Commenters 4, 41,  42, and  43 state their belief that the standard
would  impose a significant and unnecessary burden on the economy.
    2.  Commenter 4 argues that focusing on friable materials in industrial
applications would reduce  costs,  control most  emission sources,  and promote
compliance.
                                     7-107

-------
    3.  Commenter 28 agrees with the NADC assertion that more  stringent
regulations may cause compliance to decrease where enforcement resources  are
inadequate.
    4.  Commenter 28 asserts that a few clarifying amendments  would  accomplish
more than the proposed revisions and that enforcement is the key.
    5.  Commenter 35 says many contractors do not have highly  technical
backgrounds and will have difficulty complying with the technical details of
the NESHAP, which continue to be confusing.
    6.  Commenter 95 believes the revisions will have a significant  impact on
building owners.
    7.  Commenter 36 asserts that members of the Specialty Steel Industry of
the United States will be adversely affected by the proposed asbestos NESHAP
amendments.
    8.  Commenter 37 states that members of the Shipbuilders Council of
America will not be able to comply with certain proposed requirements because
they fail to take into account the mobile nature of ships and the fact that
ships only are at a shipyard for a limited period of time.
    Responsef  1.  The EPA- has examined the costs associated with the proposed
revisions and found them to be small.   The recordkeeping and reporting costs
are included in the impacts of the reporting requirements.   Offsetting this
small increased cost are the potential  benefits in terms of reduced emissions
that will result from improved compliance.
    2.  The EPA's responsibility to protect the public health requires it to
regulate all asbestos removal  activities that meet the applicability
requirements of the NESHAP.
    3.  The EPA considers the  proposed  revisions necessary  in order to improve
compliance with the NESHAP and rejects  the suggestion  of possible decreased

                                    7-108

-------
 compliance as sufficient reason to modify or withdraw the proposed  revisions.
 The EPA believes that owners and operators who comply with the NESHAP
 currently in force will also comply with a revised NESHAP and that  the
 proposed revisions will make enforcement easier.
     4.  The EPA is sympathetic with the suggestion that enforcement is the key
 to compliance.  However, EPA disagrees with the assertion that a few
 clarifying amendments would suffice and considers the revisions essential to
 enhance enforcement and improve compliance.
     5.  The EPA is aware that the regulation is complex and sometimes
 difficult to follow.   The training required  by this proposal  will  Increase
 contractor knowledge  of the NESHAP requirements and should  facilitate
 compliance with  them.          '
     6.   The EPA  agrees  that owners  of  buildings being demolished or  renovated
 may  pay a  small  additional  amount  for  contractor services as  a  result of  the
 proposed  revision.  .However,  the overwhelming part  of demolition/renovation
 costs  is not chargeable  to  the  proposed revisions to  the NESHAP.
     7.  The  EPA  does  not consider the  comments  submitted evidence that
 specialty  steel  makers will be  adversely affected by  the proposed revisions in
 any  significant  way beyond  inconvenience.
     8.  The problem appears to  be notification.  See comment and response no.
 5 under Section  7.2.9 of this BID.
 7.3.28  Overall  Regulation of Ashpstns. Abatement
    Comment:  Two comments on the regulation of asbestos abatement were
 received.
    1.  Commenter 29 states that asbestos  abatement should be  regulated  by one
Federal agency with one comprehensive Federal  regulation.
                                     7-109

-------
     2.   Commenter  57  argues  that  a  far more comprehensive'regulation  is  needed
 to  address the  complexity  of large-scale demolition or  renovation work.
     Response:   1.  Although  it might be desirable to have  one comprehensive
 regulation enforced by one agency,  the statutory authority to regulate
 asbestos  is provided  by  several separate Acts and is assigned to several
 agencies.  The  commenter's suggestion would require a change in the laws for
 it  to be  implemented.
     2.   The EPA considers  the comprehensiveness of the  asbestos revision to be
 appropriate for the control  of air  pollution by asbestos.
 7.3.29  Objective  Measures of Compliance
     Comment:  Two  comments on the subject of objective  measures of compliance
 were received.  Commenter  23 believes that overall performance and regulatory
 compliance can  be  improved through  quantitative-, objective measurements rather
 than vague or subjective observations.  Commenter 33 states that, because EPA
 is  interested in fiber release, EPA should set a numerical emission standard
 to  that end.
    Response:   The EPA is  not aware that methods of measuring asbestos
 concentrations  in ambient  air are available at an acceptable cost for routine
                                                                            if
monitoring purposes.
7.3.30  Uncertainty in Level  of Compliance
                                                                              I
    Comment:  Commenter 9  says that, given the degree  of uncertainty EPA
claims is associated with the levels of compliance and noncompliance and the
degree to which emissions will be reduced  by the proposed amendments,  it is
questionable whether a sound  basis exists  for creating additional  regulations.
    Response:   Although EPA cannot quantify the  exact  level of noncompliance,
it has no doubt that there is significant  noncompliance  with  the  NESHAP.  The
                                     7-110

-------
 EPA believes that the revisions proposed on January  10,  1989,  will  promote
 compliance with the NESHAP and, as a result, reduce  asbestos emissions.
 7.3.31  NADC Claims
     Comment:  Four comments were received on the subject of the National
 Association of Demolition Contractors' claims.
     1.  Commenters 17 and 54 take exception to the claim that  stringent
 regulation promotes noncompliance.
     2.  Commenter 72 concurs with the NADC claims that increasingly strict   '
 regulations increase noncompliance.
     3.  Commenter 9 disagrees that regulations need to be relaxed to increase
 compliance.
     4.  Commenter 75 states that certain individuals  will not comply with
 regulations no  matter their strengths  or weaknesses.
     Response:
     1.  The EPA also takes  exception to  that claim.
     2.  The EPA does  not  agree  with the  claim  that  strict regulations  increase
 noncompliance.
     3.  The  EPA  rejects the suggestion that regulations be relaxed to  increase
 compliance.
    4.   The EPA agrees with the commenter and makes the observation  that  such
 individuals should be cited and prosecuted for violations of the NESHAP.
 7.3.32   Emission Sources
    Comment:  Commenter 4 states that,  although violations may be common at
commercial and residential demolition  operations (which are numerous and short
term),  it is the long-term,  industrial  jobs  that account for more than 90
percent of asbestos removal.
                                     7-111

-------
    Response:  The  EPA  1s  interested  in  improving,its estimates of
noncompliance and will  consider this  comment and other related comments
regarding compliance levels in refining  its estimate.  However, the widespread
perception of noncompliance among EPA, State, and local enforcement agencies
reinforces the need for this rulemaking.
7.3.33  Level of Compliance and Emissions
    Comment:  Commenter 23 states that they were not aware of any information
to support the estimate of 50 percent noncompliance with notification
requirements.  To the contrary, commenter 23 claims that the contractors they
know comply uniformly with EPA requirements.  They argue that the volume of
work represented by nonnotifiers is small, probably less than 20 percent and
possibly as little as 10 percent.  Commenter 49 agrees with EPA that asbestos
emissions from renovations are likely to be well controlled even without the
NESHAP, and argues that compliance among utility companies is high,  much
higher than the EPA estimate.
    Response:  See the  response in Section 7.3.32 of this BID.
7.3.34  Emission Estimates
    Comment:  Two comments on the subject of emission estimates were received.
    1.  Commenter 4 notes that OSHA's new worker exposure limit results in low
airborne asbestos fiber concentrations and states that EPA should review its
emission estimates for demolition and renovation in  light of the new exposure
limit.
    2.  Commenter 72 argues that the premise for the emission estimates,  i.e.,
all asbestos removed and disposed of 1s the same,  whether friable  or
nonfriable,  is false and the estimates are,  therefore,  inaccurate.
    Response:
                                     7-112

-------
     2.  The EPA will review its emission estimates and recalculate the
 numbers.
     2.  The commenter is not correct because only friable asbestos was
 included in the emission estimates.
 7.3.35  Violations
     Comment: 'Several comments were received on an EPA's  procedure for dealing
 with unintentional violations.  Commenters  23,  30, 49, and 63 recommend that
 EPA establish a position for dealing with unintentional violations,  e.g.,  the
 unintentional  omission  of certain  information on the  notification,  and at  the
 very least,  should provide guidance in  this  area.   Commenter 28  argues that
 the severity of a penalty should relate to the  severity of the violation.   In
 regards  to  NADC's suggestion  in  the proposal  preamble  concerning the  need  for
 a  procedure  to  correct  unintentional  violations, commenter 28 suggests that
 NADC should  instruct its  members to always ask  if  asbestos is present  and  to
 always notify  in  order  to avoid  unintentional violation because  it is  hard  to
 determine if a  violation  is unintentional.   In  response to NADC's suggestion
 for quick correction of unintentional violations,  commenter  54 states  that  a
 competent contractor or consultant  should be hired to correct the violations.
 In  addition, commenter 54 recommends that EPA should incorporate contractor
 certification requirements similar  to the AHERA program.
     Response:   The EPA has established a position for handling violations
 based on their  severity.  The new asbestos severity penalty treats violations
 differently based on the  severity of the infraction.
    Regarding commenter 54's recommendation  for  AHERA-like certification
 requirements, it is not  clear that  the AHERA  contractor certification
requirements are needed  to train  a  person in  the requirements of  the NESHAP,
                                     7-113

-------
but  EPA may  consider  this  if  it  is decided  later  that another  rulemaking  is
necessary.
7.3.36  Fees
     Comment:  Commenter  18 asserts that the proposed regulations  should
require the  EPA or delegated  authority to collect permit fees  to  cover costs
of inspections of demolition  and renovation jobs conducted in  their
jurisdiction.
     Response:  The EPA has no plans to charge for inspection of demolition and
renovation jobs.  However, there is nothing in the proposed rulemaking that
would preclude a State from imposing a permit fee consistent with applicable
State law.
7.3.37  Format
     Comment:  Eight commenters submitted comments on the subject of separate
standards for demolition and regulation.
     1.  Commenters 18, 29, 63, and 87 argue for clarity and ease of use in
separate demolition and renovation requirements and separate requirements for
each type of facility.
     2.  Commenters 21, 30, 62, and 68 do not agree with the suggestion that
separate standards are needed for demolition and renovation.
     3.  Commenter 21 supports containing applicability,  notification,  and
control procedures into a single standard.
     Response:  1.  The EPA considers the many similarities  in demolition and
renovation operations such that dealing with them as separate standards would
result in undesirable and unnecessary redundancy in the NESHAP.  Where
separate treatment is desirable,  e.g.,  notification,  EPA deals  separately with
the unique requirements of demolition and  renovation.
                                     7-114

-------
    2.  The EPA agrees with these commenters.
    3.  The EPA agrees with commenter 21.
7.3.38  Occupant Protection—Schools
    Comment:  Commenter 11 states that the proposed rule protects asbestos
workers, but does not protect children occupying a school while a renovation
is taking place.  All removal work should be done while school is not in
session.  Air sampling should be done to ensure the safety of areas adjacent
to the work area as well as the work areas before the building is reoccupied
by school children.  Rules for protecting children should be different than
those where adults are affected because of differences in how they are
affected by their environment.
    Response:  The concerns expressed by the commenter are covered fay rules
made pursuant to authorities contained in AHERA.  The Clean Air Act does not
confer the authority to deal with indoor exposures.
7.3.39  Risk-Based Review
    Comment:  Commenter 50 asserts that,  given the new information on asbestos
levels in buildings following removal and the associated health risk, EPA
should embark on a new risk-based review of the current standard.
    Response:  The EPA is considering plans to conduct a review of the NESHAP,
but with a view to protecting public health through more stringent control  of
ambient air exposures not protecting building occupants from exposures
indoors.  The Clean Air Act under which the NESHAP is promulgated  does not
confer authority to regulate indoor exposures.
7.3.40  NARS
    Comment:  Commenter 23 states that it is important that the National
Asbestos Registry System (NARS)  data for  a reporting period contain  enough
information to ensure that it is not misinterpreted.
    Response:   The proposed rulemaking does not address NARS.
                                     7-115

