DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION


                                                     COST OF COMPLYING WITH


                                                     EPA ASBESTOS  REGULATIONS


                                                          FINAL REPORT
THE RESEARCH CORPORATION
OF NEW ENGLAND

125 Silas Deane Highway
Wethersfield,
Connecticut O61O3
tel. C2O3) 563-1^31
          i
ENVIRONMENTAL  CONSULTANTS

-------
                                          DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION

                                          COST OF COMPLYING WITH

                                          EPA ASBESTOS REGULATIONS

                                                FINAL REPORT
  THE  RESEARCH   CORPORATION
                                            OF NEW ENGLAND
                                   ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS

                                            Kenneth Malmberg
                                            EPA Project Supervisor

                                            H.C. Kawaters
                                            Project Manager

                                                  1 25 SILAS DEANE HIGHWAY
                                                              WETHERSFIELD
                                                        CONNECTICUT OB1 OS
                                                          C2O3D 563-1431
August 1979
                                                    851 5 EAST ORCHARD RD.
                                                                  SUITE 210
                                                      ENGLEWOOD, Co. BO111
                                                         C303) -779-4S4O

-------
This final report is presented in partial fulfillment of EPA contract
68-01-4145, Technical Service Area 1, Task 57, TRq Project No. 1107-H80-00.

Acceptance of this report does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the official views or policies of the Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products con-
stitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

This final report is presented in two parts.  Part I estimates the
volume of demolition projects potentially subject to EPA Asbestos
regulations.  Part I also estimates the cost of compliance for the
demolition and renovation industry.  Part II provides a list of every
demolition contractor who may be subject to EPA Asbestos regulations.

-------
                    TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0  INTRODUCTION
      1.1  Regulatory Authority
      1.2  Purpose of the Current Contract

2.0  ESTIMATE THE GROSS VOLUME OF DEMOLITION AND  .   .   .  4
     RENOVATION PROJECTS
      2.1  Variables that Affect the Number of Projects
      2.2  Methodology for Development of Counts
      2.3  Number of Projects
      2.4  Types of Buildings Demolished

3.0  PROVIDE A LIST OF EVERY DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION .  13
     CONTRACTOR SUBJECT TO THE EPA REQUIREMENTS
      3.1  Methodology for the Collection of Demolition
           and Renovation Firms
      3.2  Distribution of Contractors

4.0  ESTIMATE THE COST OF COMPLIANCE	'  .    20
      4.1  Factors of Costs
      4.2  Cost  of Complying for the Demolition Industry
      4.3  Cost of Complying for the Revovation Industry
      4.4  Regulation and Inflation

5.0  ESTIMATE THE QUANTITY OF ASBESTOS BY WEIGHT  .   .    30
     RELEASED INTO THE AIR
      5.1  Mineralogy of Asbestos and Uses in Building
           Material
      5.2  Quantity of Asbestos Released by Demolition
      5.3  Quantity of Asbestos Released by Renovation
      5.4  Asbestos in the Ambient Air Resulting from
           Construction Activities
      5.5  Problems in Measuring Asbestos

6.0  PROBLEMS WITH THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS  ...    36
      6.1  Nature on Industries
      6.2  Tracking Demolition Contractors
      6.3  Developing an Education Program

7.0  CONCLUSIONS                      	41

      BIBLIOGRAPHY  	    43

      APPENDIX A - List of EPA Regional NESHAPS Coor-    45
                   dinators
      APPENDIX B - List of Individuals Contacted During  47
                   this Contract
      APPENDIX C - List of Agencies that have Accepted   54
                   Delegation of Responsibilities for
                   Demolition/Renovation
      APPENDIX D - Summary of Federal Regulation of       69
                   Asbestos
      APPENDIX E - Major Characteristics of Asbestos      81

-------
1.0  INTRODUCTION

The link between various forms of cancer in human beings and asbestos
was established in the 1940's.  Barry I. Castleman, in testimony before
the House Subcommittee on elementary, secondary and vocational educa-
tion, said, "Dr. Wilhelm Heuper, (a cancer research scientist), implored
industry to substitute carcinogens used in the work place and specifi-
cally named asbestos as a carcinogen in 1943."  Further, "In 1952, an
international panel of scientists declared that a lung cancer risk had
been demonstrated in, among other things, the handling of asbestos."
Selikoff, Hammond and Heimann pointed out that "until 1969, disease
associated with asbestos exposure was considered entirely an occupa-
tional hazard.  This hazard was recognized to be primarily scarring of
the lung - Asbestosis, consequently, is caused by the inhalation of
large amounts of asbestos."  Since these studies, there has been a
sharp increase in scientific studies showing a strong, positive rela-
tionship between exposure to asbestos and a variety of illnesses.  As
these studies gain publicity, the public, industry, state and  federal
government, and independent regulatory agencies are focusing their at-
tention on controlling exposure to asbestos.  Asbestos is found in such
diverse products as fire retardant material, brake linings, paper mache
and thermal insulating material.  One of the potentially largest sources
of asbestos emissions is the demolition and renovation of buildings.
The building trades have been utilizing asbestos for many decades.  The
uses include floor tiles, fire proofing, insulation, aesthetically pleasing
interiors, spackling compounds, road pavings and ship building.
1.1 Regulatory Authority

The danger from asbestos has caused many regulatory agencies to pro-
mulgate regulations restricting asbestos uses and emissions.  The
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Occupational  Safety  and Health
Administration (OSHA), the Mining Enforcement and aatety Administration
(MESA), the Food and  Drug Administration (FDA)  and  the  Environmental
Protection Agency  (EPA) have oversight responsibilities.

-------
Both OSHA and the EPA have promulgated regulations that effect asbestos



emissions from demolition and renovation projects.  OSHA regulations con-



cern the exposure of the worker and conditions at the work site.



The EPA has responsibility for asbestos emissions into the



ambient air and the effect on the general public.  The enabling legis-



lation, which gave the EPA regulatory authority over asbestos emissions,



was the Clean Air Act of 1970.  Subsequently, on April 6, 1973, EPA



promulgated regulations for the control of asbestos emissions from demo-



lition projects.  These regulations had definitive changes made on May 3,



1974, October 14, 1975, and March 2, 1977, and June, 1978.








For a complete discussion of the various regulations that concern asbestos,



see Appendix D.  The emission limit for demolition or renovation projects




is "no visible emissions."  This is also a work practice standard.  Currently,



there is not a numeric emission standard for asbestos from demolition



or renovation projects.








1.2  Purpose of the Current Contract




Currently, there exists a shortage of hard data in regard to the number



of demolition and renovation projects actually completed in a year, the



number of contractors engaged in demolition and renovation work, the




amount of asbestos released into the ambient air from demolition and ren-



ovation projects and the industries cost of complying with the asbestos



regulations.  Data that does exist is fragmented and out-of-date.








The shortage of hard data can be explained by three factors.  The first




factor is the uniqueness of the demolition and renovation industry.

-------
Variables that are unique to the demolition and renovation industry that
hinder the collection of hard data are the size of contracting firms,
the local nature of the business and the short duration of a demolition
or renovation project.  The second factor that hinders the collection of
data is in identifying and quantifying asbestos emissions.  Problems
such as designing an air sampling strategy and the time consuming and
expensive method of using electron microscopy to identify a specific
type of asbestos fiber, lead to problems in developing data.

A third factor that hinders collecting hard data is the EPA reporting
requirement.  Federal reporting requirements have changed the units for
reporting the amount of asbestos present during demolition or renovation
projects.

Under EPA Contract, Cost Estimating for Asbestos Control from Demolition
and Renovation (Contract 68-01-4145, Technical Service Area 1, Task 57),
the EPA and The Research Corporation of New England (TRC) are trying to
develop baseline data for the demolition and renovation industries.  Under
the contract, TRC agreed to undertake four tasks:
    o  Estimate the gross volume of projects actually or potentially
       considered subject to the existing asbestos regulations.
    o  Provide a list of every demolition and renovation contractor
       subject to EPA reporting requirements.
    o  Estimate the cost of compliance for the demolition and renovation
       industry.
    o  Estimate the quantity of asbestos by weight released into the
       ambient air from demolition sites.

The Research Corporation of New England is pleased to have been called
upon to assist EPA in this task.

-------
2.0  ESTIMATE THE GROSS VOLUME OF DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION PROJECTS
     2.1  Variables that Affect the Number of Projects
     The number of demolition/renovation projects that are either started
     •or completed during a year can vary depending on how various terms
     such as "demolition", "renovation", and "structure" are defined.
     The number of projects in a given year can depend on the availability
     of federal funds, for example, Urban Renewal grants given through
     the Department of Housing and Urban Development.  The number of  projects
     are also dependent upon local political considerations, e.g. the recent
     publicity on asbestos in public schools.

     Although the term renovation is narrowly defined in Section 61.21 of
     the Clean Air Act, the renovation industry uses a much broader definition.
     The term renovation ranges from structural changes to minor aesthetic
     changes.  Depending on which definition of renovation one chooses,
     the number of renovation projects can vary from a relatively small
     number of projects in the case of structural renovation to voluminous
     listings for those involving aesthetic changes.  The term structure
     usually refers to a building, pipe or boiler; however some specifications
     of demolition projects include the demolition of bridges or ships.
     Estimating the gross volume of demolition projects is easier if  the
     definitions under the NESHAPS regulations are followed.  Under the NESHAPS
     regulations, a demolisher must report to EPA ten days before the com-
     mencement of the demolition project if asbestos is present and the
     structure being demolished is a commercial, industrial, or residential
     (more than four family units) building.

     2.2  Methodology for Development of Counts
     In developing the number of demolition jobs, TRC utilized five sources;
     information from various EPA Regional offices; visits to EPA Region V's
     office and the city offices of Boston, Massachusetts and Chicago, Illinois;
     EPA publications; phone calls to EPA Regional, State, and local  govern-

-------
ment offices; and a publication entitled the "Demo Memo" published
by the Wrecking and Salvage Journal, Inc., Braintree, Massachusetts.

In background information on National Emissions Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants - proposed amendments to Standards for Asbestos and
Mercury (p. 112), EPA estimated that there are less than 3,000 demolition
projects per year.  To verify this figure, TRC contacted the EPA Regional
NESHAPS officers.  For a list of the NESHAPS coordinators, see Appendix A.
Most regional offices referred us to the appropriate state agency which
has accepted delegation of the NESHAPS provisions.  For a list of those states
that have accepted delegation, see Appendix C.  TRC then made use of the
1978 Directory of Governmental Air Pollution Control Agencies in contacting
more than 48 such organizations.  Included in these organizations were many
(local) country divisions of health, departments of environmental quality, etc.
In turn, most of these agencies referred us to individual contractors, town
and city halls or back to the state or EPA regional offices.  Appendix B
is a list of all individuals contacted.

2.3 Number of Projects
Based on the above method, an estimated 2,615 projects are completed
in a year.  The organizations at the town and city level provided the
most detailed information.

The availability of information at the local level tends to reflect
the local nature of the construction industry.  Most local governing
bodies have regulations that require a demolition contractor to obtain
a permit before the commencement of the project.  The local permit is
primarily to ensure that utilities are notified and water mains are
capped.  TRC spoke to a Mr. Harry McDuff of the Chicago City Building
Department.

-------
Mr. McDuff reported that the following number of demolitions were
performed in the city of Chicago between 1975 - 1978:
                  1975 - 2065 demolitions
                  1976 - 2443 demolitions
                  1977 - 2274 demolitions
                  1978 - 2149 demolitions
These numbers compared with EPA's estimate of less than 3,000 serve
to show the large influence of small demolition jobs.  Mr. McDuff
estimates that between 70-80% of the Chicago demolitions were for
small one or two story residential buildings containing no asbestos.