-------

-------
                                 8.0  SPRAYING

    Comment:  Two commenters would like to have all spraying of asbestos
prohibited.  Commenter 54 states that spray-on application of a material that
contains asbestos should be prohibited, but would allow exceptions with prior
written approval if no alternative material exists.  Commenter 84 observes
that spray-on application is prohibited by other regulations and proposes to
simply ban asbestos-containing, spray-on materials.
    Commenter 57 would like EPA to ban the spraying of any products containing
more than 1 percent asbestos, which is consistent with EPA's ban on all
asbestos-containing products.
    Response:  Adopting these comments would increase the stringency of the
standard.  Revisions that would increase the stringency of the standard were
not considered for this proposal.  As stated'in the preamble of the proposed
revisions, EPA is merely revising portions of the standard to clarify their
intent and to facilitate their enforcement.  The need for a review of control
stringency may be considered at'a later date.
    Comment:  Commenter 18 asks that Section 61.146 be modified to require the
same notice to EPA or the delegated authority if any asbestos materials are to
be sprayed.
    Response:  Incorporating this comment into the standard would require
owners and operators spraying asbestos encapsulated with a bituminous or
resinous binder to notify the Administrator of their intent to spray such
materials.  In 1978, the EPA exempted materials,  in which asbestos fibers are
                                      8-1

-------
encapsulated by a bituminous or resinous binder and that are not friable after
drying, from the provisions of Section 61.22(e) because there did not appear
to be acceptable substitutes available and any beneficial  environmental  impact
resulting from the prohibition of this use of asbestos would be negligible.
The EPA is not aware of any evidence that would call  into question its 1978
determination that negligible benefits would result from prohibiting the use
of encapsulated spray-on materials.  Hence, there does not appear to be  any
compelling reason to require notification for the spraying of asbestos
encapsulated in bituminous or resinous materials.
                                      8-2

-------
                           9.0  INSULATING MATERIALS

    Comment:  Commenter 57 wants containers of insulating materials labeled to
show the percent asbestos of the contents.  This commenter suggests that this
would provide additional useful information to users while requiring only
minor modification of the labels already required by OSHA and/or the Consumer
Products Safety Commission (CPSC).
    Response:  The EPA believes that the OSHA labeling requirements meet the
needs of enforcement personnel.
    Comment:  Commenter 75 supports the Agency's regulation of the manufacture
and sale of asbestos-containing products under TSCA and believes further
reduction in the availability of asbestos-containing products is warranted.
    Response:  No response is required.
                                     9-1

-------

-------
                    10.0  WASTE DISPOSAL FOR ASBESTOS MILLS
10.1  EMISSION STANDARD
    Comment:  Commenter 22 states that control device asbestos waste is not
transferred to the tailings conveyor at his facility and suggests that the
phrase "to the tailings conveyor" be deleted from Section 61.149(b).
    Response:  This provision is not a new requirement.  The NESHAP does not
require the use of a tailings conveyor.  Rather, it prohibits the discharge of
visible emissions to the outside air when and if control device asbestos waste
is transferred to a tailings conveyor.  Hence, there is no need to delete the
phrase from Section 61.149(b).
10.2  WASTE TRANSPORT
    Comment:  Two commenters are concerned with placarding and other
requirements of Section 61.149(d).  Commenter 22 states that his company moves
tailings from the mill  by dump truck or earth-moving equipment to a disposal
site on company property and would like the requirements for placards,  etc.,
in Section 61.149(d)  changed so that it would apply only to transport to an
offsite disposal  facility.
    Commenter 93 also suggests that the requirements of Section'61.149(d)
should apply only to  vehicles transferring waste offsite.
    Response:   Although company personnel  may not require  warning that
asbestos waste is being transported,  others who are on-site and who  are not
company employees,  e.g.,  vendor and construction personnel,  clearly  do.  .
                                     10-1

-------
Further, OSHA requires that workers be informed of hazards to which they are
exposed.  Accordingly, EPA believes the provisions of Section 61.149(d) are
appropriate as proposed and should not be changed as suggested.
10.3  EXEMPTION FROM WETTING
    Comment:  Commenter 41 suggests that EPA clarify what the disposer of
asbestos waste is to do when he/she elects to suspend wetting when the
temperature is less than -9.5 °C (15 °F) beyond recording temperature on an
hourly basis.
    Response:  The disposer may continue to operate without wetting the
asbestos waste as long as the temperature is less than -9.5 °C (15 °F) and as
long as the disposer measures and records the temperature at least at hourly
intervals to demonstrate that it is below the threshold for the wetting
exemption.  The records of temperature measurements must be retained for at
least 2 years in a form suitable for inspection.
10.4  ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT METHOD
    Comment:  Commenter 41 notes that EPA has substituted the word "treatment"
for "disposal method" in Section 61.149(c)(2),  and encourages the EPA to
return to its original wording.  This commenter also notes that criterion
(2)(iv) does not include air pollution.
    Response:  The intent of Section 61.149(c)(2) is to provide a mechanism
for the approval of alternatives to the methods of emission control
specifically identified in the section.  The EPA believes that use of the term
"treatment" is an improvement because it more correctly describes the
activities contemplated than does "disposal  method."  Although EPA believes
that it would be incorrect to return to the original wording,  EPA has modified
(c)(2)(iv) to more clearly describe what is meant by treatment by referring to
"emission control and waste treatment methods"  in place of "treatment."
                                     10-2

-------
             11.0  WASTE DISPOSAL FOR MANUFACTURING, FABRICATING,
                DEMOLITION, RENOVATION, AND SPRAYING OPERATIONS
11.1  APPLICABILITY
    Comment:  Several comments on the applicability of Section 61.150 were
received.  Commenter 2 asserts that asbestos-containing waste should be
subject to the same regulations whether from school buildings or other
buildings.  Commenter 8 asks if a vocational-technical instructor teaching
clutch and brake service is considered a waste generator, and if the conduct
of such instructional programs makes the schools subject to AHERA and the
proposed NESHAP amendments.  Commenter 15 states that transporters of waste
should be accountable for compliance with the NESHAP.  Commenter 47 wants the
waste disposal requirements revised to clearly exempt resilient floor tile
unless it is sanded.  Commenter 63 argues that Section 61.150 should be
revised to make clear that the provisions apply to waste shipment and disposal
offsite, not to temporary on-site storage awaiting shipment.
    Response:  Asbestos-containing waste is subject to the same controls
regardless of whether it originates in schools or in other buildings because
the requirements of AHERA and the NESHAP are identical.   Controls for waste
originating in schools were proposed under AHERA in order to satisfy AHERA
requirements.  The instructor teaching clutch and brake  repair is not
considered a waste generator in the proposed revisions,  and neither the
instructor nor the school  in which the subject is taught is subject to the
                                     11-1

-------
rule because of the instructional activities.  Section 112 of the Clean Air
Act, the authority for the proposed revisions, does not provide for the
regulation of mobile sources, and asbestos waste in transport to a disposal
site 1s considered to be a mobile source.   The EPA's intent is to treat
resilient floor tile as nonfriable material  unless it is sanded, and the
NESHAP identifies vinyl floor tile as nonfriable and exempts vinyl floor tile
from removal prior to demolition.  The NESHAP applies to waste shipment and
disposal either on-site or offsite.  Waste in temporary storage awaiting
shipment to a disposal site must be stored in leak-tight containers.
11.2  PLACARDS
    Comment:  The following comments were  received on the subject of placards.
    1.  Five commenters (25, 58, 84, 89,  and 98) point out that the Department
of Transportation (DOT) does not require placards on trucks carrying asbestos
waste.
    2.  Two commenters (25 and 59) comment that placarding is unnecessary
because individual containers are labeled.
    3.  Commenter 30 expresses the view that placards would have little effect
on accidental exposures, but that they cannot hurt.
    4.  Commenter 45 believes EPA intends  the placards to be in place during
transport, but is not sure.
    5.  Two commenters (49 and 69) cite the need for consistency with DOT
requirements.
    6.  Commenters 61 and 98 assert that the term "placard" is inappropriate
because it has a specific application under DOT regulations for hazardous
waste transport, and that the proposal should be revised to maintain the
distinction between "marking" and "placarding" as was done in RCRA and TSCA
rulemakings.

                                     11-2

-------
     7.   Commenter 65 says that placards would alarm motorists.
     8.   Commenter 80 agrees with the proposal, but asks which party is
 responsible for compliance.
     9.   Commenter 88 wants the requirements revised to exclude in-plant
 vehicles from the placarding requirement.
     10.  Commenter 94 states that placing names, locations, and dates on
 containers is a good idea.
     Response:  1.  It is correct that DOT does not require placards on trucks
 carrying asbestos waste.  However, DOT does require a marking that, in
 principle, is similar to a placard.
     2.  The EPA considers warning signs a useful means of warning the public
 that asbestos waste is being loaded or unloaded.  The labels on containers
 would not accomplish that objective as effectively because they are not as
 easily seen from a distance.
     3.  Placards or markings on a vehicle involved in an accident would serve
 to alert emergency personnel and others of a potential asbestos exposure
 hazard and would allow them to take measures to minimize their exposure.
    4.  Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act,  EPA has no authority to
 regulate mobile sources.  Therefore,  the proposal  requires markings during
 loading and unloading,  but not during transport.  The EPA would not object,
 however, if transporters chose to leave the markings  on the vehicles during
 transport.
    5.  The EPA has  discussed its plans for the  use of markings with DOT and
does not consider its proposed use of markings  to  be  in conflict  with  DOT
 requirements.
                                     11-3

-------
    6.  The EPA has modified the regulation to replace the term "placard," a
term used by the DOT in its regulation of the transportation of hazardous
materials, with the term "mark" as suggested by the commenters.  This should
help avoid confusing DOT requirements with requirements under the NESHAP.
    7.  The EPA believes that motorists would appreciate being informed about
the contents of vehicles that share the roads with them.
    8.  The waste generator is responsible for complying with the requirements
for marking vehicles.
    9.  Because 1n-plant vehicles transporting asbestos waste are not immune
to accidents and spills, EPA considers markings to be an appropriate means of
warning people and intends for in-plant vehicles transporting asbestos waste
to be marked.
    10.  The EPA does not consider it necessary to include dates on container
labels because the waste tracking system and records include the date shipped
and the date received at a disposal site for individual waste shipments.
11.3  LABELING
    Comment:  Commenters 2 and 94 favor, .while commenter 30 opposes as
overkill, the requirement to label all waste containers with the name and
location of the waste generator to eliminate illegal disposal of asbestos-
containing waste material.  Commenter 21 asks that EPA clarify whether the
name on the label should be the building owner or the contractor.  Another
commenter asserts that labels should include the EPA identification number of
the generator.  Still another argues that requiring location is burdensome.
    Commenter 12 states that the labeling requirement for containers will only
burden legitimate operators.  Commenters 12 and 28 assert that illegal
operators will not identify the source of asbestos waste, and that this
                                     11-4

-------
provision would require them to have several different labels for the many
facilities they have requiring occasional abatement work.  Commenter 14 argues
that labeling is unnecessary where the generator and disposal facility are the
same.  Commenters 7, 4, 3, 59, and 62 assert that it would be unnecessary to
label containers of waste with generator information (Section 61.150(a)(l)(v))
if a waste tracking form is used.
    Commenters 18, 28, 41, and 84 recommend that EPA in Section 61.150 and
perhaps elsewhere, cite only OSHA labels and delete references to other
labels.
    Response:  The EPA considers the proposal to label  waste containers with
the name and location of the generator to be a constructive approach to
improving compliance with the waste disposal regulation, to be appropriate to
the magnitude of the asbestos waste disposal problem, and to not be
burdensome.  The name on the label should be that of the generator who may be
either the facility owner (or operator)  or the contractor.  Upon further
consideration, EPA has determined that the use of an EPA identification number
is unnecessary and that the name and location of the generator will  meet EPA
needs for information.
    The EPA acknowledges that labeling containers will  place a small,
additional  burden on legitimate operators,  but considers the ability to know
the source of asbestos waste to be extremely important  and sufficient
justification for the requirement.  The  EPA agrees that labeling of name  and
location of generator is inappropriate when the generator and disposal
facility are one and the same and has  revised the NESHAP accordingly.   The
waste tracking forms accompanying a shipment consisting of asbestos  waste  from
several  sources  would not enable  enforcement personnel  to determine  the source
                                     11-5

-------
of improperly contained waste if the containers were not labeled with
generator name and location.
    The EPA agrees with the commenters who suggest that only OSHA labels be
required on containers and has revised the regulation accordingly.
11.4  WASTE TRACKING FORM
11.4.1  Uniformity of Existing Systems
    Comment:  Commenter 4 endorses the recordkeeping and waste tracking
systems as does commenter 84, while noting that it is more detailed than
necessary.
    Commenter 4 asserts that, for uniformity, the RCRA Uniform Hazardous Waste
Manifest should be used for tracking asbestos waste.  Commenter 4 would change
the record retention time to 3 years instead of 2 years to be consistent with
RCRA (same comment applies to Section 61.149).  Commenters 46, 58, and 83
would waive the requirement for a NESHAP waste shipment record in those States
utilizing the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest for asbestos tracking.
Commenter 49 argues that the NESHAP regulations on shipping records should be
consistent with DOT.
    Response:  The EPA considers the level of detail in the tracking form to
be commensurate with the need for information.  Asbestos has not been
designated a RCRA hazardous waste; the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest is
used to follow the movement of hazardous waste regulated under RCRA.  The form
shown in Figure 4 is illustrative, and other forms that provide essentially
the same information would be acceptable.  A 2-year time for retention of
records was selected as reasonable and of sufficient duration for purposes of
enforcement.  Retaining the records for an additional year would serve no
useful purpose.
                                     11-6

-------
    Where States  have their own regulation and already track asbestos as  a
hazardous waste using the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest, EPA would not
expect them to make a separate NESHAP waste shipment record.  DOT categorizes
asbestos waste as an Other Regulated Materials (ORM) waste, and the amount of
information provided on the DOT-required shipping record is not sufficient for
EPA purposes.  •
11.4.2  Information Required
    Comment:  Commenter 21 asks EPA to identify the degree of accuracy
necessary in establishing the volume of friable materials as required by
Section 61.150(d)(1)(ii), and must nonfriable estimates be volumetric or  will
length or area suffice?  Commenter 28 would require that only the "quantity of
waste delivered" be recorded because the disposal vehicle is usually weighed
at the landfill to determine the disposal charge.  Commenter has 28 argued to  .
delete Section 61.150(d)(1)(iii) because the disposal site information can be
obtained from the notification.  Commenter 28 wants the physical location of
the disposal site specified in Section 61.150(d)(1)(iv) and would delete  the
requirements to maintain records,  Section 61.150(d)(2)  and (3),  because they
would be difficult to enforce.  Commenter 28 states that the format and
content of Figure 4, Waste Tracking Form, should  be revised.
    Commenter 4 says the requirement to document  the number of containers in a
waste shipment is costly,  burdensome,  can easily  be circumvented,  and may
expose disposal  site employees trying  to confirm  the number of containers.
    Response:   The EPA considers an estimate of the volume of  friable material
to be sufficient and does  not expect owners/operators to  go to unusual  lengths
to determine the volume.   For example,  knowing that a 20  cubic yard  truck is
half full,  10  cubic yards  can be estimated;  or, if an owner/operator knows
                                     11-7

-------
that he/she has 50 bags containing about 2 cubic feet, 100 cubic feet or
approximately 3.7 cubic yards can be estimated.  If components of friable or
nonfriable asbestos material are removed and wrapped and delivered to a
disposal site, they can be reported as length or area, as appropriate.  If
only the "quantity of waste delivered" were reported, EPA would be deprived of
vital information to characterize the waste stream.  Although disposal site
information as required by Section 61.150(d)(1)(iii) could be obtained from
the notification, it should also be available on the tracking form
accompanying the waste shipment.  The physical site location would be a useful
addition to the information sought in Section 61.150 (d)(l)(iv); EPA will
revise the regulation to ask for physical site location.  The EPA considers it
most important that waste shipment records be available for inspection by
enforcement personnel.  The format of the waste tracking form illustrated in
Figure 4 will be revised in the final rule.
    The requirement to document the number of containers in a waste shipment
requires that the disposal site operator count and record only the number of
containers that are labeled as or are said to be asbestos.  The EPA does not
intend that the operator open containers to determine the presence of
asbestos.  The EPA does not consider the requirement especially costly or
burdensome, nor does it consider that counting containers would result in
employee exposures.
11.5  REPORTING, RECORDKEEPING
11.5.1  General
    Comment:  Commenters 24, 41, and 49 take the position that the additional
recordkeeping and reporting provisions will require additional manpower and
expenses without commensurate environmental benefits.  Commenter 24 states
                                     11-8

-------
 that,  if  asbestos  is  hazardous,  it  should  be  listed  as  a  hazardous  waste  and
 regulated under  RCRA.
    Response:  The EPA  acknowledges  that the  additional recordkeeping  and
 reporting provisions  will  require additional  labor;  however,  it  takes
 exception to the assertion that  the  environmental benefits will  not be
 commensurate with  the additional labor.  The  EPA believes that the  proposed
 recordkeeping and  reporting provisions will increase the effectiveness of
 enforcement efforts and, thereby, reduce asbestos emissions.
    There is no question that asbestos is  hazardous.  It was  not listed as a
 RCRA hazardous waste because EPA determined that it could better regulate
 asbestos  waste under the Clean Air Act at  this time.  At some future date,
 however,  EPA may decide to list asbestos as a hazardous waste under RCRA.
 11.5.2  Semiannual Reports
    Comment:  Commenter 4 opposes semiannual reporting by generators or
 disposal  sites but recommends exception reporting by both.  Commenter  9 notes
 that semiannual reporting is also redundant in view of the Superfund
 Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III regulations.  Commenters
 28, 39, 41, 75, and 83 assert that EPA should delete the semiannual  reporting
 requirement in Section 61.150(d) (4)—It is redundant and will just  add more
 paperwork because the information is also provided on the waste tracking  form.
    Commenters 24,  61, and 62 note that most waste shipment reporting now
occurs on an annual basis and that they prefer annual over semiannual
reporting.  Commenter 41 recommends  that EPA adopt the biennial  reporting used
by EPA's Office of Solid Waste (OSW).  Commenter 65 says that, if necessary,
EPA should supplement the existing biennial RCRA report.
                                     11-9

-------
    Commenter 63 asserts that it is unnecessary for the generator to submit
semiannual waste disposal reports.  Commenter 81 states that the proposal
imposes redundant reporting requirements on owners/operators due to Section
61.150(c)(4).
    Commenter 15 asserts that the semiannual reports required in Section
61.150(d) should be submitted by specific dates, e.g., January 31 and July 1.
    Commenter 15 believes the records should include business address as well
as name of transporter.
    Commenter 94 fears that small, rural landfills will use proposed
recordkeeping requirements as an excuse to refuse to accept asbestos waste,
which could increase illegal dumping.  The regulation in effect prior to the
January 10, 1989, proposal should be retained.
    Commenter 51 argues that industrial landfills on-site that are subject to
RCRA and State statutes should be exempt from the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements of Section 61.150(d).  Commenter 55 says that paragraph 61.150(d)
does hot define adequately who keeps disposal records and who submits
semiannual reports.  Commenter 55.feels that building owners are unfamiliar
with the report called for in Section 61.150(d)(4).
    Response:  The EPA has reconsidered the matter of semiannual reports and
has determined that, because it is unlikely that the enforcement resources
needed to make effective use of a semiannual reporting system will be
available in the near future, this part of the proposal should be withdrawn.
Enforcement agencies will still be able to identify violators by comparing the
waste records required to be maintained at the generator and disposal sites.
11.6  EPA IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
    Comment:  Several comments addressed the proposal to assign identification
numbers to generators of asbestos waste.  Most of the commenters find the

                                     11-10

-------
 requirement confusing.  Commenters 9 and 49 state that the system of  using  EPA
 identification numbers is confusing and misleading and should be subject to
 public comment rather than tacked onto the final version of the amendments.
 Commenter 25 wonders how the system is to operate and would they use  the
 number they already have for hazardous waste.  Commenter 26 is unclear as to
 who the generator would be and suggests that the abatement contractors should
 be considered the generator.  Commenter 28 thinks that this requirement would
 generate a list of one-time generators, and that it should be deferred for
 further study.  Commenter 41 asks if RCRA hazardous waste identification
 numbers were going to be assigned to asbestos waste generators.  As explained
 by commenter 61, not all generators will have an EPA identification number as
 required in Section 61.150(d)(1)(i) and (4)(i).  Commenters 62 and 63 express
 confusion over the proposed identification number and urge that a single
 number be assigned to an entire company, rather than to each building or
 facility.  Commenter 18 asks how the identification numbers are to be
 determined and assigned; is it to be done now;  and,  if the program is
 delegated to a State or local program,  would this require a State
 identification number?
    Response:  Because of the confusion expressed by all  the commenters over
 how a system of assigning identification numbers to  asbestos waste generators
would work,  EPA has reconsidered this  provision and  has decided to delete this
 requirement.   The EPA is confident that,  even without such a unique numbering
 system,  it will  be possible to track waste shipments for the purpose of
pursuing enforcement actions.
 11.7  BROKEN,  NONFRIABLE MATERIAL—SECTION 61.150(a)(3)
    Comment:   The following comments on broken,  nonfriable material  were
received.
                                     11-11

-------
    1.  The EPA has estimated that fiber emissions from broken asbestos cement
products are significant, while the National  Association of Demolition
Contractors (NADC) has estimated that they are not.  A simple, economical  test
is needed to determine the significance of asbestos emissions from broken
asbestos-cement products.
    2.  Commenters 5 and 27 state that treating broken, nonfriable material  as
friable asbestos will significantly increase the costs of demolitions.  These
additional costs should be specifically addressed before the regulation is
finalized.
    3.  Commenter 30 says that the determination of what broken, nonfriable
material should be treated as friable should be left to the discretion of the
inspector.
    4.  Commenter 47 argues that Section 61.150(a)(3), the requirement to
treat broken, nonfriable material, should be revised to state that it does not
apply to resilient floor covering unless sanding occurs.  Commenter 49 wants
the list of materials in Section 61.145(a)(5) that cannot become friable
expanded to include transite and asbestos-cement products.
    5.  Commenter 93 asserts that product edges are essentially the same fop
nonfriable ACM whether broken or not.
    Response:  1.  The EPA continues to consider asbestos-cement products to
be a potentially significant source of fiber release under circumstances that
lead to its being crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder  (e.g., being hit
with a wrecking ball).  The EPA agrees that a test to determine the
significance of such emissions is needed.  However, such a test is not
available at this time, nor is EPA aware of such a test that is forthcoming in
the near future.
                                     11-12