Another method employed to verify the EPA figure was to obtain one
year's (52) issues of the "Demo Memo."  The Demo Memo lists upcoming
demolition bids, bids already awarded, with the name, city and amount
of all the low bidders.  In the 1978 issues of the "Demo Memo," there
were contracts awarded for the demolition of 2,596 buildings.  The
percent distribution by EPA region is given in Table 1.  Table 1 also
compares the percent of demolition contracts with the percentage of
demolition contractors.  The disproportionately large number of contracts
awarded in Region I may be due to the location of the publisher of the
Demo Memo, namely, Braintree, Massachusetts.  Table 2 lists the number
of contracts by state within EPA region.  The table also lists the
associated state rank for the number of contracts and contractors.
The contractor information given in Tables 1 and 2 is explored in more
detail in Section 3.0 of this report.  A perusal of Table 1 will show
that Massachusetts has the highest number of contracts awarded of any
state.  This finding would tend to corroborate the finding that the
locale of the publisher of the Demo Memo has an influence on which
bids are covered.  There are six states with more than one hundred
projects reported in 1978.  These are Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Pen-
nsylvania, Connecticut, Michigan, and Ohio.

-------
2.4  Types of Buildings Demolished
The NESHAPS regulations state that notice of intent to demolish or
renovate must be given for industrial, commercial, or residential
buildings.  Further, the residential buildings must contain more than
four family dwellings.  In order to establish the distribution of the
types of buildings demolished or renovated, TRC reviewed EPA Region V,
IX, and X NESHAPS demolition and renovation notices.  In Region V,
there were 79 structures demolished or renovated in 1978.  Of this total,
29 were commercial buildings, 22 were residential, while 28 were indus-
trial.  Table 3 is a sample list of the types of buildings demolished or
renovated by Region V, IX and X states.
                        TABLE  1

           DISTRIBUTION OF CONTRACTS  BY  EPA REGION*
REGION
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
TOTALS
NOMBER OF
CONTRACTS
674
150
577
119
731
121
141
16
22
45
2,596
PERCENTAGE OF
ALL CONTRACTS
26.0%
5.8
22.2
4.6
28.2
4.7
5.4
0.6
0.9
1.7
100.1%
PERCENTAGE OF
ALL CONTRACTORS
6.2 %
13.8
10.8
10.9
22.8
7.9
5.7
4.6
13.2
4.0
100.2 %
 *Information tabulated from the "Demo Memo"

-------
                           TABLE 2
         NUMBER OF DEMOLITION CONTRACTS BY STATE WITHIN
                REGION WITH ASSOCIATED STATE  RANK*
                                          Total     State Ranl^    State Rank*
                                         Contracts of Contracts  of Contractors
REGION I  - Total Contracts   674  (26.

   Connecticut	   144           5            19
   Maine	    16          16            37
   Massachusetts	   457           i            H
   New Hampshire	     8          33            42
   Rhode Island	    39          15            34
   Vermont	    10          30            50

REGION II - Total Contracts  150  (5.8%)

   New Jersey	    78           7             5
   New York	    72           8             2

REGION III - Total Contracts  577  (22.2%?

   Delaware	     47          13            46
   District of Columbia  ........     72           8            40
   Maryland	     10          30            18
   Pennsylvania	    445           2             4
   Virginia	      3          38            17
   West Virginia	      0          47            30

REGION IV -. Total Contracts  119  (4.6%)

   Alabama	     15          25            36
   Florida	     16          24             7
   Georgia	     56          12            23
   Kentucky	     12          27            26
   Mississippi	      3          38            48
   North Carolina	     13          26            16
   South Carolina .	      3          38            34
   Tennessee	      1          44            31

REGION V - Total Contracts 731  (28.2%)

   Illinois	     12          27             3
   Indiana    	     58          11            10
   Michigan	    209.           4             9
   Minnesota		      9          32            28
   Ohio	    125           6             8
   Wisconsin	    318:           3            11

REGION VI - Total Contracts  121  (4.7%)

   Arkansas	     27          20            37
   Louisiana	     36          16            24
   New Mexico	      0           -             42
   Oklahoma	     2&          19            21
   Texas	     30          17             6

-------
                                 TABLE  2

                                (continued)
                                           Total     State Rank*   State Rank*
                                         Contracts  of Contracts  of Contractors
REGION VII - Total Contracts  141  (5.4%)

   Iowa	      29           18              13
   Kansas	      0           47              29
   Missouri	     ^           14              19
   Nebraska	     68           10              33

REGION VIII - Total  Contracts   16  (0.6%).

   Colorado	      0           47              14
   Montana	      4           37              47
   North Dakota	      2           42              42
   South Dakota	      6           35              48
   Utah	      1           4.4              27
   Wyoming	      3           38              42

REGION IX - Total Contracts   22 (0.9%)

   Arizona	       2           42              24
   California	       19           22               1
   Hawaii	        0           47              39
   Nevada	       1           44              31

REGION X - Total Contracts   45 (1.7%)

   Alaska	       12           27              50
   Idaho    	       7           34              40
   Oregon	       6           35              22
   Washington	       20           21.             15

           TOTAL CONTRACTS   2,596  (100.1%)
  Data Source:   Demo  Memo

 *State ranks are relative ranks based on the number of  contractors and
  contracts reported.  Ranks are in descending order.

-------
                                                                             10
                                   TABLE 3
TYPES AND COMPOSITION OF BUILDINGS DEMOLISHED IN EPA REGIONS V, IX AND X
REGION #
REGION V
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL


IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL


IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IN
SINGLE-STORY

1 brick


1 brick
1 concrete






1 brick






1 brick


















1 brick




MULTI-STORY






4 brick
2 brick
5 brick
8 brick
37 brick
2 brick

2 brick




6 frame


6 brick
4 brick


2 brick
2 brick




10 brick









1 brick

SCHOOLS











































MULTI-STORY
COMMERCIAL


2 brick
2 brick


1 brick
1 brick
1 brick


1 brick

1 brick
4 brick
. steel cor-
rugated tran-
site siding


4 brick
1 brick
2 brick
1 UN
1 frame
1 brick
1 brick
9 brick
2 brick
1 brick
1 brick

4 brick
40 brick
1 UN


1 brick

1 brick
1 brick

1 UN
AMOUNT OF
Ab. REMOVED

UN*
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
1500 cu. ft.


UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
260 ft pipe
&/or 160 sq
ft surface
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
245 ft pipe

-------
TABLE 3 (continued)
                                             11
REGION #
MI
MI
MI
MI

MI

MI

MI

MI


MI

MI

MI

MI
MI
MI

MI

MI


MI
MI

MI



MI

MI


MI

MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
SINGLE-STORY


1 brick















































MULTI-STORY





















1 masonry





















1 UN
1 UN
1 UN
1 masonry
1 masonry
1 masonry
1 masonry
SCHOOLS


















































MULTI-STORY
COMMERCIAL
1 UN
1 UN

1 UN

1 UN

1 UN

1 UN

1 UN


1 UN

1 UN

1 UN

1 UN

1 UN

11 UN

1 UN


1 UN
1 UN

1 UN



1 UN

1 UN


1 UN








AMOUNT OF
Ab, REMOVED
290 Ibs.
500 ft pipe.
UN
,000 linear ft,
inch pipe.
00 linear ft
.nsulation.
00 linear ft,
inch pipe.
1800 linear ft
pipe.
IN (pipes &
lines @ 9 yrs
old).
100 linear ft,
pipe.
1500 linear ft,
pipe.
260 linear ft,
friable.
260+ ft,
260+ ft.
3800 sq ft,
1 tank.
50-80 linear
ft, 1-2" thick.
46 linear ft
from 7 bends
10" diameter.
30 linear ft.
300 ft, 3" and
2" pipe
60 linear ft,
4" thick Ab.
from 12" dia.
pipe.
30 linear ft,
4" thick Ab.
200 linear ft,
W pipe dia. ,
140 ft boiler.
200 linear ft,
1" dia pipe.
260+ ft.
260+ ft.
>260 ft.
>260 ft.
>260 ft.
<260 ft.
<260 ft.

-------
                             TABLE  3  (continued)
                                                                        12
REGION f
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
OH

OH
OH
OH
MN
WI
WI
REGION IX
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL

CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
REGION X
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
SINGLE-STORY







































MULTI-STORY
1 masonry

1 UN
1 UN
1 UN













1 brick











1 brick

1 brick
1 brick
1 brick
1 brick
1 UN
1 UN
1 UN
SCHOOLS







































MULTI-STORY
COMMERCIAL

1 UN



1 UN
1 UN
1 UN
1 UN
1 UN
1 UN
1 UN
1 UN

1 UN
1 UN
1 UN
1 cement

1 UN

1 brick
1 UN
1 UN
1 UN
1 concrete

1 UN
3 UN
1 concrete









AMOUNT OF
Ab. REMOVED
UN
250 ft pipe.
260 lin. ft.
200 lin. ft.
260 lin. ft.
600 lin. ft.
975 sq. ft.
260+ lin. ft.
260+ lin. ft.
UN
4200 ft.
400 ft.
25,000 lin. ft.
pipe insulation
UN
20,000 sq. ft.
UN
UN
. UN
UN

UN
UN
UN
UN
500 lin. ft.,
5 and 6" piping
100 lin. ft.
1500 lin. ft.
1830 lin. ft.
UN

UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
*UN • unknown

-------
                                                                         13

3.0  PROVIDE A LIST OF EVERY DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION CONTRACTOR
     SUBJECT TO THE EPA REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

     Under separate cover is a list which contains approximately 300
     individual U.S. firms who engage in demolition work.   In this section,
     we will review the methodology for the collection of  firm names
     and some geographic distribution of the firms.

     3.1  Methodology for the Collection of Demolition and Renova-
          tion Firms
     In establishing a list of every contractor subject to EPA report-
     ing requirements, it was determined that the largest  number of
     contractors would be included if TRC reviewed organization member-
     ship lists.  Three major trade organizations were contacted for
     information about their membership lists.  The organizations were:
         o  The National Association of Demolition Contractors
            4415 West Harrison St.
            Hillside, Illinois    312-449-5959
         o  The Asbestos Information Association
                                          •
            Arlington, Virginia    703-971-1150
         o  The Wrecking and Salvage Journal, Inc.
            14 Wood Road
            Braintree, Massachusetts    617-848-6150
     Both the National Association of Demolition Contractors and the
     Asbestos Information Association obtain mailing lists from the
     New York based mailing list firm of Zeller and Letica, 15 East 26th
     Street, New York, New York  10010   (212-MU5-7512).  The Wrecking
     and Salvage Journal maintains its own mailing list of subscribers.

     The mailing list from The Wrecking and Salvage Journal, Inc.
     contained approximately 3,000 individual addresses.  Better than
     ten percent of the mailing labels were advertising agencies,

-------
                                                                     14
large industrial concerns, libraries, and antique dealers.  Because
of the large percent of non-industry firms on this list, TRC obtained
a mailing list from Zeller and Letica.  This list contained 2,502
names.  Firms that are included in this list must earn at least
fifty-one percent of their gross incomes from the demolition of
buildings.  After reviewing the Zeller and Letica list, there were
221 firms that were questionable.  After checking with the firms
in question, 205 were dropped from the list, leaving 2297 firms
that engage in demolition projects.  The fifty-one percent
criteria is also required for membership in the National Associa-
tion of Demolition Contractors. Those listed by Zeller and Letica were
used to derive approximate statistics.  Puerto Rico and Guam do
not appear on the following list.  A similar list for renovation
contractors could contain up to forty percent of firms not associated
with asbestos removal.