-------
     2.   The  EPA  1s  aware that nonfriable ACM that  1s broken  is  not  necessarily
 a  significant  source of asbestos fiber release.  To avoid the confusion  that
 would likely be  caused by use of the term "broken," EPA has  deleted 1t from
 the  regulation.   Furthermore, in clarifying its.position on  the handling and
 treatment of nonfriable asbestos material, EPA requires that all ACM be
 removed  prior  to demolition.  Certain nonfriable materials,  such as  resilient
 floor covering are  exempt from this requirement.  Other nonfriable  materials
 that are likely  to  become crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder during a
 demolition must  be  removed before demolition.  As a result of this  requirement
 and  the  requirement to adequately wet ACM that was not removed  prior to
 demolition,  including nonfriable materials, Section 61.150(a)(3), the
 provision to treat  the broken edges of nonfriable materials, was deleted.  The
 EPA believes this revision will help to clarify the regulation  and  is
 consistent with  its policy regarding nonfriable materials.
    3.   To the extent that it can do so,  EPA intends to explicitly exempt from
 the rule certain  nonfriable materials,  such as asphalt roofing  and floor tile.
 The need to  remove  and dispose of other nonfriable materials will  continue to
 be determined on a  case-by-case basis.
    4.   It is  EPA's intent to exempt nonfriable resilient floor tile that is
 in good condition from the NESHAP requirements for demolition and renovation,
 including waste disposal,  unless it is  sanded or abraded.   The  EPA considers
 transite and asbestos-cement products as  nonfriable materials that are
potential sources of asbestos emissions when  they are  crumbled,  pulverized,  or
reduced to powder in the course  of  demolition  and renovation  operations;  they
are not exempt from the demolition  and  renovation provisions.  (See  7.1.1,
Asbestos-Containing Material.)
                                     11-13

-------
    5.  Use of term "broken" has led to some confusion over EPA's policy
regarding nonfriable materials.  The EPA Intends to cover material  that would
be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder during demolition or renovation.
The EPA agrees with the commenter,  and the term "broken" has been deleted from
the regulation.
11.8  ASBESTOS-CONTAINING WASTE MATERIAL
    Comment:  The following comments on asbestos-containing waste material
were received.
    1.  Commenters 2 and 10 observe that all nonfriable materials can be
broken, crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder in the course of operations
regulated by this subpart, and commenter 2 says that the definition of
asbestos-containing materials should be modified accordingly.
    2.  Commenter 47 would like to exclude resilient floor covering from the
definition of asbestos-containing waste material unless it is sanded.
    3.  Commenter 95 believes that the exceptions at Section 61.150(b)(3) of
the proposed revisions to the regulation apply to resilient tile unless it is
sanded.
    4.  Commenter 93 would like Section 61.150(b) revised to eliminate
language that is redundant with the proposed definition of asbestos-containing
waste materials.
    5.  Commenter 79 states that the application of Section 61.150(b) to
asbestos-containing waste from natural draft cooling towers in the electric
utility industry would represent a significant burden.  In periods between
maintenance, some of the several thousand asbestos-cement boards that make up
the tower become damaged, and pieces fall into the base of the tower and
become mixed with the soil.  It is not possible to determine what portions of
                                     11-14

-------
 the soil  do or do not contain asbestos,  and it  would  be  necessary to treat it
 all—several  thousand cubic yards—as  asbestos-containing  waste material.
 Commenter 79  expresses concern that they will use  up  too much  landfill
 capacity.  The commenter recommends that EPA review this issue in greater
 detail, provide a mechanism by which the regulated community can demonstrate
 that this material  does  not pose  a  threat to the environment,  and allow an
 exemption from Section 61.150(b).
     Response:   1.   The EPA  agrees that in theory all  nonfriable  materials  can
 be  broken,  crushed, etc.  As  a practical  matter, however,  some asbestos-
 containing materials,  such  as  floor tile, are not expected to  be so  badly
 damaged during demolition that they would release significant  levels of
 asbestos  fibers.   To  accommodate  such exceptions, EPA has  revised  the
 definition of  asbestos-containing waste  material to exempt nonfriable
 resilient floor covering, asphalt roofing, packings, and gaskets  that are  from
 demolition and renovation operations.
     2.  The EPA agrees and  the definition of asbestos-containing waste
 material  has been  revised to clarify its  intent not to regulate  certain
 nonfriable materials.            .
     3.  The EPA agrees with the commenter.
     4.  The EPA agrees that Section 61.150(b) is redundant in that it repeats
 some part  of the definition of asbestos-containing waste material and has
 revised the paragraph accordingly.
     5.  The asbestos-cement pieces that break off the  boards and fall into the
base of the tower in periods between maintenance are not subject to the NESHAP
and can remain  there indefinitely.  The EPA would consider maintenance,  in
which cement boards are replaced,  a renovation,  and any asbestos-cement
material  removed on such occasions would  have to be handled in  accordance with
                                     11-15

-------
the provisions of this rule.  Also, EPA would consider removal of the
asbestos-contaminated soil sediment a renovation subject to the provisions of
this rule.
11.9  WORK PRACTICES
11.9.1  Asbestos Not Removed Prior to Demolition
    Comment:  Two comments were received on the subject of handling asbestos
not removed prior to demolition.
    1.  Commenter 68 believes Section 61.150(a)(4) should require asbestos
waste from demolitions involving facility components encased in concrete,
areas not accessible prior to demolition, and facilities demolished under
government orders to be packaged in leak-tight containers.
    2.  Commenter 20 recommends that the reference to Section 61.145(c)(1)(ii)
(materials not accessible prior to demolition) be deleted from Section
61.150(a)(4).
    Response:  1.  The EPA requires asbestos waste not removed prior to
demolition to be wetted, if it cannot be removed.  Following demolition, the
volumes of asbestos-containing waste are expected to be quite large because
the asbestos will be mixed with large amounts of debris.  The EPA considers
the amounts of asbestos-containing waste to be too large to require the  use of
leak-proof containers.
    2.  Materials not accessible prior to demolition must be adequately
wetted.   The EPA sees no reason to delete the reference to inaccessible
material  in the waste disposal provisions of Section 61.150(a), which
specifies procedures for handling  and treating asbestos that was left  in a
facility  during demolition.
                                      11-16

-------
 11.9.2  Waste Containers
     Comment:   Commenter 41 notes that the leak-tight bags required by Section
 61.150 are often torn open at the disposal  site while being covered and
 concludes that bags are, therefore,  impractical and inconsistent with safe
 waste disposal.
     Response:   The revisions do not  require bags;  they require leak-tight
 containers, which may be bags.   When properly handled and treated with
 reasonable care,  bags are appropriate containers.   After disposal,  any
 container will  deteriorate.
 11.9.3  Wetting Practices
     Comment:   1.   Commenter  4 asks that the revisions clarify  that  material
 contained  in leak-tight  wrapping does  not need  to  be  opened  or unwrapped  and
 wetted.
     2.   Commenter 28  would revise Section 61.150(a)(3) to  require that
 nonfrlable asbestos waste material be  adequately wetted while  being  loaded for
 transport to a  disposal  site.
     Response:   1.  Section 61.145(c)(6)(iv) already addresses  this point.  The
 EPA will also prepare additional  information on this  to assist all affected
 parties.
 .   2.   In an effort to clarify how EPA intends for nonfriable materials to be
 handled and disposed of,  the regulation has been revised at several places.
 Some of these revisions have already been discussed.  For example, the
 definitions of  "asbestos-containing material" and "asbestos-containing waste
material" were revised to clarify that nonfriable resilient floor covering,
 roofing, packings, and gaskets that are not in poor condition are exempt from
the removal and waste disposal requirements.  Also, EPA has deleted from the
regulation the word "broken"  where it was  used to explain under what

                                     11-17

-------
conditions nonfriable materials were covered.   The EPA has also modified the
regulation stating what actions are necessary  if nonfriable material  (other
than those exempted nonfriable materials)  are  left in a facility that is
demolished and the material becomes crumbled,  pulverized,  or reduced to powder
by the demolition.  In this case, the material would have to be removed and
treated as friable asbestos, if possible,  or the entire pile of debris
contaminated with asbestos would have to .be kept wet and disposed of in an
acceptable landfill.  These revisions will help to clarify the requirements of
Section 61.150(a)(3).
11.9.4  Transport of Waste
    Comment:  Three comments on transport  of waste were received.
    1.  Commenter 2 says that the NESHAP should be amended to adopt DOT rules
for transporting asbestos-containing waste, i.e., fully enclosed dropboxes and
no open truck hauling.
    2.  Commenter 26 says that it would be beneficial to specify the type of
vehicle used for hauling asbestos waste, such as a covered roll-off container
or an enclosed truck.
    3.  Commenter 2 would like the practice of uncontrolled dumping-of small
loads of asbestos waste into a larger vehicle at transfer stations banned
immediately.
    Response:  1.  The EPA is not aware of such DOT regulations for asbestos
waste.
    2.  The recommended revision would affect stringency.  The purpose of this
rulemaking is to  clarify and promote compliance with the rule.  The need for
revisions that alter stringency may be considered at a later date.
    3.  Transfer  stations were outside the scope of this rulemaking.  They may
be considered during future rulemakings.

                                     11-18

-------
 11.9.5   Processing Waste
    Comment:  Three comments on the subject of processing waste were  received.
    1.   Commenter 18 says that, unless demolition/renovation waste  is
 processed  into nonfriable forms,, Section 61.150(a)(2) should be deleted  from
 the proposal.  Commenter 65 considers the requirement to process asbestos
 waste into nonfriable material  (Section 61.150(a)(2)) confusing.
    2.   Commenter 84 disagrees with requiring control device wastes to be
 wetted or mixed to form a slurry because some landfills prohibit liquid
 wastes.
    Response:  1.  The revisions do not require asbestos waste to be  processed
 into nonfriable material.  Section 61.150(a) does require owners or operators
 to discharge no visible emissions or use one of the treatments specified in
 paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of the section, one of which is processing
 asbestos waste into a nonfriable form.
    2.   Paragraph 61.150(a)(l) does not require control  device waste  to be
 wetted or mixed to form a slurry;  it is a compliance option that may  be
 selected by an owner or operator.   The EPA also notes that wet collectors are
 employed as control  devices at some facilities and that the collected material
 is in the form of a slurry.
 11.9.6  Control  Options
    Comment:   Five comments  on the subject of control  options were received.
    1.   Commenter 18 argues  that all  material  should be  adequately wetted and
that the reference to Section 61.152  should  be removed.
    2.   Commenters 54,  70,  and 94  say that the regulation  should  require both
no visible emissions  and  work practices.
                                     11-19

-------
    3.  Commenter 84 states that the regulation at Section 61.150(a) appears
to contradict Itself because visible emissions would be a failure to implement
the requirement for adequate wetting.
    Response:  1.  If this comment were adopted, it would increase the
stringency of the standard by eliminating a control option.  The intention of
these revisions is to revise portions of the standard that are not risk-based
to clarify their intent and to facilitate their enforcement.   The EPA may
consider the need for a review of control stringency at a later date.
    2.  See response no. 1.
    3.  The EPA sees no contradiction between the two compliance alternatives,
i.e., no visible emissions and the adequate wetting work practice.  Choosing
the visible emission limit to comply with places no restriction on the method
for achieving it.  For example, at a plant manufacturing asbestos brakes,
rejected brakes can be collected for disposal without producing visible
emissions, even when handled dry because they are nonfriable.  At the same
time, choosing to comply with the adequate wetting alternative does not
contradict the no visible emission limit option because the part of the
defining language for "adequately wet," stating that a visible emission means
the material is not adequately wet, is only a measure of how well the wetting
was performed.  Furthermore, the NESHAP in effect prior to the January 10,
1989, proposal prohibited visible emissions during the wetting operation,
unless controlled by an air cleaning device.
11.9.7  Alternative Methods
    Comment:  Commenter 4 says that the regulation should allow the
Administrator to approve alternative removal, handling, and treatment methods.
                                     11-20