-------
                                                                       15
3.2  Distribution of Contractors
Table 4 is the breakdown of the number of demolition contractors
by EPA Regions.  Table 4 shows that Regions II, V and IX contain
the largest number of contractors (316, 524 and 304 respectively)
These three Regions account for 49.8% of all contractors in the
United States.
                              TABLE  4
          NUMBER OF DEMOLITION CONTRACTORS BY EPA REGION*
REGION
I
•II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
TOTALS
NUMBER OF
CONTRACTORS
148
316
249
251
524
181
130
106
304
92
2301
PERCENTAGE OF ALL
CONTRACTORS
6.5%
13.8
10.8
10.9
22.8
7.9
5.7
4.6
13.2
4.0
100.2%
*Data Source:  Zeller and Letica

-------
                                                                          16
  Within  the  three  Regions  (II, V,  and  IX), we  find  the most contractors
  in the  states with  large  population centers,  and/or heavy industrial
  development.  Table 5  is  the number of  contractors by state within
  the three Regions.


                                TABLE 5
                      NUMBER OF CONTRACTORS  BY STATE
                          IN REGION II,  V AND IX*
TOTAL
REGION™ArTO CONTRACTORS
STATE
II




V






IX





New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin

Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
316
107
209
N/A
N/A
524
185
75
83
24
87
70
304
27
245
12
20
PERCENT OF
CONTRACTORS
100.0
33.9
66.1


100.0**
35.3
14.3
15.8
4.6
16.6
13.3
100.0
8.9
80.6
3.9
6.6
             N/A - Not available
             *Data Source:  Zeller and Letica
             **Percent may not sum to 100 due to rounding
A perusal of Table 5 will show that the more industrial states in
Regions II, V and IX have the most contractors.

-------
                                                                     17
Table 6 is the number of contractors by state within Region.  This
table contains the relative rank of each state in regard to the
number of demolition contractors.  A review of the ten states with
the most contractors shows that these states have an abundance of
heavy industry.  The ten states are:  California, New York, Illinois,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Texas, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana.
These states account for 57.1% (1,312 contractors) of all contractors
in the United States.

-------
                                                                     18
                          TABLE 6
         NUMBER OF DEMOLITION CONTRACTORS BY STATE WITHIN
               REGION WITH ASSOCIATED STATE RANK
                                          Total
                                       Contractors
State
Rank
REGION I  - Total Contractors  148 (6.5%)
   Connecticut	     36
   Maine	     13
   Massachusetts 	     70
   New Hampshire	     10
   Rhode Island	     17
   Vermont 	       2

REGION II - Total Contractors  316 (13.8%)
   New Jersey	     107
   New York	     209

REGION III - Total Contractors  249 (10.8%)
   Delaware 	        8
   District of Columbia 	      11
   Maryland	      38
   Pennsylvania	      130
   Virginia	      41
   West Virginia  	      21

REGION IV - Total Contractors   251. (10.9%)
   Alabama	      16
   Florida	      95
   Georgia	      28
   Kentucky	      26
   Mississippi  	      4
   North Carolina	      45
   South Carolina	      17
   Tennessee	      20

REGION V - Total Contractors   524 (22.8%)
   Illinois	     185
   Indiana    	      75
   Michigan	      83
   Minnesota	      24
   Ohio	      87
   Wisconsin	      70

REGION VI - Total Contractors   181 (7.9%)
   Arkansas	      13
   Louisiana	      27
   New Mexico	      10
   Oklahoma    	      35
   Texas	      96
  19
  37
  11
  42
  34
  50
   5
   2
  46
  40
  18
   4
  17
  30
  36
   7
  23
  26
  48
  16
  34
  31
   3
  10
   9
  28
   8
  11
   37
   24
   42
   21
    6

-------
                                                                    19

                     TABLE 6  (continued)
Total
Contractors
REGION VII - Total Contractors 130 (5.7%)
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
REGION VIII - Total Contractors 106 (4.6%)
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
REGION IX - Total Contractors 304 (13.2%)
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
REGION X - Total Contractors 92 (4.0%)
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL CONTRACTORS 2301 (100.2%)

54
22
36
18

50
7
10
4
25
10

27
245
12
20

2
11
31
48

State
Rank *

13
29
19
33

14
47
42
48
27
42

24
1
39
31

50
40
22
15

*Relative rank order of each state in regard to the number of
 demolition contractors.  States are  ranked in descending order.

-------
                                                                       20
4.0  ESTIMATE THE COST OF COMPLIANCE

There are many costs involved with the demolition or renovation
of a building.  There are capital costs for equipment which have
to be amortized over the life of the equipment, labor costs, dumping
costs for the trucked away waste, and efficiency costs of demolition
method.  These costs have to be balanced against goods recovery and
salvage benefits.  The demolition and renovation industry is such
that many firms are also.in associated businesses such as excavating,
construction and hauling.  The same firm may be awarded the demoli-
tion as well as clean-up contract.  Separating out the costs of
complying with the EPA regulations from compliance with other
agencies' regulations for demolition projects is very difficult.
Most of the work on complying with Federal Regulating has been
on the macro scale.  In an opening statement at a hearing before
the subcommittee on Economic Growth and stabilization of the
congressional Joint Economic Committee on April 11, 1978, Senator
Lloyd Bentsen said, "The Commerce Department has found that
pollution abatement control expenditures have increased an average
of 17 percent every year over the past five years."  Also, Secretary
of Commerce Juanita Kreps estimate that National Pollution abate-
ment and control expenditures have shown a cumulative cost of
$135 billion over the period of 1972 to 1976.  In a report prepared
for the Joint Economic Committee, Murray Weidenbaum of the Center
for the Study of American Business at Washington University St.
Louis, Missiouri, estimates that "the cost imposed on the private
sector is 20 times the money spent to operate the regulatory
agencies."  Weidenbaum proceeded to utilize the multiplier of 20
to derive the gross cost of complying with all federal regulations.
Weidenbaum estimated that in fiscal 1979, the federal government
regulatory administrative costs were $4.8 billion while the cost
of compliance with all federal regulations was $97.9 billion.

There is no evidence to confirm or derive a straight linear re-
lationship between the cost of complying with asbestos regulations

-------
                                                                         21
for the demolition and renovation industry and the cost of complying
with all federal regulations.  For our analysis we will assume
a growth rate of 17%.

4.1  Factors of Costs

The total cost of the demolition and renovation industries to comply
with EPA' s asbestos regulations can be seen as a function of several
component costs.  The factors of costs can be seen in equation 4.1.
Equation 4.1
TC**  capital,  ,  + labor,  v + materials, v +  transportation..  v+ final
deposition
Capital costs include equipment such as trucks and cranes.  Materials
costs include protective clothing and breathing apparatus for workmen
if removal is by encapsulation the material used for binding and
encapsulation must be enclosed in containers for final deposition.
Transportation costs include the contracting of a firm to haul
away the debris.  The final deposition costs include identifying
an approved land fill and making arrangements to utilize the
land fill.  The largest single factor in determining the cost of
demolishing or renovating a building is labor.  Labor costs
include three separate components.  Training costs such as the
handling of asbestos, medical costs for annual medical check-ups,
and additional manpower costs.  (Often the removal of asbestos
involves a great deal of working by hand.  This usually involves
having to put additional people on one job.)

4.2  Costs of Complying for the Demolition Industry

Separating out the costs of complying with EPA regulations from
compliance with other agencies regulations for demolition projects
is very difficult.  There are four parts of the EPA regulations
that may increase the bid on a demolition project.  The first extra
cost is sending EPA ten days notification.  Costs associated with
notification should be minimal.  The contractor has local reporting
*TC » total cost

-------
                                                                       22
requirements to obtain a local demolition permit.  This permit has
to be obtained irrespective of the presence of asbestos.  The
second cost is that incurred by wetting the asbestos.  Again this
cost which also should be minimal since water from a. firehose
fulfills EPA's requirements.  The third cost is the additional
labor costs involved with the stripping, handling, and bagging
the asbestos.  When wet, asbestos becomes very slippery and
difficult to handle.  The increase in labor cost may be the most
significant cost factor in placing a bid.  Most contractors would
have to strip any insulation material from boilers, etc. before
selling them for scrap.  The salvage value of the boilers reduces
the impact of the extra labor costs on the industry.  The last
cost involved is that of final disposition of the asbestos material.

All of the above costs are incorporated when a bid is made to demolish
a building.  In scanning the "Demo Memo", many times, a company's
bid would be twice or three times the bid of a competitor.  An
example is the bids that appeared in the December 1, 1978 issue.
The bids were for the demolition and removal of a vocational school
in Everett, Massachusetts.  The following is a list of the lowest
bids, contractors and addresses of the contractors placing bids on
this project:

         NAME                                 AMOUNT
J. Berardi, Allston, MA.                      $22,222.00
Franklin Creane Service, Randolph, MA.        $36,000.00
James G. Grant Co., Readville, MA.            $42,740.00
Francessco Excavation, S. Weymouth, MA.       $48,400.00
Mystic Wrecking Co., Chelsea, MA.             $48,675.00
New Boston Wrecking Co., Newton Ctr, MA.      $64,388.00
J. J. Duane, Quincy, MA.                      $66,996.00
Napoli Wrecking Co., Dorchester, MA.          $73,731.00

Table 7 is the average dollar bid value for buildings being
demolished.  The data was taken from the Demo Memo.  This table
serves to illustrate the large variance of costs associated with

-------
                                     TABLE  7
                           AVERAGE  DOLLAR BID PER BUILDING
                                                                                      23
  REGION I

        Connecticut


        Maine


        Massachusetts


        New Hampshire


        Rhode Island


        Vermont


  REGION II

        New Jersey


        New York


        Puerto Rico*


        Virgin Islands*


        _lll

        Delaware


        District of Columbia


        Maryland


        Pennsylvania
                              Single  Story
18,061.00
   (244)
16,964.00
   (50)
                 Multi Story
 67,580.00
    (86)

 11,441.00
    (10)

324,793.00
   (212)
                  22,220.00
                     (31)

                  10,294.00
                      (9)
                  22,594.00
                     (38)

                 123,490.00
                     (15)
  9,097.00
    (37)

 20,172.00
    (70)

 25,443.00
     (3)

 12,757.00
   (214)
                 Schools
106,175.00
     (5)
                244,493.00
                     (2)
47,179.00
    (4)
              Commercial
                                                  40,257.00
                                                       (3)
  678.94
    (5)
                                 35,700.00
                                     (1)
                                162,025.00
                78,343.00
                   (25)
                                                  10,000.00
                                                      (1)

                                               2,746,948.00
                                                      (1)
20,122.00
   (68)
*No figures were available for these states.
Numbers in parenthesis are the number  of buildings  included in the average.

-------
                                                                                  24
                                         TABLE 7 (continued)
REGION III (cont.)

      Virginia


REGION IV

      Alabama


      Florida


      Georgia


      Kentucky


      Mississippi


      North Carolina


      South Carolina


      Tennessee


     N V

      Illinois


      Indiana


      Michigan


      Minnesota


      Ohio


      Wisconsin
                           Single Story
 2,144.00
   (2)

 1,578.00
  (21)

 4,454.00
   (5)
 3,268.00
  (33)
21,091.00
  (27)

17,072.00
 (161)
                Multi  Story
                139,912.00
                     (3)
 11,413.00
    (24)

 46,349.00
    (13)

 16,862.00
     (9)

145,372.00
     (3)
                  3,458.00
                     (13)

                 71,565,00
                      (3)

                143,085.00
                      (2)
 53,840.00
    (10)

 37,172.00
    (23)

 11,068.00
    (64)

391,815.00
     (1)
 34,264.00
    (19)
                  Schools
               Commercial
 22,350.00
     (1)
105,163.00
     (1)

 48,830.00
     (1)

 20,900.00
     
-------
                                       TABLE 7 (continued)
                                                                                25
REGION VI

      Arkansas


      Louisiana


      Oklahoma


      Texas


REGION VII

      Iowa


      Missouri


      Nebraska


SEGIQN VITT

      Montana


      North Dakota


      Utah


      Wyoming


REGION_lx

      Arizona


      California


      Hawaii*


      Nevada
                        Single  Story
45,478.00
   (7)
32,021.00
   (7)
 6,399.00
  (88)
   857.00
   (2)
                Multi Story
 9,109.00
    (10)

17,505.00
    (24)

12,637.00
     (9)

 6,705.00
    (20)
                33,889.00
                   (37)
                74,822.00
                    (6)
              ,266,488.00
                    (1)

                18,190.00
                    (2)
65,790.00
    (1)

39,095.00
   (18)
                  Schools
Commercial
                                                   81,514.00
                                                      (1)
                                                  102,489.00
                                                      (1)
  No figures were available  for  this  state.

-------
                                     TABLE 7 (continued)
                                                                                 26
REGION X

      Alaska
      Oregon


      Washington
                             Single Story
372.00
 (9)
                Multi Story
                   1,701.00
                     (6)

               2,172,663.00
                    (12)
Schools
                                                                               Commercial
104,973.00
    (2)
116,074.00
   (1)

-------
                                                                        27
a demolition.  Orginally we planned to contact federal government
agencies to analyze cost factors in Demolition Proposals, and in-
dividual contractors to determine the individual cost considerations.
After contacting demolition contractors in the Springfield, Mass-
achusetts and Hartford, Connecticut area, we were unable to determine
any reasonable set of values associated with the various costs in-
volved in a demolition project.  The contractors said that they
could not segregate the costs associated with asbestos.  Contractors
seem to bid the job based on difficulty of the work, the perceived
advantages of doing a particular job, and the length of time the
job will take.

An EPA document entitled "Backgroud Information on National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants - Proposed Amendments to
Standards for Asbestos and Mercury" dated October 1974 fixed the cost
of compliance for the demolition industry at $5.2 million.  If there
are 3,000 projects annually subject to the asbestos regulations, the
average project compliance costs are $1,733 (1974 dollars).  In
an industry where bids vary by a factor of three and often reach
one million dollars or more, $1,733 to comply with the asbestos
regulations is not large.  If we assume that the cost of compliance
has grown at the 17% rate of all government regulations, we find
the compliance cost to (of) the demolition industry currently
being $3,796.

                  YEAR           COST OF COMPLYING
                  1974                 1733
                  1975                 2027
                  1976                 2371
                  1977                 2774
                  1978                 3245
                  1979                 3796
                  1980                 4441
                  1981                 5196
                  1982                 6079
                  1983                 7112

-------
                                                                         28
                YEAR          COST OF COMPLYING

                1984               8321

The above figures assume an annual compound growth rate of 17%.

4.3  Cost of Complying for the Renovation Industry
The largest compliance costs to the renovation industry is complying
with the OSHA Asbestos Regulations.  One method of complying with the
EPA Regulations is by wetting and then stripping the asbestos.  Often
the renovation work is being performed in a building that is being
occupied or closed for only a short duration.  Under these conditions,
a method of encapsulation of the asbestos has to be found.

After contacting numerous renovation contractors, it was found the average
costs of removing asbestos during renovation is approximately $l/sq. ft.
The bags used to transport the asbestos costs approximately fifty cents
apiece.  The workers, performing the asbestos removal, wear
disposable clothing that costs two dollars.  The largest costs are in the
training of employees who must work in an enclosed area with asbestos.
Another cost associated with employees is that of medical care.  Most
employees receive regular medical check-ups and annual chest X-rays at com-
pany expense.

In a book titled "Engineering Aspects of Asbestos Dust Control",
Rajhans and Bragg review the costs associated with controlling
asbestos dust.  Their analysis is more appropriate for controlling
dust from industries that produce asbestos containing products.
However, renovations are performed in an enclosed environment  and
same of the cost factors are similar.  They  derived  equation 4.2 for
the operating cost of a dust control system.
 Equation  4.2
                         C  - 1.173  x  10"1*  SPHK
                                           E
             where   C  is  the annual electrical cost  in U.S.  $
                    S  is  the design capacity  of the  system in cfm (actual)
                    P  is  the pressure drop  in inches  of water
                    H  is  the estimated yearly hours  of  operation
                    K  is  the cost  of  electricity in  dollars/kWh
                    E  is  the fan efficiency expressed as  a percentage

-------
                                                                        29
4.4  Regulation and Inflation

In his report to the Joint Economic Committee, Weidenbaum addresses

the question of regulations impacting non-inflation, he said,
   "Of the many ways in which government can affect the rate
    of inflation, perhaps the least understood method is to
    require actions in the private sector which increase the
    cost of production and hence the prices of products and
    services sold to the public.  Attention needs to be focus-
    ed on these regulatory policy instruments because their
    use is becoming more widespread and neither the public nor
    government decisionmakers realize their full inflationary
    effects.

    At first blush, government imposition of socially desirable
    requirements on business through the regulatory process
    appears to be an inexpensive way of achieving national
    objectives.  This practice apparently costs the government
    little and represents no significant direct burden on the
    taxpayer.  But the public does not escape paying the cost.

    These higher prices, however, represent the "hidden tax"
    of regulation which is shifted from the taxpayer to the
    consumer."
The major contribution to inflation of complying with the asbestos
regulations concerns the cost of labor.  Bid prices rise to meet

the wage demand of the additional labor required to manually strip

the asbestos.

-------
                                                                         30
5.0  ESTIMATE THE QUANTITY OF ASBESTOS BY WEIGHT RELEASED INTO THE AIR

     5.1  Mineralogy of Asbestos and Uses in Building Material
     Asbestos is a generic term applied to a group of highly fibrous
     silicate minerals.  Six common asbestos varieties belong either to
     the serpentine group as to the amphibole group of minerals.   The
     amphibole varieties include:
          amosite (a variety of granosite), anthophyllite, crocidolite
          (a variety of riebechite), tremolite and actinolite.  The
          single serpentine variety of asbestos is chrysotile.  There
          are additional mineral varieties which possess many of the
          properties of the asbestos group but they are not considered
          to be asbestos.  Appendix E contains a description of the
          problems delineating which mineral species are in the asbestos
          group.
     The four economically important varieties of asbestos include amosite,
     anthophyllite, crocidolite and chrysotile.  As noted in "Engineering
     Aspects of Asbestos Dust Control", chrysotile accounts for more than
     90% of all asbestos uses.  The vast majority of the chrysotile used
     in the United States is produced in Canada and most of the amphibole
     asbestos is imported from South Africa.  Building materials contain
     predominantly the chrysotile variety of asbestos, with the relatively
     small amounts of the amphibole varieties.  As noted in the article
     published by Ross and also Gilson, this distribution is important
     in that health studies suggest that of the four economically important
     forms of asbestos, crocidolite has been responsible for the greatest
     health risk, followed by amosite, then chrysotile and lastly, antho-
     phyllite.  Appendix E contains additional information pertaining to
     the grades of chrysotile mined and uses of asbestos in building material.

     The EPA document entitled "Asbestos Containing Materials in School
     Buildings:  A Guidance Document" notes that in 1950, more than half
     of all multi-story buildings constructed in the U.S. used some form of
     sprayed mineral fiber fireproofing.  In 1968, fireproofing alone accounted
     for.40,000 tons of sprayed material.

-------
                                                                      31
5.2  Quantity of Asbestos Released by Demolitions
In the open literature, most authors agree that demolition is potentially
a major source of asbestos emissions, however there are very few quanti-
tative figures available.  The amount of asbestos emitted will depend
on the type and age of a structure (industrial/commercial structures
versus residential structures), as well as the demolition method used.
For example, the "explosive" technique may release asbestos imbedded in
wallboards and floor/ceiling tiles (not usually classified as friable)
in addition to asbestos used in insulating material.

The potential problems involved in quantitatively measuring asbestos
emissions from a demolition project can be seen in the lack of any
numeric estimates.  However, for the manufacturing or processing of
products containing asbestos fibers, there are numerous estimates of
emissions.  An example of such estimates is a study conducted by Stanford
Research Institute International for the National Cancer Institute
entitled "Asbestos: An Information Resource," dated May 1978, which
concluded that there were 534,554 metric tons of asbestos disposed or
emitted in 1974.  Of the 534,544 metric tons, 532,307  (99.60%) metric
tons were disposed to the land, while 2,093 (0.39%) and 154  (0.03%)
metric tons were emitted to the air and water respectively.  The
534.554 metric tons was a summation of emissions from  the consumption,
production and manufacturing goods that contain asbestos.

Since asbestos has been in common use in building materials  since 1950,
most buildings should be inspected for asbestos prior  to any demolition
activity.  Typically, a swatch of building material is removed and
analyzed using light microscope detection or x-ray diffraction techniques.
The problems using these methods for identifying asbestos are discussed
in Section 5.5.  Also, characterizing the mineralogy,  quantity and
textural characteristics of the source material provides little informa-
tion of the particulate "cloud" which results from demolition activity.
Variables such as the friability of the building material and grain
size of the asbestos component, meterology at the time of demolition

-------
                                                                    32
and mitigating measures used to minimize fugitive emissions make the
task of quantifying emissions from demolition projects formidable.

Under Subpart B of the National Emission Standard for Asbestos,
Paragraph (d) of Section 61.22, clearly states that the written
notice containing the (i) name of owner or operator, (ii)
address of owner or operator and (iii) description of the building,
structure, facility or installation to be demolished or renovated
including the amount of friable asbestos materials present be sent
to EPA.

Paragraph (d) (iii) was revised at 43 FR 26374 on June 19, 1978.
From the files containing notification for Region V, IX and X, it
would indicate that contractors are either not aware that they must
report an estimated amount of asbestos or chose not to include this
information in their report.

5.3 Quantity of Asbestos Released by Renovation
Various control measures have been adopted to limit fugitive emissions
of asbestos material in renovation projects.  When asbestos is removed
from a structure, wetting of the material significantly lowers the
amount of dust emitted compared to dry methods which can result in air-
                                                3
borne asbestos levels in excess of 100 fibers/cm  .  For containing
exposed friable asbestos, techniques which either use a sealant or
barrier result in similar levels of airborne asbestos which are generally
lower than for removing the asbestos.  Appendix E contains data taken
from "Sprayed Asbestos Containing Materials in Buildings:  A Guidance
Document" which compare the methods of controlling asbestos during
renovation.  In addition, most renovation projects include an air
filtering device which, in theory, should allow a quantitative measure
of emissions.  This filtering system can be checked by one of the
various analytical techniques available.

-------
                                                                     33
Paragraph (d) of Subsection 61.22 of Subpart B states:

   "the requirements of this paragraph shall apply to any
    owner or operator...who intends to renovate any insti-
    tutional, commercial or industrial building, structure
    facility, installation or portion thereof where more
    than 80 meters (ca. 260 feet) of pipe covered or coated
    with friable asbestos materials are stripped or removed,
    or more than 15 square meters (ca. 160 sq. ft.) of
    friable asbestos materials used to cover or coat any..."

Most of the reports that were reviewed simply stated that there are
more than 260 feet of asbestos.

Table 8 is a list of the type of buildings, the description
of the demolished or renovated structure, and the amount of
asbestos removed.   Of the eighty-five (85) demolition reports
sent to Region V, only 43 (50%) of the notices list any information
pertaining to the amount of asbestos.