-------
     Response:  Paragraph 61.150(a)(5)  provides for the use of alternative
 treatments that have received prior approval  of the Administrator.  The
 procedure to follow to obtain Administrator is prescribed in paragraph
 61.149(c)(2).
 11.9.8  General
     Comment:   Commenter 57  would  like  the  regulation to  be more specific and
 cover areas  such  as when to bag waste,  removal  of  excess air from bags,  use of
 goose-neck sealing,  and storage.
     Response:  The  recommended  coverage is  outside the scope of this
 rulemaking.
 11.10  ON-SITE DISPOSAL
     Comment:   Four  commenters  (3, 46, 49, and  64)  state  that, because  they  own
 the  landfills they  use  for  disposing of their  asbestos,  it  does  not seem
 necessary  to  label  all  waste containers with the name and  location of  the
 generator.  They  also believe that they should  retain the  landfill's copy of
 the  waste  tracking  form,  and that the manifest  requirements  should be  waived
 where  the  waste is generated and disposed of on-site.  Commenter 49 argues
 that placarding of vehicles should not be required for on-site disposal.
     Response:  The EPA  recognizes that the circumstances of on-site disposal
 are  different  from off-site disposal.  The EPA's interest is to have a record
 of the quantities of asbestos waste disposed of and its location.  The EPA
 will adjust the language of the proposed rule to address the special
 circumstances of on-site disposal.
     In the matter of placarding, EPA believes the requirement is appropriate
 as proposed.   Although company personnel may not require warning that  asbestos
waste is being transported,  other  persons  on-site who are not company
                                     11-21

-------
employees, e.g., vendors and construction workers, clearly do.  Further,  OSHA
requires that workers be informed of hazards to which they are exposed.
11.11  OFFSITE DISPOSAL
    Comment:  Because small entities will not operate their own landfill,
commenter 4 argues that they would bear a disproportionate share of the
increased disposal cost, calling Regulatory Flexibility Act provisions into
play.
    Response:  The EPA agrees that there will be some increase in disposal
costs.  However, EPA's analysis indicates that the increases in costs and the
nature of the demolition services industry are such that no significantly
disproportionate impacts will be experienced by smaller entities.
11.12  HOLDING TIME
    Comment:  Three commenters (15, 21, and 54) submitted comments on the
subject of holding time.  They recommend that a timeframe for disposal be
specified (e.g., not more than 5 days from the last day that asbestos is
stripped or removed), that a timeframe or holding time also be specified for
manufacturing and fabricating sources, and that the rule require waste to be
deposited as soon as possible rather than as soon as practical at a disposal
site.
    Response:  Because of the varying lengths of time needed to accumulate
enough waste to economically transport waste to a disposal site, EPA believes
it is less burdensome to allow the waste generator to decide when to take
waste to a disposal site.  Waste that is being held for transport must be
properly contained and, therefore, does not pose a public health threat.
11.13  FORMAT
    Comment:  Commenter 18 recommends that the disposal standards in Section
61.150 be separate for renovation and demolition operations.

                                     11-22

-------
     Response:.  The EPA considers  the waste  treatment methods  and requirements
 in Section 61.150 to  be applicable  in whole or in part to  waste  disposal  for
 manufacturing,  fabricating,  demolition,  renovation, and spraying operations.
 Although reader confusion might be  reduced  somewhat, it would be offset by the
 redundant language necessitated by  separating  waste disposal  for renovation
 and demolition  from waste disposal  for the  other sources.  The EPA  considers
 the potential benefits  of the  recommendation to be minimal and,  therefore,  has
 decided  not to  adopt  it.
 11.14  RESPONSIBILITY  FOR COMPLIANCE
     Comment:  Section  61.150(a) should be revised to clearly  indicate that  a
 good-faith effort  by a  generator will  not result in liability  for the actions
 of the transporter or disposal site  that are beyond the generator's legal
 control.                                                         .
     Response:   It  is not EPA's intention to hold the generator liable for the
 actions  of the  transporter or the disposal  site operator.   The final rule is
 revised  to clarify  this point.  However,  the waste generator is  responsible
 for selecting an acceptable disposal site.
 11.15  ENFORCEMENT
     Comment:  Commenter 30 questions whose responsibility  it is to check the
 accuracy of generator waste shipment records against those of the disposal
 site.  They also ask who will pay for it  and how much  time will it take, and
 suggest charging a permit fee for demolition and renovation.
     Response:  The EPA or the delegated authority for  enforcing the NESHAP
will have  the responsibility of checking  waste  shipment  records.   Agreement
between the records of the generator and  the disposal  site are not a critical
issue because, in most instances,  the disposal  site's  records  will  be a  copy
                                     11-23

-------
of the record originated by the generator.  A primary purpose of the records
will be to allow inspectors to determine if the waste shipped by a particular
generator reaches the disposal site designated on both the notification and
the waste shipment record at the generator's site.  The cost of examining
these records will be borne by the enforcing agency as part of their normal
inspection procedure.  Although the NESHAP does not address the use of permit
fees to offset enforcement costs, States and local governments are not
prohibited from initiating a permit system.
11.16  GENERAL
    Comment:  Two general comments on waste disposal were received.
    1.  Commenter 57 states that EPA's Asbestos Waste Management Guidance
document contains several recommendations that should be incorporated into the
revised NESHAP.
    2.  Commenter 87 suggests that EPA supply waste generators with a list of
disposal sites that meet the NESHAP requirements.
    Response:  1.  The NESHAP was revised to incorporate some of the
recommendations in the Asbestos Waste Management Guidance document; e.g., the
proposed waste tracking system is similar to those found in the Guidance.
However, the recommendations for decontaminating the outside of containers and
double bagging would increase the stringency of the standards.  Other
recommendations dealing with waste transport and authorized under AHERA are
not authorized under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, which is the legal
authority for NESHAPs.
    2.  Most State agencies can identify disposal sites that meet the
requirements of the asbestos NESHAP.  Generators of asbestos waste should
contact their State environmental and/or health agency to obtain the name and
location of the nearest disposal site.

                                     11-24

-------
                       12.0  INACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
 12.1  APPLICABILITY
     Comment:   Three comments on the subject of applicability were received.
     1.   Commenter 45 states that the proposal  expands  the coverage of Section
 61.151  to  include demolition and renovation waste,  while  Commenter 84 says
 that the section  should also apply  to demolition  and renovation  waste.
     2.   Commenter 45 notes that Section  61.151(e) could be interpreted  to
 apply to existing inactive sites within  60  days after  the rule is promulgated.
     Response:   1.   Section 61.151 applies only to inactive disposal sites
 operated by the owners  or  operators  of mills and manufacturing and fabricating
 operations.  It does not apply  to inactive  disposal  sites  that are operated by
 demolition/renovation or other  sources.  .Expanding  the coverage  of Section
 61.151  to  include  the numerous  landfills that  have  received asbestos-
 containing waste  in  the past  is  beyond the  scope of  this  rulemaking.
     2.   The EPA intends that  Section 61.151(e) cover sites that become
 inactive after the effective  date of this rulemaking.
 12.2  WORK PRACTICES
    Comment:  Two comments on work practices were  received.
    1.  Commenter 22 requests clarification as to  whether the NESHAP applies
to asbestos mining operations and/or ore.
    2.  Commenter 41 wants  paragraph 61.151(d)  amended  to  discourage
activities  that disturb  waste.
                                     12-1

-------
    Response:  1.  The rule applies to mills and manufacturing and fabricating
operations, but not to mines.
    2.  Because the Administrator's written approval must be obtained prior to
disturbing asbestos-containing waste material at a disposal site, adding an
admonition to avoid disturbing waste seems unnecessary.
12.3  RECORDKEEPING, REPORTING
    Comment:  Three comments on the subject of recordkeeping and reporting
were received.
    1.  Commenter 22 asserts that the requirement to record a notation on the
property deed, Section 61.151(e), should not apply to a mill with on-site
tailings disposal on a continuing basis, but perhaps could be a post-closure
requirement.
    2.  Commenter 84 would delete Section 61.151(e)(2) because the only
important  information is that asbestos is in the landfill; a general
disclosure of the presence of asbestos should suffice.
    3.  Commenter 80 supports the requirement to note on the property deed
when a site was  used for asbestos waste disposal.  They request that the final
rule be clear as to the level of detail required in such deed notation and
recommends it be of a general nature.
    Response:  1.  The requirement does not apply to active waste disposal
sites, only to inactive disposal sites.
    2.  The EPA  considers the information.called for in Section 61.151(e)(2)
necessary  to fully inform potential purchasers that the property has been used
for the disposal of asbestos.   Information on the quantity of asbestos and its
location would enable subsequent owners to make informed and prudent decisions
about the  use of the land and parts thereof.
                                     12-2

-------
    3.  The  EPA agrees with the commenter and considers the information
required on  the deed to be general  in nature with the more detailed
information  on file with EPA.
12.4  NATURAL BARRIERS
    Comment:  One comment was received on Section 61.151(b)(3) that points out
that the word "deters" was omitted from the last line of Section 61.151(b)(3)
between "adequately" and "access."
    Response:  This omission has been corrected.
12.5  EXCAVATION OF ASBESTOS WASTE
    Comment:  During internal  review of the proposed regulation,  the
requirement to obtain Administrator approval before excavating a disposal site
containing asbestos waste was  questioned;  notification was suggested as being
sufficient.
    Response:  After consideration of the  comment,  EPA has decided to require
that a notification be sent instead of requiring approval  to excavate.  The
EPA believes that requiring notification will  be less intrusive for the
regulated community and that adequate advance  notice to EPA can be given to
provide enforcement personnel  with an opportunity to evaluate  the controls and
to inspect these  sources.   The same change is  being  made in the provisions for
active waste disposal  sites.
                                     12-3

-------

-------
                              13.0  AIR CLEANING

    Comment:  Commenter 22 says that EPA should not try to regulate an
Invention, that they have small baghouses that cannot be Inspected without
creating excessive dust and exposure, and that any faulty bags result in
emissions that would be detected in minimal  time.  Commenter 22 wants Section
61.152(a)(3) deleted.
    Response:  This section applies to fabric filters installed after the date
of this proposal and requires only that provision be made for easy inspection.
The EPA recognizes that many baghouses are too small to walk into to inspect
bags.  For such devices, inspection ports or removable panels could provide a
means for visual inspection of the bags.   The costs of such modifications
would be minimal.
                                     13-1

-------

-------
                                14.0  REPORTING

    Comment:  Commenter 28 recommends that tonnage of waste be Included 1n the
reporting required by Section 61.153(a)(4)(11).
    Response:  The proposal specifies cubic meters (cubic yards) because EPA
believes it is easier for-waste generators to determine or estimate volume
than weight because they know the capacities of containers and transport
vehicles.  Not all generators or disposal  sites will  have the means to
determine weight.  Volume is specified in  Section 61.153 in order to be
consistent with Sections 61.149 and 61.150.
                                    14-1

-------

-------
                           15.0  ACTIVE DISPOSAL SITES
15.1  COSTS
    Comment:  Two comments were received on the subject of NADC's suggestions
on cost reduction.
    Commenter 2 states that NADC's suggestion to reduce special handling and
recordkeeping provisions in order to reduce disposal costs and emissions from
waste has no merit.  Commenter 30 considers loosening the requirements for
friable materials unthinkable, but that separate handling with less stringent
controls might be an option for nonfriable ACM.
    Response:  The EPA considers the requirements in Section 61.154 to be
necessary in view of the estimated 227,000 kg/yr of asbestos emissions from
waste disposal and the small associated costs.  The EPA also notes that many
disposal sites are currently operated in compliance with the proposed
requirements.
15.2  WORK PRACTICES
    Comment:  Most of the comments submitted regarding work practices at
disposal sites favored more stringent controls.
    1.  Commenter 2 argues that the requirements to segregate asbestos-
containing waste material should be more stringent to avoid problems later
caused by nonasbestos leachate and the need to excavate the site for remedial
action.   Commenter 54 also recommends against the mixing of asbestos and
municipal  waste and notes that this would ensure the integrity of containers
during covering operations.
                                     15-1

-------
    Commenter 24 recommends that EPA reconsider the use of petroleum dust
suppressants that Is being prohibited in some areas.  Commenter 83 explains
that Section 61.154(c)(2), which permits the use "of resinous or petroleum-
based dust suppression agents" at waste sites, is in direct conflict with
their State regulations.
    Commenter 84 argues that the standard for active disposal sites continues
to allow no visible emissions or work practices, as well as other hazardous
operations.  They assert that the requirements should be revised to include
other available control measures such as trenches, prohibiting compacting
until covered, and careful handling of containers.
    Commenter 41 recommends that EPA require covering waste in a manner that
avoids rupturing bags.
    Commenter 54 recommends that disposal site requirements be revised to
require that disposal sites have no visible emissions, that material be
covered more frequently than once per 24 hours, and that dust suppressants be
used between coverings.  Commenter 57 recommends covering broken containers
immediately and all other waste at least twice every 24 hours to prevent wind.
erosion.  Commenter 54 notes that, because "leak-tight" containers can break,
control of emissions should be addressed during the unloading and deposition
of asbestos-containing waste.
    Commenter 57 argues that the final  cover requirements should be revised
consistent with EPA's Waste Management Guidance document, and the waste
disposal practices contained in EPA's Waste Management Guidance document
(incorporated as App. D to AHERA regulations, Subpart E, 40 CFR 763) should be
incorporated into the NESHAP.
    Commenter 57 recommends that disposal sites be fenced with 6-foot high,
chain link fence topped with barbed wire.

                                     15-2

-------
    2.   Commenter 89 argues that an  Inconsistency exists between Sections
61.154  (active disposal sites) and 61.151  (inactive sites) in that Section
61.151  (a)(4) only permits the use of dust suppression agents for tailings at
inactive sites, while Section 61.154(c)(2) permits their use at active
disposal sites for all asbestos waste (which includes tailings).
    3.   Commenter 41 suggests clarifying Section 61.154(c)(l) by inserting "or
6 inches"  after "Be covered with at  least 15 centimeters."
    4.   Commenter 80 notes that the  proposal would prohibit asbestos waste in
a landfill from being disturbed without prior EPA approval.  They recommend
that EPA define "disturbing" as used in Section 61.154 (k) and clarify the
prohibition against disturbing waste so that it does not apply to the
installation of gas controls, leachate. collection equipment,  or similar
devices  at landfills containing asbestos waste.
    Response:  1.  Although EPA agrees that many of the recommended revisions
are desirable, they would increase the stringency of the regulation.  The
purpose  of the revisions proposed on January 10, 1989,  is to promote
compliance and enhance enforcement and not to alter the stringency.  The need
for revisions that will affect stringency and bring the waste disposal
requirements more in line with current practices may be considered at a later
date.
    2.   The EPA permits the use of dust suppressants on inactive tailings
piles because it is  not feasible to expect that these large piles  could be
economically covered with nonasbestos material.   Furthermore,  the  surface of
asbestos tailings piles forms a hard  crust when  left exposed  and,  in
combination with the use of dust suppressants,  presents a  surface  unlikely to
erode.   For inactive landfills,  it  is already common  practice  to use  a final
                                     15-3

-------
cover of nonasbestos material.  The EPA also allows an active site to use a
dust suppressant at the end of each working day instead of a nonasbestos
cover.  The commenter saw no difference between this and the use of dust
suppressants as a final cover on tailings piles.  However, EPA considers the
use of dust suppressants on active sites on a daily basis as appropriate
because additional waste will be placed on top of the existing waste, helping
to prevent asbestos emissions.  Although EPA believes that the provisions for
active and inactive sites are protective of public health, EPA will  consider
revisions in a later rulemaking to bring the NESHAP more in line with current
waste disposal practices.
    3.  For consistency among all EPA documents, it is EPA policy to use
metric units in all of its regulations and other documents, followed by the
equivalent English units in parentheses.
    4.  The EPA agrees with the commenter that what constitutes "disturbing"
asbestos waste should be clarified.  Because the term "disturb" is used
elsewhere in the regulation in connection with other activities, a definition
might be confusing.  Instead, EPA will define the term where it occurs in the
regulation in order to avoid unnecessarily affecting other nonrelated
provisions.
    The EPA disagrees with the commenter's suggestion to exclude activities
such as the installation of collection or monitoring systems from the
definition of "disturb."  These kinds of activities should occur infrequently
in an asbestos-only landfill and are normally associated with the initial
construction of a landfill.
15.3  RESPONSIBILITY FOR COMPLIANCE
    Comment:  Four comments were received on the subject of disposal  site
owner/operator responsibility for disposal.

                                     15-4

-------
     1.   Commenters  2,  17,  and  23  believe  that making  the  disposal  site owner
 or operator  responsible  for complying with the  NESHAP disposal  requirements
 will  help  to ensure better compliance.
     2.   Commenter 30 acknowledges that this change could  be  very useful,  but
 fears that it may force  some public landfills to close due to  liability
 concerns.
     Response:  1.   The EPA agrees with this comment.   The revision was
 proposed because EPA recognized that it was extremely  difficult for waste
 generators to ensure compliance with the disposal requirements of the NESHAP.
     2.  Although it is possible that some disposal sites may increase disposal
 charges or refuse to accept  asbestos waste as a result of this proposed
 change, EPA  considers it unlikely that public landfills will cease operating.
 15.4  VERIFYING DISCREPANCIES ON MANIFEST
    Comment:  1.  Commenter  19 asks how waste disposal site representatives
 will realistically be able to confirm the description of materials (Item 4,
 Figure 4), especially if the waste is in opaque plastic bags or cardboard
 drums?
    2.  Commenter 80 expresses concern over the discrepancy and certification
 requirements being imposed on landfill  owners and operators.   They state that,
 if there is a discrepancy in a waste tracking form,  and it is reported to EPA
by the landfill  operator, EPA should pursue and take  appropriate action
against the generator.   They comment that  this  responsibility should  not be
shifted to the landfill  operator.
    Commenter 80 argues that landfill  operators  should not bear the
responsibility of independent verification of information  already  certified as
accurate by the  waste  generator as required by  Section 61.154(e)(4).   They
                                     15-5

-------
claim that requiring the landfill facility to reevaluate and verify this
information, other than in general terms, would take an inordinate amount of
time and unnecessarily increase worker exposure.  They explain that the
requirement to certify the accuracy of the total quantity of waste shipped
would be impossible in most situations because most generators and disposal
facilities do not have weight scales.  They suggest that the final rule
require checking for discrepancies only in general terms.  Commenter 80 also
urgues that the disposal site not have to certify the accuracy of statements
made by the generator on the waste tracking form.  The EPA should require the
generator, certification to be made under penalty of law, as is done under
other EPA programs, e.g., RCRA and the land disposal restrictions program.
    Response:  1.  The EPA does not expect the disposal site owner/operator to
risk exposure to asbestos to confirm the contents of bags of waste.  They only
need to confirm that the bags of asbestos or bags said to be asbestos are
labeled as such and, in general terms, the quantity.
    2.  The EPA agrees with the commenter's assertion that, after a
discrepancy has been reported to EPA by the disposal site, it is the
responsibility of the enforcement agency to follow it up.
    Regarding commenter 80's concern with verification responsibility, EPA
intends, as stated above, that the disposal site verify the waste contents in
general terms, for example, to note when there is a gross discrepancy between
the amount of waste reported and the amount actually received.
15.5  INSPECTION OF WASTE
    Comment:  The suggestion by NADC (commenter 2) that disposal sites should
accept asbestos-containing waste material and not question its source or
condition will encourage improper disposal of materials other than asbestos-
containing waste material.  Disposal site inspection procedures should be
strengthened.
                                     15-6

-------
    Response:  Although it is possible that adoption of the NADC suggestion
might lead to the improper disposal of other materials, EPA does not consider
it likely that such practice would be widespread given the legal sanctions
that would be imposed on an offender upon apprehension.  The EPA considers the
inspections called for in Section 61.154 to be appropriately stringent.
15.6  INSPECTION AND RECEIPT
    Comment:  Commenter 2 suggests that the inspection and receiving of
asbestos-containing waste material be performed in a facility kept under
negative pressure and exhausted to a HEPA filter.
    Response:  The purpose of the revisions proposed on January 10, 1989, is
to promote compliance and enhance enforcement of the NESHAP.  This suggestion
would increase the stringency of the standard and is outside the scope of this
rulemaking.
15.7  GENERAL
    Comment:  Three comments of a general  nature were received on Section
61.154.
    1.  Commenter 10 notes,  as pointed out by EPA,  that it is the asbestos
              j-
waste segment that accounts  for most asbestos emissions and is in need of
additional regulation.
    2.  Commenter 75 suggests using Section 61.154  only as a guideline for
waste disposal  sites.   Commenters 75 and 83 feel  that the  revisions would
increase disposal  costs,  causing some firms to  dispose of  waste by  less than
appropriate methods,  and  causing some disposal  sites  to stop accepting
asbestos.
    Response:   1.   The  EPA considers the proposed Section  61.154 appropriate
to the regulatory need  that  it addresses.
                                     15-7

-------
    2.  The EPA believes that guidance alone would be insufficient and that
regulations are necessary to compel behavior in the interest of public health.
Although it is possible that some operators may attempt to dispose of waste
improperly, EPA does not consider it likely that such a practice would be
widespread given the legal sanctions that can be imposed for violating this
regulation.  The EPA acknowledges that some disposal sites have stopped
accepting asbestos waste.  However, EPA does not expect waste disposal sites
in general to respond to this regulation by ceasing to accept asbestos waste.
    Comment:  Two comments were received on the use of the term "NESHAP
landfill."   Commenter 64 says the use of term "NESHAP landfill" in the
preamble is not consistent with "active waste disposal sites" in Section
61.154, and that there is no such thing as a "NESHAP landfill."  Commenter 80
says the use of the term is unclear and should be defined in the final rule.
    Response:  By "NESHAP landfill" EPA meant a landfill operated in
compliance with the provisions of this regulation.  The EPA agrees that there
is no such thing as a "NESHAP landfill" and was referring to landfills that
were acceptable disposal sites under the NESHAP.
    Comment:  Commenter 4 observes that over 99 percent of all  asbestos
emissions result from improper asbestos waste disposal methods, concludes that
numerous, convenient, cost-effective disposal sites are the key to reduction
of emissions, and supports regulation changes that effect this  goal.
    Response:  Additional, conveniently located, and cost-effective disposal
sites would facilitate disposal of asbestos-containing waste material.
15.8  RECORDKEEPING, REPORTING
15.8.1  Asbestos Waste Tracking System-Form
    Comment:  Commenter 19 thinks that instead of "operator," there should be
a "contractor" who is performing the work and who should have the EPA ID
number in Figure 4, Item 2.
                                     15-8

-------
    Response:  See the response to Section 11.6 of this BID.
15.8.2  Waste Volume
    Comment:  Commenter 21 requests that EPA clarify that the record of volume
of waste received [Section 154(e) (1) (iii)] is an actual volume (or bag count)
of waste, not the volume of the roll-off container or transport vehicle.  They
also suggested clarifying the degree of accuracy consistent with Section
    Response:  The commenter is correct in that the reported volume should be
that of the waste and not the volume of the transport vehicle.  Furthermore,
EPA agrees that volume units are more likely to be used rather than area or
linear units because -the waste will typically be in containers and volume is
likely to be the only unit of measurement that can be determined with.
consistency at the disposal site.
15.8.3  Retention of Forms
    Comment:  1.  Commenter 28 recommends that, in place of the recordkeeping
required in Section 61.154(e), EPA should require that a copy of the waste
tracking form be kept as required in Section 61.150(d) (1) .
    2.  Commenter 80 agrees with the requirement that landfill operators send
a copy of a signed waste shipment record back to the generator.
    Response:  1.  The EPA intends that the disposal sites do just as the
commenter is recommending.
    2.  No response is necessary.
15.8.4  Reporting Improperly Contained Waste
    Comment:  Commenters 15 and 28 recommend that the owner/operator be
required to notify EPA immediately if "improperly enclosed or uncovered waste"
is encountered as in Section 61. 154 (e) (iv) .
                                     15-9