5.4  Asbestos in the Ambient Air Resulting From Construction Activities

Significant levels of airborne asbestos have been measured in a
number of urban areas  (reference Appendix E).  However, there are
many other sources of asbestos in addition to those from construction
activities which contribute to ambient air concentrations.  The day-to-
day wear of auto brake linings, the manufacturing of  asbestos-containing
products and the mining of asbestos all contribute to asbestos accumu-
lations in the atmosphere.  In urban areas where most demolitions occur,
the demolition of a building contributes more significantly to the
asbestos in the atmosphere than in rural areas.  Although demolition
projects are completed in a short time and are a one-time occurrence,
the cumulative effects of the asbestos on those exposed is accelerated.

5.5  Problems in Measuring Asbestos

Currently, the EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, is develop-
ing standard methodologies to measure asbestos in the atmosphere.
However, there are significant problems in both the sampling and analysis
to overcome.

-------
                                                                    34
As noted in "Engineering Aspects of Dust Control", samples collected
may be the total dust or the respirable dust fraction.  Pre-samplers
are required to segregate grain sized in the latter case.  There are
various types of pre-samplers (cyclones, impactors, etc.) that have
been standardized for granular dust and some that have been modified
and standardized for fibrous dust under certain conditions.  However,
measurement procedures that have been developed have yet to be fully
disseminated, evaluated, and standardized.

It is pointed out in "Asbestos:  An Information Resource" that, at
present, the major method of monitoring in use is membrane filtration.
The procedure most commonly used is a single step filtration in which
all suspended particulate material in the medium is entrapped with the
suspended asbestos.  Also, dual-filter methods utilizing coarse and
fine filters have been used but inherent problems in loading and
asbestos being entrained on both filters makes this technique less
reliable.

Inherent problems in sampling include:  (1) inaccuracies caused by
a lack of reproducibility between samples collected in both,  (2)
differences between sampling techniques manner and location, and
(3) selecting representative sites from which quantitative emissions
from a demolition project may be determined.

Harwood and Yamate in their article entitled "The Detection and Quanti-
fication of Asbestos Present in the Environment" have compiled and
reviewed the various techniques for detecting and quantifying asbestos.
These techniques are presented in Appendix E.  However,  it should be
noted that inaccuracies in values obtained using normal  analytical
techniques can result from several circumstances:  (1) statistical
variation in the number of fibers found in a given grid  square within
a sample, (2) variability in the volume of each fiber,  (3) problems
with interference and light dispersion particularly with chrysotile,
(4) variability in the amount of material lost during processing and
(5) low-level contamination of the sample at various  points during  its
preparation and analysis.  Another problem is that of economics.

-------
                                                                     35
In "Asbestos: An Information Resource," SRI reports:
  "the minimum initial capital investment required for new equip-
   ment will be in the range of $100,000-$250,000, and an annual
   operating budget of nearly $100,000 will be required.  This
   will cover the expense of purchasing and installing a scanning/
   transmission electron microscope and the salaries, fringe
   benefits and overhead expenses for a microscopist and two or
   three technicians."


These costs are well beyond the normal budget of most asbestos enforce-
ment agencies.

-------
                                                                      36
6.0  PROBLEMS WITH THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
     6.1  Nature of Industries
     Demolition and renovation contracts are performed by firms that range
     in size from a few people who rent equipment to 20 to 30 firms which
     are national in scope and have hundreds of employees, with the largest
     U.S. contractor being the Cleveland Wrecking Company.  Most demolition
     contractors cannot compete on the national scale and confine their
     operations to their local area.  The local nature of the industry
     makes the gathering of national (or industry-wide) date difficult.
     Looking at the demolition notices from the EPA Region V, IX and X
     offices, one would surmise that contractors either are unaware of EPA's
     reporting requirements or they have chosen not to fulfill these
     requirements.  Notices are often submitted to EPA after the projected
     completion date of the project or do not contain all the required
     information or consists simply of a letter that says a building will
     be torn down without giving the building location or any further
     information.  Table 8  Is an example of the reported quantity of
     asbestos removed from demolition jobs in Regions V, IX, and X.  This
     table serves to highlight the incomplete nature of the data reported.

     Many times notices are sent to EPA when asbestos is not present.  An
     example of this is the 39 sites inspected in Region V on October 20,
     1978.  Thirty-three contained no asbestos.  On November 15, 1978,
     there were 34 inspected sites with 25 containing no asbestos, and on
     January 22, 1979, there were 96 inspections with 84 sites containing
     no asbestos.  Of these 96 sites, there were four that did not notify
     EPA.  In all four cases, there were either small amounts of asbestos
     or the asbestos was being properly handled.  Of the 169 inspections in
     Region V carried out between October 20, 1978 and January 22, 1979,
     98% of the inspections contained no asbestos.  To enhance industry's
     understanding of the reporting requirements, an educational campaign
     should be designed and distributed  to  the industry.

     For EPA to have adequate data upon which to base an enforcement strategy,
     EPA must ensure that demolition and renovation contractors give ample
     notification.

-------
                                                                      37
 6.2  Tracking Demolition Contractors
 EPA Headquarters needs  to  track the compliance of the individual
 contractors because of  the local nature of the industry.  A data
 base that currently exists and can be used for tracking purposes
 is the Compliance Data  System which is maintained by the Division of
 Stationary Source Enforcement.  Individual contractors can be entered
 as a source.  Every demolition or renovation project in which the
 contractor participates can be described as an emission point.
 Once a valid data base  has been established, an enforcement inspector
 can scan a retrieval for those sources with a history of being out-
 of-compliance.  This will  assist the inspector in planning which sites
 to visit.  This type of data base can also assist EPA in developing an
 enforcement strategy for the demolition and renovation industry.

 EPA Regional offices can receive special printouts on which contractors
 in their jurisdiction are  consistently out-of-compliance, which contrac-
 tors specialize in the  demolition of industrial, commercial or residential
 buildings, etc.  This type of information can assist the Regional offices
 in carrying out their surveillance responsibilities.

 6.3  Developing an Education Program
 In order to ensure that the demolition and renovation contractors are
 aware of their reporting obligations and the penalties associated with
 failure to meet the EPA regulations, EPA should develop an educational
 program aimed at the industry.  Industrial seminars could be held at
 EPA Regional offices.   EPA Headquarters currently holds seminars at
 Regional offices for federal and local enforcement personnel, which
 concentrate on the regulations, how to perform a safe inspection and
 how to develop a non-compliance case.  The industry seminars could be
 run in a similar manner to the enforcement seminars.  One critical point
 that should be stressed during the education program is where OSHA regu-
 lations level off and EPA  responsibility begins.  Contractors do not
 fully understand why there are two sets of regulations because they are
not aware of the concept of OSHA being responsible for the workers and
 EPA being responsible for  the general public.

-------
                        TABLE  8

Examples of Quantity of Asbestos Removed by Demolitions
or Renovations in Buildings for Select EPA Regions (1978)
                                                                    38
STATES
ILLINOIS
Average
Pounds of Ab.
Average
Linear Footage
Average Sq.
Footage
Average Cubic
Footage
INDIANA
Average
Pounds of Ab.
Average
Linear Footage
Average Sq.
Footage
Average Cubic
Footage
MISSOURI
Average
Pounds of Aba
Average
Linear Footage
Average Sq.
Footage
Average Cubic
Footage
KEY:
UN = Unknown
NA = Not Available
Numbers in parenthes
Single Story Multi Storv Schools Commercial
UN*
(6)
NA
NA
NA
UN
NA
NA
NA
NA
UN
(1)
NA
NA
NA

:s represent the
UN
(76)
NA
NA
NA
UN
NA
NA
NA
NA
UN
NA
260 ft.
(3)
520 sq. ft.
(2)
NA

lumber of build in
NA
NA
NA
NA
UN
NA
NA
NA
NA
UN
NA
NA
NA
NA

s included i
UN
(81)
260 linear ft
(1)
160 sq. ft.
(1)
1500 cu. ft.
(1)
UN
(1)
2451 ft.
(1)
NA
NA
UN
NA
174261. ft.
(29)
4775 sq. ft.
(2)
NA

i the average.

-------
TABLE 8
                                           39
OHIO
Average
Pounds of Ab.
Average
•Linear Footage
Average Sq.
Footage
Average Cubic
Footage
MINNESOTA
Average
Pounds or Ab.
Average
Linear Footage
Average Sq.
Footage
Average Cubic
Footage
WISCONSIN
Average
Pounds of Ab.
Average
Linear Footage
Average Sq.
Footage
Average Cubic
Footage
CALIFORNIA
Average
Pounds of Ab.
Average
Linear Footage
Average Sq.
Footage
Single Story

NA
NA
NA
NA


NA
NA
NA

NA


NA
NA
NA

NA


NA
NA
NA

Multi Story Schools

NA
NA
NA
NA


NA
NA
NA

NA


UN
CD
NA
NA

NA


NA
NA
NA


NA
NA
NA
NA


NA
NA
NA

NA


NA
NA
NA

NA


NA
NA
NA

Multi-Story
Commercial

UN
(2)
25,000 lin. ft.
CO
20,000 sq. ft.
(1)
NA


UN
CD
NA
NA

NA


UN
(1)
NA
NA

NA


UN
(4)
3930 lin. ft
(4)
NA


-------
CALIFORNIA  (cont.)

Average Cubic
rootage
OREGON

Average  Pounds
of  Ab.

Average
Linear  Footage

Average  Sq.
Footage

Average  Cubic
Footage
                                      TABLE 8
                      Single Story      Multi  Story
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
 UN
(7)
NA
NA
NA
                               Schools
                           Multi-Story
                            Commercial
                                                          40
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

-------
                                                                       41
7.0  CONCLUSIONS

     7.1  Conclusions

     From this investigation various inferences can be drawn regarding
     the nature of the demolition and renovation industries and the costs

     incurred by these industries in complying with the asbestos regulations
     outlined in the NESHAPS provisions of the Clean Air Act of 1977 as
     amended.

           o  There are 2,502 demolition contractors in the United States

           o  In 1978, there were 2,596 demolition projects started

           o  The majority of contracts and contractors are located in
              urban centers where people  are more  exposed  to asbestos
               emissions  than people  in  rural areas

           o  The average increase to the industry resulting from the
              asbestos regulations is $1,733 (in 1974 dollars)

           o  The average demolition bid is $43,878

           o  Most government agencies are not aware of the number or
              dollar amount of the demolition projects they support

           o  Demolition and renovation projects are local in nature,  which
               makes  the  collection  of national or  industry-wide data difficult

           o  There are no industry standards for  charges when asbestos
              is present in a demolition project

           o  Industry feels that EPA should set a numeric emission  standard

           o  Often, notification is given to EPA  after  the demolition
              project has been initiated  or completed


     7.2  Recommendations

     Based on  this investigation, TRC makes the following  recommendations:

     o  Compliance of demolition contractors  should  be tracked in an EPA
        data base, such  as  the Compliance Data System.   A  contractor could

        be entered into  the data base as  a source  and  every demolition
        project  he completes could  be entered as a point.   This would allow
        an inspector  to have a  printout  of which  contractors  have a history

        of non-compliance.  This can assist the inspector  in planning a

        more efficient inspection strategy.