-------
    Response:  The EPA agrees with these comments on the need to report
Immediately to EPA whenever a shipment of improperly contained waste is
received and has added such a requirement.  The EPA believes that the prompt
reporting of such violations will aid enforcement efforts against waste
generators who do not comply with the NESHAP requirements for packaging
asbestos waste (when chosen over the no visible emissions requirement), or who
use transporters who do not take precautions to avoid damage to the waste
shipment while in transit.  However, it is not EPA's intent that the disposal
site report waste shipments in which one or a few containers are slightly
damaged.  The EPA intends to use this provision to identify potentially
serious violations of the NESHAP.
15.8.5  Recording Improperly Contained Waste
    Comment:  1.  Commenter 4 opposes the requirement for disposal site
owner/operator to record and report improperly contained waste because it will
motivate some removal contractors to seek an illegal disposal site.
    2.  Commenter 23 states that having to verify discrepancies between the
waste shipment record and the. waste received at the disposal site will drive
up costs because of having to count bags that will be time-consuming, increase
the exposure of landfill employees, and discourage landfills from accepting
asbestos waste.
    3.  Commenter 34 expresses concern over the requirement to document
discrepancies and improperly contained waste because it puts the site operator
into a role of regulation and enforcement; this provision should be clarified.
    4.  Commenter 80 recommends that the requirement for landfill operators to
keep records of improperly contained waste be replaced with a requirement that
waste generators and transporters inspect and certify that all material is
                                     15-10

-------
properly packaged before being transported, and that the transport of
Improperly contained waste be prohibited.
    Response:  1.  The EPA agrees that this may happen in some instances.
However, it is EPA's intent to use this information to identify chronic
violators where the potential for emissions would be the greatest.  When a
disposal site's records indicate that there is frequently a problem with a
particular contractor's waste shipments, EPA can send an inspector to observe
the contractor's operations and take whatever actions are appropriate to
correct the situation.
    2.  The EPA intends for the waste disposal site owner/operator to verify
waste shipments for gross discrepancies, and not for discrepancies of a few
bags of waste.  The EPA does not envision increased worker exposure during the
inspection of. waste shipments for significant discrepancies between what is
reported on the waste shipment record and what is actually received.
    3.  The site operator is not asked to regulate or enforce; rather,  he/she
is only asked to provide information to EPA.  The EPA considers the provision
clear on this point.
    4.  The EPA agrees with the recommendation that generators certify that
all material  is properly packaged in accordance with the provisions of this
rule for shipment,  and the final  rule is changed to require certification.
The EPA sees  no need to delete the requirement for landfill  operators to
inspect and keep records of improperly contained waste.
15.8.6  Semiannual  Report-Submittal  Dates
    Comment:   Commenter 15 recommends that the semiannual  waste reports
required in Section 61.154(f)  be  submitted by specific dates,  e.g., January 31
and July 1.
                                     15-11

-------
    Response:  Upon additional consideration of this provision, EPA has
decided to omit the requirement for semiannual reporting from today's rule.
This decision is based in part on several comments opposing semiannual
reporting as unnecessary (See Section 11.5.2).  In addition, because of the
large commitment of enforcement resources that would be required for such a
system to properly function, EPA believes that the proposal is overly
ambitious at this time.  The EPA believes, however, that enforcement can use
the available information and adequately identify violators by comparing the
waste records that are required to be kept by waste generators and waste
disposal sites.  At this time, a more workable solution will be to require
disposal sites to report to EPA whenever there is a discrepancy between the
amount of waste received and the amount reported on the waste shipment papers.
The discrepancy report should be submitted to the same agency that was
notified of the demolition or renovation.  In addition, disposal sites will be
required to comply with the general reporting provisions of 40 CFR Part 61.
Specifically, new disposal sites will be required to comply with the
requirement to apply for approval to construct (Section 61.07) and the
requirement to notify EPA of startup dates (Section 61.09).  Existing disposal
sites that will accept asbestos waste after the effective date of the rule
will be required to supply EPA with information on their operations (Section
61.10).  This information will be useful to enforcement in tracking asbestos
waste.
15.8.7  Generator
    Comment:  Commenter 19 asks who is the generator because "generator" is
not defined in Section 61.141?  The commenter also notes that only the
operator has an EPA ID in Figure 4, and asks how will  the disposal  site know
if asbestos is friable or not and what is the storage site?

                                     15-12

-------
     Response:   "Generator" means  "waste generator," which  is  defined  in
 Section 61.141  as  any owner or operator of a source covered by  this subpart
 whose act or process produces asbestos-containing waste material.  The EPA has
 revised the final  rule to make this clear.  The  EPA has abandoned  the use of
 an  EPA ID because  it would be difficult to implement and because it does not
 appear to offer any great advantages.  The disposal site operator  will be able
 to  obtain the quantities of friable and nonfriable asbestos material from
 Item 6 of Figure 4, Asbestos Waste Tracking System.  However, semiannual
 reports are not being required of disposal site operators because  EPA has
 determined that it will be receiving sufficient information through other
 reporting mechanisms.  "Storage site" was inadvertently left  in Section
 61.154; it has been deleted from the final rule.
 15.8.8  Maintenance of Records
    Comment:  Two comments were received on Section 61.154(g).
    1.  Commenter 22 states that they submit records of tons of mill  tailings
 quarterly and annually to the State of California.   Their taxes and fees for
 this activity are based on short tons.  It would be an unnecessary burden to
        j^
 determine volume,  and there seems to be no useful purpose for doing so.
    2.  Commenter 93 argues that EPA should be  willing to accept information
 on mill  tailings in tonnage instead of cubic meters as required by Section
 61.154(g).
    Response:   1.   The EPA does  not consider dividing  weight by an  assumed
density to  be  unduly burdensome.   This requirement  is  consistent with  the
 records  required by Section  61.149.   The  EPA  considers  volume  a more useful
expression  of  quantity for land  disposal  than weight.
                                     15-13

-------
    2.  The EPA desires the Information on quantity to be in cubic meters or
yards and does not consider the requirement unduly burdensome.
15.8.9  Opposition to Semiannual Reports
    Comment:  Several commenters were opposed to the semiannual reporting
requirement.  Commenter 28 recommends that EPA delete semiannual reporting
because it increases the Agency's workload and detracts from enforcement
activities.
    Commenter 51 argues that, for industrial landfills that accept waste from
on-site facilities and are subject to RCRA recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, semiannual reporting as required by Section 61.154(f) is
excessive.  Commenter 93 argues that EPA should not apply the reporting
requirements of Section 61.154(f) to mill tailings, or they should be
lessened.
    Response:  See the response to Section 15.8.6 of this BID.
15.8.10  Waste Shipment Record—Information Required
    Comment:  Commenter 15 suggests that the waste shipment record, required
in Section 61.150(d), include the business address as well as the name of the
transporter.
    Response:  The EPA agrees with the recommendation and has added a
requirement to record the address and telephone number of the transporter.
15.8.11  Location of Waste
    Comment:  1.  According to commenter 19, many landfill sites dispose of
asbestos in their normal working face.  They wondered if a statement such as
"anywhere within the horizontal  and vertical limits of the landfill there may
be asbestos" would satisfy the location requirements of Section 61.151(e).
    2.  Commenter 51 agrees that the disposal  site operator should keep
pertinent information regarding the location and quantity of asbestos waste.
                                     15-14

-------
    3.   Commenters 28 and 65 argue that the requirement to keep records of
 location are  unnecessary because depth will change overtime; only a  record
 that  asbestos  is present is sufficient.  They believe that the location
 requirement will require the services of a surveyor and that this will result
 in higher disposal costs, refusal by some landfills to accept waste, and
 dumping  in unauthorized areas.  Commenter 65 argues that what is important is
 that  the prospective purchaser know of the presence of asbestos and  get EPA's
 permission before excavating any parts of the site.  Commenter 80 generally
 agrees with the requirement to record location, but notes that there are
 certain  complications in mapping the area of the waste.  They explain that,
 due to settling, the vertical location will change over time; EPA should allow
 for some inaccuracies in mapping due to naturally occurring events.  Commenter
 80 also  believes the mapping requirements will be overwhelming for many
 landfills, especially those that: do not segregate asbestos waste from other
 waste.
    Response:  1.  If such a response accurately describes the location of
 asbestos  in the landfill, then such a response would be appropriate.
    2.   No response is necessary.
    3.   Indicating only that asbestos has been disposed of on the  site and
 that  it  is located below grade would constitute minimum compliance with this
 provision.  In such cases,  however,  EPA would  probably have no alternative but
 to act conservatively and consider the entire  site to  be contaminated with
 asbestos because EPA's purpose is to avoid future exposures to asbestos.   Such
 a determination would clearly impact the future use and value of the property.
 Thus,  it would be in  the property owner's  interest to  specify the  location of
 the asbestos material  as fully as possible in  order to limit  the extent of the
property whose future use would be restricted.

                                     15-15

-------
15.8.12  On-slte Disposal
    Comment:  1.  Commenters 22 and 74 argue that the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements of Section 61.154 should not apply to the on-site
disposal of asbestos waste.  Commenters 51 and 59 assert that Industrial on-
site landfills that are subject to RCRA and similar State statutes should be
exempt from the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of Section 61.154(f)
and (g).
    2.  Commenter 4 explains that the proposed recordkeeping requirements for
disposal sites would require local sanitary landfills, where most asbestos
waste 1s deposited, to begin segregating asbestos waste from nonasbestos
waste.  They argue that this requirement will reduce the number of local
sanitary landfills that accept asbestos waste, result in greater hauling
distances, and increase disposal costs.
    3.  Commenter 80 generally supports the requirements for landfill
operators to maintain records of the receipt of asbestos waste, although
certain aspects of the requirements are regarded as impractical and
environmentally unsound.
    Response:  1.  The EPA agrees that it not reasonable for facilities that
dispose of their own waste on-site to follow all of the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements that facilities that dispose of their waste offsite do.
Therefore, EPA has modified the rule to clarify this aspect.  Facilities
utilizing on-site disposal must, however, maintain records of the amounts of
asbestos waste and where it is disposed of.  For facilities that already
comply with requirements similar to those of Section 61.154 (g)  (the location
requirements) because of State or local hazardous waste regulations,  EPA does
not Intend that they maintain separate, redundant records.  The same records
will satisfy EPA's requirements.

                                     15-16

-------
     2.   The  EPA does  not require segregation  of asbestos waste,  although some
 sanitary landfills  have elected to  do  so.   Although some landfills  may
 determine that  the  recordkeeping requirements are so burdensome  that they
 should  cease accepting asbestos waste,  EPA  does not expect that  any
 appreciable  number  of local  sanitary landfills will  do  so.
     3.   Responses to  the commenter's specific comments  on the  recordkeeping
 and  reporting requirements  are  located  elsewhere in this chapter.
 15.8.13   Cost of Recordkeeoinq  and  Reporting
     Comment:  Commenter 80  believes that the  recordkeeping and reporting
 requirements  will significantly and unnecessarily increase the. burden  for
 landfill  operators.   They estimate  that the new requirements will require an
 estimated 1/2 man-year per  site.
     Response:   The  EPA has  estimated the additional  burden to  waste  disposal
 sites resulting  from  the new recordkeeping and  reporting requirements  to  be
 about one man-week  per site  per year.
 15.9  REGULATORY AUTHORITY
     Comment:  Commenters  34  and 41 comment on the  subject  of regulatory
 authority for waste disposal as follows:
     1.  Asbestos waste disposal should not be regulated  under  the NESHAP.
    2.  Recordkeeping and cover requirements should be included in revisions
        to RCRA Subtitle D regulations, Section 258.29.
    3.  The approval to remove or disturb asbestos waste should be a State
        responsibility.
    Response:  1.  The EPA reviewed its options for regulating asbestos waste
disposal and determined that the NESHAP is  the most efficient way to regulate
the disposal  of asbestos-containing waste material at this time because,  after
all,  the problem is  one of air quality  not  ground-water  quality.