-------
                                                                   42
o  Contractors consistently do not report complete information as
   required to EPA.  EPA should institute an educational program
   to inform the industry of their reporting obligations.  EPA
   Headquarters currently has an educational program designed to
   help educate  state and local enforcement personnel.  A similar
   Regional program should be arranged and industry personnel
   invited.  This program could emphasize the federal and local
   regulations and what a contractor can expect during an inspection.

o  For complete data on the number of demolition and renovation
   projects, EPA should combine an information package and a ques-
   tionnaire to distribute to those contractors listed in the
   Appendice to this report.  The questionnaire could address the
   question of the amount of asbestos handled in one year, the
   number of projects, the number of employees of a given firm
   and the final distribution of the asbestos.  The information
   package could contain the pertinent asbestos regulations.

o  EPA should develop a numeric emission standard for asbestos,
   as well as a quick, efficient method of measuring and classifying
   asbestos.  The emission standard and measuring technologies are
   already being addressed by EPA at Research Triangle Park, North
   Carolina.

o  EPA should try to develop a directory of federal government
   agencies that lists the types and amounts of demolition projects
   supported by these agencies.

o  EPA should consider other alternatives to the control of  asbestos
   emissions than by direct regulation.

-------
                                                                                  43
                                 BIBLIOGRAPHY


 1.  Asbestos and Air Pollution:  An Annotated Bibliography.  EPA Air Pollution
     Technical Information Center  Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: National
     Environmental Research Center, 1971

 2.  Asbestos;  Federal and State Regulations.  Rockville, Maryland: Sigma Data
     Computing Corporation, April 1979

 3.  Barrett, Larry  B. and Waddell, Thomas E.  Cost of Air Pollution Damage. EPA
     National Environmental Research Center, Research Triangle Park, N.C., February 1973


 4.  Beavis, B. "Optimal Pollution in the Presence of Adjustment Costs."  Journal
     of  Environmental Economics  and Management. Vol. 6, No.  1, March 1979, pp. 1210

 5.  "Cost  of Governmental Regulation."  U.S. Congressional  Joint Economic Committee,
     Washington, D.C.:  Government Printing Office, 1978

 6.  -Council of Economic Advisers to the President.  Economic Report of  the
     President. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, January  1979

 7.  EPA Background  Information  on National Emission Standards  for  HAzardous Air
     Pollutants;  Asbestos. Beryllium,  and Mercury; Proposed Amendments  to Standards
     for Asbestos and Mercury.   Office  of Air Quality Planning  and  Standards.
     Research Triangle Park,  N.C.:  National Environmental Research Center, 1971
     and 1974

 8.  Gilson, J.C.   "Asbestos  Concerns as an Example of  the Problem  of  Comparative
     Risks."  Inserm Symposia Series, 52, IARC  Scientific Publications No. 13,
     Environmental  Pollution  in  Carcinogenic Risks, 107-116  (1976)

 9.  Harwood, C.  and Yamate,  G., The Detection  and Quantification of Asbestos  Present
     in  the Environment.   3rd Int'l Congress of Physics Chem. Asbestos,  Quebec (1975)

10.  Hochman, E.  and Zilberman,  D.,  "Two-Goal Environmental  Policy: An  Integration
     of  Micro and Macro  ad hoc Decision Rules."  Journal of  Environmental Economics
     and Management. 1979.

11.  Levine, Richard J.,  editor, Asbestos;  An Information  Resource.   Bethesda,
     MD:  National  Cancer Institute,  1978

12.  Malmberg,  K.B., NESHAP Asbestos  EPA Demolition  and Renovation  Inspection
     Procedures S-22.   EPA, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1975.

13.  Mendelsohn,  Robert  and Orcutt,  Guy,  "An  Empirical  Analysis of  Air Pollution
     Dose-Response  Curves."  Journal  of Environmental  Economics and Management,
     Vol. 6, No.  2, June 1979

14.   National Academy of Science, Asbestos  -  The Need  for and Feasibility of  Air
      Pollution  Controls,  Washington,  D.C.,  1971

-------
                                                                            44
Rajbans, Cyan, S. and Bragg, Gordon M., Engineering Aspects of Asbestos
Dust Control.  Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ann Arbor Science Publishers, 1978

Ross, M., The Asbestos Minerals;  Definitions, Description, Modes of Formation,
Physical and Chemical Properties and Health Risk to the Mining Community.
National Bureau of Standards Publication JOS. Washington, D.C.: Government
printing Office, 1978, pp. 49-63

Sawyer, R.N. and Spooner,  C.M., Sprayed Asbestos-Containing Materials in
Buildings;  A Guidance Document.  EPA Publication 450/2-78-014, Washington,
B.C.:  Government Printing Office, 1978

Selikoff, I. J., Hammond, E.C., and Heimann, H., "Critical Evaluation of
Disease  Hazards Associated with Community Asbestos Air Pollution."  Proceed-
ings of  2nd International Clean Air Congress.  New York: Academic Press, 1971

U-s- Congressional Committee on Education and Labor, Oversight Hearings on
Asbestos Health Hazards to Schoolchildren, Proceedings of Ninety-sixth Congress,
Washington, D.C.:Government Printing Office, 1979

"Warning on Asbestos."  Chemical Week. May 3, 1978, pp. 16

-------
                                                         45
           APPENDIX  A
LIST OF EPA REGIONAL NESHAPS COORDINATORS

-------
                                                                46
              NESHAPS  COORDINATORS
REGION
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
CITY
Boston, MA
New York, NY
Philadelphia, PA
Atlanta, GA
Chicago, IL
Dallas, TX
Kansas City, MO
NAME
Steve Fradkoff
Marcus Kantz
Jean Thompson
Carl Sova
Eric Cohen
Martin Brit tain
Pete Culver
PHONE
617-223-5186
212-264-9538
215-597-9884
404-881-4552
312-353-2212
214-767-2755
816-374-2576
VIII   Denver,  CO

 IX    San Francisco,
       CA

 X    Seattle, WA
Clifford Blackwell303-837-2361

Chuck Sealy       415-556-0970
Ken Lepic
206-442-1125

-------
                                                               47
                  APPENDIX B
LIST OF INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED DURING THIS CONTRACT

-------
                                                                          48
                             LIST OF INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED
REGION I   EPA-Boston Steve Fradkoff  (617)223-4448
             stepped-up school removals
     CONNECTICUT - ^250 jobs  per year involve removal of  asbestos

         State Agency - Stanley J. Pac, Commissioner 566-4030__
                      - Mrs.  Bernard Swan* President, Board of Health,
                        New Haven  787-8189, said authority delegated
                        to towns;  referred to Jon Kabish  566-5626
                      - Leo Alex,  State Labor Dept., Meriden, 566-5160

         Contractors  - Cappozziello Bros. Building Wrecking Co., Inc.
                        Bridgeport,  335-2293
                      - D&M Demolition Inc, Rocky Hill, 563-4921
                      - Dunn  Bros. Inc., South Windsor, 528-9201
                      - The Leibert Corp. Hartford, 247-6656
                      - Mitchell Trucking Inc., South Windsor, 528-4431
                      - Stamford Wrecking Co., Stamford,  324-9537
                      - Waterbury  House Wrecking Co., Inc., 757-8444

     MAINE - annually wreck 2 residential, 5 commercial,  3 industrial

         State Agency - David Tudor, (207)289-2437  State  Director, Bureau of
                                                    Air  Quality Control
         Contractors  - Lawrence S. Datil, 622-0535
                      - Aceto & Co., 797-6761
                      - Benjamin Building Wrecking Co., 767-2985
                      - Bourque Inc., 282-3318
                      - D. Renzo & Sons, 854-5562
                      - Gary's Trucking, 883-5997
                      - Merill, Inc., 799-1541
                      - Viola, 722-2392

     MASSACHUSETTS - annually wreck  8 residential,  13 commercial, 6  industrial
         State Agency -  Steve Joyce, District Director (800)332-0366  (Berkshire Air
         „  ^            /T. 11  _t               j   CITN     Pollution Control District)
         Contractors  -  (Following are area  code  617)
                      -  Ace Wrecking & Dismantling,  472-4716
                      -  Central Building Wrecking,  387-3700
                      -  John Duane Building  Wrecking,  773-6030
                      -  James Grant Co., 361-2716
                      -  John Grant & Sons  Co.,  848-8070
                      -  Hawks Mt., Co., 729-1577
                      -  Kouns & Clifford Wrecking,  442-7030
                      -  Mystic Building Wrecking  Co.,  884-3101
                      -  Napoli Wrecking Co., 282-5190
                      -  North American  Site  Developers,  254-3140
                      -  Sinclair  Trucking, 438-0016
                      -  Southbridge Salvage  Inc.  764-8887
                      -  Wrecking  Corp.  of  American'(212)937-2288 (N.Y.)
                      -  Robert S. Young &  Co.,  479-1826

-------
                                                                            49

                   LIST OF INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED
     MASSACHUSETTS (continued)

         Contractors  - (Following are area code 413)
                      - American Recycling Corp. 781-2345
                      - Associated Building Wreckers Inc. 732-3179
                      - Armet Charlie Trucking, 525-6325
                      - Haber Sand & Gravel Co., 532-9240
                      - LaFlamme Trucking, 532-3525
                      - Navrocki Construction, 592-6577
                      - F&D Truck Co., Inc., 754-9572
                      - Lorion Building Wrecking 791-8401

     NEW HAMPSHIRE - NONE

     RHODE ISLAND - annually wreck 2 residential, 2 commercial

         State Agency - Austin Daley 401-277-2808,, Co-ordinator, Dept. of
                                                  Environmental Management
         Contractors  - AHR Construction Co. 401-336-7310
                      - Pasquazzi Bros., Inc. 942-2250

     VERMONT - NO INFORMATION
         State Agency -Mr. Cedric Sanbourne 802-828-3395, Air Pollution Control
                                                         Engineer
REGION II
              EPA Region - Marcus Kantz  212-264-9538 , Engineer
                         ^ 25,000 demolition jobs  annually in NY and NJ
                         ^  8,000 in New York  City
                         ^  2,000 involve  asbestos removal
REGION III
     DELAWARE - majority of projects  are  industrial
         State Agency - Robert  French, Air  Resource Section,  Manager  302-678-4403

         Contractors  - DuPont, John  Resor,  302-629-9121
                      - Allied  Chemical,  David Murphy,  798-0621
                      - Asbestos  Workers, Ray Ryan, 328-4203

     MARYLAND - ^50 demolition  jobs annually

         State Agency - Carl York 301-383-2776 , Chief,  Div. of Compliance,
                                                 Air Quality Program

-------
                                                                           50
                     LIST OF INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED


REGION III (continued)

    PENNSYLVANIA - last year - 24  Inspections, one enforcement action,

                   most jobs are industrial
        State Agency -  Doug Lesher,  717-787-9702
    VIRGINIA

        State Agency -  Ray Belcher,  804-786-4867
                     -  Mike Overstreet, 804-786-2378, one industrial
                      (Regional Director,  Southwest VA, Abingdon)
                     -  Ray Minx, 804-786-2378, 2 demolitions, 1 commercial
                       (Regional Director, Northeastern, VA, Fredericksburg)
                     -  Henry Moss,  804-786-2378, 4 demolitions
                       (Regional Director, State Capitol, Richmond)
                     -  Robert Beasly,  804-786-2378, 3 Indus., 2 comm., 1 pending
                       (Asst.Regional  Director, State Capitol, Richmond)
                     -  Luke McDonald,  804-786-2378, one commercial
                       (Asst. Director, Hampton Roads, Virginia Beach)


     IV   (Thomas)

   ALABAMA - two ongoing projects

       State Agency -  205-834-6570

   GEORGIA - 11 commercial, 5 residential,  6 industrial

       State Agency - Dave Yardumian, 404-656-4867
                     - Marvin Bradford,   404-656-7410

   KENTUCKY  - 1978: 6 res.,  3 comm., 6 Indus.;   1979: 1 comm.

       State Agency - Carl Homeman,  502-564-3560,  Environmental Specialist  III

   NORTH CAROLINA - NO INFORMATION
       State Agency - Paul  Wilns,  919-733-5188,  Environmental Engineer III
                                                  Head of Air Branch
   MISSISSIPPI - NO INFORMATION

       State Agency - 601-354-2550

    SOUTH CAROLINA - 3 industrial,  2  commercial
        State Agency - Otto  Pearson,  803-758-5406,-P.E.Engineer & Dir.of Facilities
                     - Kim Cauthen,   803-758-5406    Evaluation Div., Bureau of
                       Environmental Engineer         Air Quality Control
    TENNESSEE

        State Agency -  615-741-3931

-------
                                                                             51
                    LIST OF INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED
•REGION V    Eric  Cohen, EPA Region NESHAPS Co-ordlnator

      ILLINOIS -  have  applied for authority over regulations
          State Agency -  Miles Zanco  217-782-7326, Manager, Field Operation Section
                       -  Berkley Moore,  217-782-7326 , Energy Specialist,Fiv.of  Air
                                                      Pollution Control
      INDIANA - NO  INFORMATION
          State Agency -  John Pruessner, 317-633-0600
      MICHIGAN -  15 Indus.,  3 connn.,  2 resid.
          State Agency -  Del Rector,  517-373-7573 (322-1330)
                         Chief, Air Quality Division
      MINNESOTA - NO INFORMATION
          State Agency -  Gary Palford, 613-296-7373 (7301)
      OHIO - 50 projects  for 1978; no residential for Cincinnati, Butler,
            Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren Counties
                       -  James Orleman,  Chief, Air Pollution Control
                         513-352-4880; M. F. Smith,  same phone
              (not listed under State Agency, Cine,  includes Butler, Clermont,
                 Hamilton and Warren Counties)
      WISCONSIN - 3 projects
         State Agency  - Doug Evans, 608-266-0151 - Asst.  to the Director,
                                                 Bureau of Air Management
REGION VI

      ARKANSAS -  NO INFORMATION
          State Agency -  501-371-1136
      LOUISIANA - NO INFORMATION
          State Agency -  504-568-5122
      NEW MEXICO  -  NO INFORMATION
          State Agency -  505-827-5271
      OKLAHOMA -  NO INFORMATION
          State Agency -  405-271-5220
      TEXAS -  since 11/15/78 - 31  industrial projects
          State Agency -  Mr. Mike  Peters, 512-451-5711

-------
                                                                           52
REGION VII
      IOWA -  3  res.,  1 cotnm.,  3 Indus.
          State Agency - Bud Karachlwala,  515-281-8092
      KANSAS  -  NO INFORMATION
          State Agency - John  Erwin,  913-862-9360
      MISSOURI  -  NO  INFORMATION
          State Agency - Bill  Moore,  314-751-3241
      NEBRASKA
          State Agency - Gene  Robinson, 402-471-2186 - Chief, Air Pollution Diy.
                       - Gary  Walsh,  402-474-1541 - 6 commercial, Supervisor,  Lincoln-
                          Lancaater County- Air Pollution-Control Agency
                       - Bob Timmerman,  402-444-5378 -  3 comm., 1 Indus.
                          Chief, Air Quality Control Inspector, Omaha City
ttEGION VIII
     COLORADO -  NO INFORMATION
            EPA Region - Charles Baldwin, 303-837-2361, Attorney Advisor
                       - Cliff Blackwell, 303-837-5914, Attorney Advisor
     MONTANA - NO INFORMATION
          State Agency - Michael Roach, 406-449-3454 ,  Chief, Air Quality Bureau
     NORTH  DAKOTA - MO INFORMATION
          State Agency - Mr. Drawford, 701-224-2371
          Dept of BID  - Bruce Batch, 701-224-2811
     SOUTH  DAKOTA - NO INFORMATION
          State Agency - 605-224-3329 (773-332.9)
     UTAH - NO  INFORMATION
          State Agency - 801-533-6108
     WYOMING - NO REGULATIONS
          State Agency - Robert Sundln  307-777-7391

-------
                                                                            53
REGION IX

    EPA-San Francisco - Chuck Sealey, 415-556-0970

    ARIZONA - NO INFORMATION
      State Agency - Carl Billings, 602-255-1144

    CALIFORNIA- 210-220 contractors, 15-20 report routinely, 2 submit
                ten reports per month; 44 APCD's in CA., 15-16 report.

    NEVADA - NO INFORMATION
        State Agency - 702-885-4670


PEGION X
    EPA-Seattle - Mark Hooper, 206-442-1263,  (206-344-7330, Puget Sound number
                              includes King, Kitsap, Pierce & Snohomish Counties)
                              referred to Puget Sound Authority - 38 commercial
    IDAHO - NO INFORMATION, NO REGULATIONS
        State Agency - 208-384-2903

    OREGON - 9 commercial, 1 industrial, 503-229-5395
        State Agency - Michael Ziolko

    WASHINGTON
        Control Officer, Fred Gray,  509-456-4727 -  14 commercial, Spokane
                         County Air  Pollution  Control Authority
        Control Officer, Air Pollution Control Authority,  J. Philip Cooke,
                         Benton,  Franklin, Walla-Walla  Counties, one commercial,
                         one industrial  (509-946-4489)

-------
                                                                       54
                         APPENDIX C

LIST OF AGENCIES THAT HAVE ACCEPTED DELEGATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES FOR

                           DEMOLITION/RENOVATION
Information obtained from:
Asbestos Federal and State Regulations by Asbestos Information Association,
Arlington, Va.  as  of April,  1979

-------
   STATE
   STATUS
  OSH PLAN
        STATE OSH
          OFFICE
STATUS HESHAPS
 61.22(d) DELEGATION
         STATE AIR
POLLUTION  CONTROL AGENCY
ALABAMA
Submitted
Under review
Director
Alabama State Dept.  of Labor
600 Administration Bldg.
64 N. Union Street
Montgomery, Ala.   36104
(205) 269-6211
                                                                              YES
                      Alabama Air Pollution Control
                      Ccranissicn
                      645 S. MSDonough St.
                      Montgomery, Ala.  36104
                       (205) 269-7841
ALASKA
Certified
Ccmnissioner
Alaska Dept. of Labor
P.O. Box U49
Juneau, Alaska  99801
(907) 465-2700
                                                                              NO
                      Dept. of Environmental
                      Conservation
                      419 Sixth St.
                      Juneau, Alaska  99801
                      (907) 586-6721
ARIZONA
Approved
Certification
pending
Director
Occupational Safety & Health
Division
Industrial Commission of Arizona
P.O. Box 19070
Phoenix, Ariz.  85005
(602) 271-5795
                                                                              YES
                      Bureau of Air Pollution Control
                      1740 Wast Adams Street
                      Phoenix, Ariz.  85007
                       (602) 271-5306
AFKANSAS
Submitted
Under review
Director
Dept. of Labor
Capitol Hill Building
Little Rxk, Atk.   72201
(501) 371-1401
                                                                                                                          in
                                                                                                                          in

-------
  SINK
  STNtUS
 OSrl
        STATE OSU
STKTOS flBSMPS
         TOLTOATLOtl
          STATE MR
IPOLLUTION COHTBDL
CMJPORNIA
Certified
Director
Dept. of Industrial Relations
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California  94102
 (916) 445-1935
See note
COLORADO
Approved
Executive Director
Dept. of labor & Employment
251 East Ninth Ave.
Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 892-9911
                                                                             YES
                      Air Pollution Control Division
                      Dept. of Health
                      4201 East llth Avenue
                      Denver, Colo.  80220
CONNECTICUT
                Withdrawn
                    Oonndssioner
                    Connecticut Dept. of labor
                    200 Polly Brook Blvd.
                    Hethersfield, Conn.  06109
                    (203) 566-5123
                                                                             YES
                                                          Dept. of Envirormental
                                                               Protection
                                                          165 Capitol Ave.
                                                          Hartford, Conn.  06106
                                                           (203) 566-4030
DELAWARE
Submitted
Older review
Director
Dept. of Labor
801 West Street
Wilmington, Del.
(302) 571-2710
                                                                             NO
                                                     16899
                      Division of Envirormental
                           Control
                      Tatnall Building
                      Capitol Oonplex
                      Dover, Del.  19901
                      (302) 678-4761

-------
   STATE   \      STATUS
                 OSH  PLAN
                             STATE  OSH
                                OFFICE
                                    STATUS HESHAPS
                                    61.2 2 (d)  DELEGATION
         STATE  AIR
POLLUTION CONTROL AGEHCY
Fioram
Submitted
Under rev/lew
Director
Division of
Ashley Bldg., Hoon 201
1321 Executive Center Dr. , East
Tallahassee, Fla.  32301
(904) 599-8211
 Dept. of Pollution Control
 2562 Executive Center Circle
 Tallahassee, Fla.  32301
 (904) 468-4807
GEORGIA
Withdrawn
COfiinissicner
Department of Labor
286 State Labor Bldg.
Atlanta, GA  30334
                                                                              YES
 Environmental Protection Div.
 Dept. of Natural Resources
 47 Trinity Ave., SW
 Atlanta, GA  30334
 (404) 656-4713
HAWAII
Approved
Certification
pending
Director
Labor & Industrial Relations
825 Mililarii Street
Honolulu, Hawaii  96813
(808) 548-3150
 State Dept. of Health
 1250 Punchbowl St.
 Honolulu, Hi.  96813
 (808) 548-6455
IDAHO
Submitted
Under review
Dept. of labor
Industrial Administration Bldg.
317 Main Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
(208) 384-2327
                                                                             NO
 Dapt. of Health & Welfare
 Statehouse
 Boise, Idaho  83720
 (208) 384-2390
                                                                                                                         Ul

-------
                                                                 TOiKSS
                                                             12 (d\
                                                                                                     STNIE
                                                                                            POLLUTION COKTKOL
ILLINOIS
Withdrawn plan
Dept. of Labor
910 S. Michigan Ave.
Chicago, 111.  60605
(312) 793-2800 OR
Illinois Industrial Gcnuu
160 N. |.aiB^ii^ st.
Chicago, IU.  60601
(312) 793-3333	
                                                                             NO
Division of Air Pollution
   Control
2200 Churchill Rocd
Springfield, 111.  62704
(217) 782-7326
INDIANA
              Certification
              pending
                     Indiana Division of Labor
                     1013 State Of floe Bldg.
                     Indianapolisi Ind.  46204
                     (317)  633-4473
                                                                             YES
                                                           Indiana State Board of Health
                                                           1330 W. Michigan St.
                                                           Indianapolis, Ind.  46206
                                                           (317) 633-4273
IOWA
Certified
Bureau of
East 7th and Court Ave.
Des Moines, Iowa  50319
(515) 281-3606
                                                                             NO
Iowa Dept. of Environmental
   Quality
3920 Delaware Ave.
P.O. Box 3326
Des Moines, Iowa  50316
(515) 265-8134
KANSAS
None submitted
Kansas Bureau of Labor
401 Topeka Avenue
Tcpeka, Kansas   66603
(913) 296-7474
                                                                             NO
                                                                                                                         00