                                     15-17

-------
    2.  The recordkeeping requirements proposed for the NESHAP are similar to
the manifest requirements of Subtitle C of RCRA, whereas Subtitle D contains
no recordkeeping requirements.  Indeed, Subtitle D addresses the management of
nonhazardous solid waste rather than hazardous waste.  Although not listed as
a RCRA hazardous waste, asbestos-containing waste is nevertheless hazardous,
and the NESHAP is the most efficient mechanism for establishing recordkeeping
and cover requirements.
    3.  The EPA considers the granting of approvals to excavate or disturb
asbestos waste to be the prerogative of the Administrator.  However, in States
that have been delegated authority for NESHAP enforcement, the States will
make the decision on whether to grant approval to remove or disturb asbestos
waste.
15.10  EPA ID NUMBER
    Comment:  Commenter 51 asks how facilities that do not have an ID number
and do not generate hazardous wastes obtain one?  Commenters 58 and 61 argue
that not all asbestos waste generators have EPA ID numbers, nor are they
Hkely to need one under RCRA.  They recommend that it be optional.  Commenter
80 asserts that operators of disposal sites- cannot comply with the requirement
to record the generator's EPA ID number until all generators are given ID
numbers, which would exclude certain removal projects, such as schools.
Commenter 83 states that there is no procedure for issuing ID numbers, but
that it appears to be similar to the RCRA program.  They argue that, if
asbestos requires this degree of tracking, it should be regulated as a
hazardous waste.  Commenter 83 asserts that it is beyond the resources
available at the State level to set up an equivalent program.
    Response:  Because of the confusion expressed by all the commenters over
how a system of assigning I-D numbers to waste generators would work, EPA has

                                     15-18

-------
 reconsidered  this provision and  has decided  to delete  this  requirement;  it  is
 not  contained in the final rule.  The  EPA  is confident that,  even without such
 a  unique  numbering system, it would be possible to track waste shipments back
 to the generator for the purpose of pursuing enforcement actions.
 15.11  ASBESTOS IN GROUND WATER                                          •
     Comment:   Commenter 97 expresses concern over the failure of the proposed
 rule to address the potential for asbestos in a landfill to move into an
 aquifer beneath the landfill  and contaminate ground-water supplies.
     Response:  Although asbestos is found in surface water and ground water,
 usually as a  result of contamination by naturally occurring asbestos, EPA does
 not consider  the contamination of ground water from asbestos disposed of in a
 landfill  as very likely.  In  one EPA study, asbestos in soil was characterized
 as immobile,  having about the same mobility as clays, or about 1 to 10
 centimeters per 3,000 to 40,000 years.1
 15.12  REFERENCE
    1.  U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency.  Movement of Selected Metals,
Asbestos,  and Cyanide in Soil:   Applications  to Waste Disposal Problems.
Office of Research  and  Development.   Cincinnati,  Ohio.   Publication No.
EPA-600/2-77-020.   p. 82 -  83.
                                    15-19

-------

-------
                        16.0  WASTE CONVERSION  PROCESSES
 16.1  GENERAL
    Comment:  Commenter 23 supports the provisions to approve waste
 treatment/conversion processes.
    Response:  The EPA  appreciates the support.
 16.2  APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT
    Comment:  According to commenter 23, EPA should require  in Section
 61.155(a)(4) that all waste conversion processes be demonstrated prior to
 approval of the application to construct.
    Response:  The EPA  does not consider a demonstration of  the process to be
 necessary in all cases.  The proposal provides the Administrator with the
 option of requiring a demonstration of the process prior to  approval of the
 application to construct, should he deem it necessary.  The  EPA also notes
 that Section 61.155(b)  requires a startup performance test after the plant is
 constructed.
 16.3  PERFORMANCE TEST
    Comment:  Commenter 23 says that EPA should add to Section 61.155(d)(iii)
 a requirement that the  sampling and testing methods be included in the
 performance test protocol  and the permit to operate to ensure thorough testing
 of output materials.
    Response:   The EPA agrees with the  comment, and the  asbestos  revisions
will provide a protocol  for sampling  and analysis.
                                     16-1

-------
16.4  OPERATING PARAMETER MONITORING
    Comment:  Commenter 90 recommends validation of a continuous temperature
monitoring method to be used in lieu of TEM to verify the production of
asbestos-free material.
    Response:  Because this standard applies to all conversion processes, not
just vitrification, temperature may not be the only indicator of process
efficacy.  For example, some processes use chemical treatment followed by
"medium" temperature conversion.  For the time being, EPA intends to retain
the requirements as proposed.  At some future date, EPA may determine that
operating parameter monitoring is sufficient.
16.5  ANALYSIS OF FEED AND OUTPUT
    Comment:  Several comments were received on the analysis of feed to and
output from waste conversion processes.
    1.  Commenter 2 says that all of the output from asbestos conversion
processes should be sampled and analyzed for the presence of asbestos.
    2.  Commenter 90 states that the proposed method for sampling the feed
stream and analyzing the samples with PLM before the feed enters the processor
is not the preferred method for reducing environmental  contamination and
assuring employee safety and should be revised.
    3.  Commenter 38 states that the analysis of output material must include
x-ray diffraction in conjunction with TEM.
    4.  Commenter 38 argues that, after the 90 day startup period,  weekly, not
monthly, composite samples should be taken and analyzed for the presence of
asbestos.
    5.  Commenter 21 asks that procedures for sample preparation for TEM be
clarified; that comminution size of particle reduction  be specified; that the
                                     16-2

-------
standard or interim method of analysis that is acceptable be identified; and
that laboratory qualifications meeting requirements of the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (MIST) and AHERA be identified.
    Response: . 1.  As a practical matter, all of the output cannot be sampled.
The issue is how much of the output needs to be sampled and at what frequency.
The EPA considers the sampling prescribed in Section 61.155 appropriate to
determine whether the output from a conversion process contains asbestos.
    2.  The commenter would prefer to use the bulk sample analysis of
asbestos-containing material obtained during the building survey (rather than
an analysis of feed at the site where the waste conversion process is located)
to document the asbestos content of the waste processed.   The EPA notes that
analysis of feed is only required during performance testing, not as a routine
procedure during day-to-day operation.  For performance testing.,  EPA considers
an analysis of the waste stream entering the conversion process an essential
part of startup testing and rejects the suggestion of substituting other
analytical  data for the required analysis.  The EPA assumes that  workers
taking samples for the purpose of asbestos determination  would  conform to
applicable OSHA requirements such as personal  protective  equipment.
    3.  The EPA questions the  utility of x-ray diffraction analysis of output
samples due to the very low concentrations of asbestos expected from a
successful  conversion process.
    4.  The EPA considers monthly composite samples of output to  be adequate '
for determining whether the waste conversion process is performing in  a
satisfactory manner and to be  consistent with  efforts to  limit  the burden
imposed by testing.
    5. Currently,  EPA has no protocol  for the  TEM  analysis of output materials
from these processes.   The final  rule requires  the  owner  or operator of waste

                                     16-3

-------
conversion processes to submit to EPA for approval a protocol for the analysis
of output materials by TEM.
16.6  TEST FOR LEACHABLE CHEMICALS
    Comment:  Commenter 21 recommends adding provisions at Section
61.155(b)(3) to require additional chemical testing of leachable materials
(chemicals) from the conversion product.
    Response:  Significant leaching of chemicals from the products of certain
types of waste conversion processes, e.g., vitrification, is considered
unlikely.  For other processes that produce products that may contain
leachable chemicals, the Administrator may require more information on product
composition as part of the application for a permit to construct.
16.7  MONITORING
    Comment:  Two comments on the subject of visible emissions were received.
    1.  Commenter 23 asserts that an air monitoring requirement should be
established rather than a "no visible emissions" standard.
    2.  Commenter 54 would revise Section 61.155(e) to require both no visible
emissions and compliance with the air cleaning requirements.
    Response:  1.  The use of the no visible emission requirement in Section
61.155(e) is consistent with other parts of the NESHAP.  The EPA is not aware
of a satisfactory source testing method for asbestos.  For fugitive emissions,
visible emission monitoring is preferable to air monitoring because it is
easier and less costly.
    2.  The EPA indicated in the preamble that the revisions proposed on
January 10, 1989, were not intended to increase the stringency of controls.
Requiring both no visible emissions and compliance with the air cleaning
requirements would increase the stringency of the rule.
                                     16-4

-------
 16.8  SAFETY OF OUTPUT  MATERIALS
    Comment:  Commenter 2  says  that  the  safety of  nonasbestos  output materials
 from asbestos waste  conversion  processes  should be established before
 permitting these processes  to operate.
    Response:  The EPA  agrees with the comment.  The Administrator can  require
 evidence of the safety  of output materials as part of the application for a
 permit to operate.
 16.9  OTHER TREATMENT PROCESSES
    Comment:  Commenter 89  offers two comments concerning other treatment
 processes.
    1.  Section 61.155  should also be applied to operations using fixation
 techniques because they  present the same potential  emission hazards.
    2.  Would this section  apply to facilities that want to recycle asbestos
waste material?
    Response:  1.   Section  61.155 applies only to processes that convert
asbestos-containing waste material  into nonasfaestos (asbestos-free)  material.
Fixation techniques process asbestos-containing waste material  into nonfriable
form and are covered at Section 61.150(a)(2).
    2.  This section does not apply to recycling facilities unless they
convert asbestos-containing waste material into nonasbestos (asbestos-free)
material.
                                     16-5

-------

-------
                                    TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            {Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
   EPA-450/3-90-017
                                                            3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
   National Emission  Standards for Asbestos
   Background  Information for Promulgated Asbestos
   NESHAP Revisions
                               5. REPORT DATE
                                 October  1990
                               6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHQR(S)
                                                            8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. !
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
   Office of Air Quality Planning and  Standards
   U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
   Research Triangle  Park, North Carolina  27711
                               10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
                               11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
   DAA for Air Quality Planning and Standards
   Office of Air and  Radiation
   U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
   Research Triangle  Park,  North Carolina   27711
                               13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                 Final
                               14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE

                                 EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
   Revisions to the  national  emission-standards to control  emissions of asbestos
   from asbestos milling,  manufacturing,  and fabricating plants; demolitions  and
   renovations; and  asbestos  waste disposal  are being promulgated under Section
   112 of the Clean  Air  Act.   This document  contains summaries  of public comments,
   EPA responses, and  a  summary of changes since proposal.
17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
   -  Air pollution
   - 'Pollution control
- Asbestos
                                               b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                                            c.  COSATI Field/Group
     National emission standards
     Industrial processes
     Demolition
     Renovation
     Waste Disposal
     Hazardous air pollutants
- Air Pollution Control
- Asbestos
- Stationary  Sources
                                              13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
     Unlimited
                                               19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
                                                  Unclassified
                                             21. NO. OF PAGES
                                                   272
                                               20. SECURITY CLASS (Tills page/

                                                  Unclassified
                                                                          22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)
                      PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE

-------

-------

-------

-------