-------
\
STATE
 STATUS
OSH  FLAM
STATE OSU
   OFFICE
   STATUS NESHAPS
61.2201) DELEGATION
         STATE  AIR
POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
   KENTUCKY
           Approved
           Certification
           pending
                   Kentucky Dept. of Tahnr
                   Capitol Plaza Towers, 12th Floor
                   Frankfort, Ky.  40601
                    (502)  564-3070
                                                                                YES
                                                  Kentucky Dept. for Natural
                                                  Resources & Environmental
                                                  Protection
                                                  Capitol Plaza Tower
                                                  Frankfort, Ky.  40601
                                                  (502) 564-3382
   LOUISIANA
           None suonitted
                   Dept. of Labor
                   P.O. Box 44063
                   Baton Rouge, La.  70804
                    (504) 389-5314
                                                                                NO
                                                  Louisiana Health & Human
                                                  Resources Administration
                                                  P.O. Box 60630
                                                  325 Loyola Ave.
                                                  New Orleans, La.  70160
                                                  (504) 527-5115
   MAINE
           Withdrawn
                   Ccnmissioner of Manpower Affairs
                   20 Union Street
                   Augusta, Maine  04330
                   (207)  289-3814
                                                                                YES
                                                  Dept. of Environmental
                                                     Protection
                                                  Bureau of Air Quality Control
                                                  State House
                                                  Augusta, Maine  04330
                                                  (207) 289-2437
   MARYLAND
           Approved
           Certification
           pending
                   Dept. of Licensing & Regulation
                   Div. of Labor & Industry
                   203 E. Baltimore St.
                   Baltimore, Md.  21202
                    (301) 383-2251
                                                                                NO
                                                  Bureau of Air Quality Control
                                                  610 N. Howard St.
                                                  Baltimore, Md.  21201
                                                  (301)  383-2779
                                                                                                                            01
                                                                                                                            10

-------
                                              STMCE  OSU
                                                          SIMMS
                  OSU
                                                                                   MLEGKTLQN
                                                                   STATE MR
                                                                     CONTROL  AGENCY
MASSACHUSETTS
Submitted
Under review
Ccnmissicner
Dept. of Labor & Industries
100 Cambridge St.
Boston, Mass.  02202
(617) 727-3454
                                                                               YES
Bureau of Air Quality Control
600 Washington St.
Boston, Mass.  02111
(617) 727-2658
                                                                               YES
MICHIGAN
Approved
Certification
pending
Michigan Dept. of Labor
309 N. Washington
P.O. Box 30015
Lansing, Michigan  48909
(517) 373-9600
Division of Air Pollution
  Control
Steven T. Mason Bldg.
Lansing, Michigan  48926
(517) 373-7573
MINNESOTA
                 Certified
                     Dept.  of Labor & Industry
                     444 Lafayette toad
                     St. Paul, Minn.  55101
                     (612)  296-2342
                                                                               NO
                                                            Minnesota Pollution Control
                                                              Agency
                                                            1935 W. County M., B-2
                                                            Boseville, Minn.   55113
                                                            (612) 296-7317
MISSISSIPPI
                 Withdrawn
                     State Board of Health
                     P.O.  Box 1700
                     Jackson, Miss.   39205
                     (601)  354-6635
                                                                               NO
                                                            Mississippi Air & Water
                                                            Pollution Control Ccnmission
                                                            Robert E. Lee Bldg.
                                                            Jackson, Miss.  39205
                                                            (601) 554-6783

-------
    STATE  1      STATUS
                  OSH  PLAN
                              STATE  OSH
                                 OFFICE
                                       STATUS NESHAPS
                                    61.22(d) DELEGATION
         STATE AIR
POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
MISSOURI
Sufcraitted
Under Review
Division of Labor Standards
P.O. Box 449
Jefferson City, Mo.  65101
(314) 751-3403
                                                                              NO
  Missouri Dept. of Natural
  Resources
  P.O. Box 176
  Jefferson City, MD  65101
   (314) 751-3252
MDNTANA
Withdrawn
Bureau of Safety & Health
Dept. of Labor & Industry
815 Front Street
Helena, Montana  59601
(406) 449-2047
                                                                              YES
  Montana State Dept.  of Health
  & Environnental Sciences
  Cogswell Bldg.
  Helena, MT  59601
  (406) 449-3454
NEBRASKA
None submitted
Dept. of Labor
State Capitol
Lincoln, Neb.  68509
(402) 477-5211
                                                                              NO
  Div. of Air Pollution Control
  P.O. Box 94653
  State House Station
  Lincoln, NEB. 68509
  (402) 471-2186
NEVADA
Approved
Certification
pending
Dept. of Occupational Safety &
  Health
 Nevada Industrial Commission
515 E. Musser St.
Carson City, Nev.   89714
(702) 885-5240
                                                                        See note
  Dept. of Hunan Resources
  Nye Bldg.
  201 S. Fall St.
  Carson City, NEV. 89701
  (702) 885-4701

-------
    STATE
  STATUS
 OSH PLAN
      STATE OSH
         OFPICE
   SIMMS MSUAPS   I          STATE  AIR
61.22 (
-------
STATE \ STATUS
| OSH PLAN


NORTH CAROLINA'

NORTH DAKOTA


OIIO



OKLAHOMA






Certified

Withdrawn


None submitted



Submitted
Under review


	
STATE OSH
OFFICE
North Carolina Dept. of Labor
P.O. Box 27407
11 West Edenton Street
Raleigh, N. C. 276U
(919) 733-7166
North Dakota Workmen's
Compensation Board
State Capitol
Bismarck, N. D. 58501
(701) 224-2700
Div. of Occupational Safety K
Health
Dept. of Industrial Relations
2323 W. Fifth Awe.
Coluntous, OH 43204
(614) 466-4124
Dept. of Labor
State Capitol
Room 5
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405) 521-2461

STATUS NESHAPS 1 STATE AIR
61.22(d) DELEGATION IPOLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY


YES

YES


NO



NO



	
Dept. of Natairal & Economic
Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleiqh, N. C. 27611
(919) 829- 4740
Dept. of Health
State Capitol
Bismarck, N. C. 58501
(701) 224-2372

Environmental Protection Agency
361 East Broad St.
Colunbus, OH 43216
(614) 469-8565

Air Quality Service
Dept. of Health
Northeast 10th & Stonewall
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405) 271-5220

	 . 	 	 	 	

-------
                  WKTO
  OREGON
Approved
Certification
pending
Worker's Conpensation Dept.
Labor & Industries Bldg.
Salon, OR  97310
(503) 378-3302
                                                                                YES
Dept. of Environmental Quality
1234 5. W. Harrison St
Portland, OR  97205
(503) 229-5696
 PENNSYLVANIA
                Withdrawn
                       Dept. of Labor & Industry
                       1700 Labor & Industry Bldg.
                       Harrisburg, PA  17120
                       (717) 787-3157
                                         YES
Bureau of Air Quality &
Noise Control
200 N. third St.
Harrisburg, PA  17120
(717) 787-9702
 RHODE ISLAND
 Submitted
 Under review
Div. of Occupational Safety
Dept. of Labor
235 Pronenade St.
Providence, R. I.  02903
(401) 277-2500
                                                                                YES
Div. of Air Pollution Control
204 Health Bldg.
Davis Street
Providence, R. I   02908
(401) 277-2808
90OTH CAROLJN?
  Certified
S. C. Dept. of Labor
3600 Forest Drive
P.O. Box 11329
Colunbia, S. C. 11329
(803) 758-2851
                                                                                YES
Dept. of Health & Environmental
Control
J. Marion Sims Bldg.
2600 Bull St.
Colunbia, S. C.   29201
 (803) 758-5496

-------
   STATE
   STATUS
 OSH PLAN
       STATE OSH
          OFFICE
  STA-
61.22(d
NESHAPS
DELEGATION
         STATE AIR
POLLUTION  CONTROL AGENCY
SOUTH DAKOTA
None submitted
Secretary of Health
Sate Dept. of Health
Office Bldg. 12
Pierre, S. C.   57501
 (605) 227-3361
                                                                               NO
                      Dept. of Environmental
                      Protection
                      Air Quality Program
                      Office Bldg. 12
                      Pierre. S. C.   57501
                      (605) 224-3351
 TENNESSEE
                Approved
                Certification
                pending
                     Tennessee Dept. of Public Health
                     344 Cordell Hull Bldg.
                     Nashville, Term.   37319
                      <615)  741-3111
                                    See note
                     Div. of Air Pollution
                     Control
                     Dept. of Public Health
                     301 Seventh Ave., Rm. 256
                     Capitol Hill Bldg.
                     Nashville, TN   37219
                      (615) 741-3931
  TEXAS
Submitted
Under review
Div. of Occupational Safety &
Sate Safety Engineer
Texas Dept. of Health Resources
1100 W. 49th St.
Austin, TX   78756
(512) 397-5721
     NO
             Texas Air Control Board
             8520 Shoal Creek Blvd.
             Austin, TX  78758
             (512) 451-5711
  UTAH
                Certified
                      Utah Industrial Ccmnission
                      350 East 5th South
                      Salt Lake City, Utah  84111
                      (801)  533-4000
                                                                               NO
                                                         Div. of Health
                                                         44 Jfedical Drive
                                                         Salt Lake City, Utah
                                                          (801) 328-6108
                                                                                                                     84113

-------
(S1KYE \ STATUS \ STWIF, OStt \ STATUS HESMPS
\ OSft PLKft \ OFFICE \ 61.22(4"} DELfcGkTION
VERMDNT





VIRGINIA



WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA

.
Certified




Approved
Certification
pending

Approved
Certification
pending

Submitted
Under review

Dept. of Labor & Industry
Msntpelier, VT 05602

(802) 533-6411

Dept. of Labor & Industry
P.O. Box 1814
Ninth St Office Bldg.
Richmond, VA 23214
(804) 786-2376
Dept. of Labor & Industries
General Administration Bldg,
Room 344
Olynpia, WA 98504
(206) 753-6307
W. Virginia Dept. of Health
State Capitol
Charleston, W. VA 25305
(304) 348-2971
YES





YES


YES

NO

STATE MR
OLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
Agency of Environmental
Conservation
Air Pollution Control
P O Box 489
Mantpelier, VT 05602
(802) 828-3395
State Air Pollution
Control Board
Room 1106
Ninth St. Office Bldg.
Richmond. VA 23219
(804) 770-2378



W. VA Air Pollution
Control Commission
1558 Washington St. , East
Charleston, W. VA 25311
(304) 348-3286

-------
   STATE
    STATUS
  OSH PLAN
         STATE OSH
           OFFICE
  STATUS NESHAPS
61.22(d) DELEGATION
         STATE AIR
POLLUTION  CONTROL AGENCY
WISCONSIN
 Withdrawn
Dept. of Industry, Labor &
Hunan Relations
201 E. Washington Ave.
P.O. Box 2209
Madison, V7I   53701
(608)  266-7552
     YES
 Wisconsin Dept. of Natural
 Resources
 P.O.  Box 450
 Madison, WI   53701
 (608)  266-7718
 WYOMING
Approved
Certification
pending
Occupational Health & Safety Dept.
200 E Eighth Avenue
P.O. Box 2186
Cheyenne, WY   82002
(307) 777-7786
                                                                            NO
                     Air Quality Division
                     Dept. of Environmental Quality
                     State Office Bldg.
                     Cheyenne, WY   82002

                     (307) 777-7391

-------
Many states are divided into air quality control districts for enforcement of NESHAPS and report
directly to the federal EPA.  Some state districts, counties and cities have developed and
enforce their own regulation.
CALIFORNIA
NEVADA
                   All districts have adopted NESHAPS asbestos provisions.  Del Nora, Humboldt,
                   Kern, Mendocino, N. Sonora, Trinity and San Diego districts have plans.  Other
                   districts fall under state provisions as regards waste disposal.
	          -  Washoe district
TENNESSEE       -  Nashville and Knoxville districts
ILLINOIS        -  Chicago.  Cook County is developing plan.
MASSACHUSETTS   -  Boston
NEW YORK        -  New York City
PENNSYLVANIA    -  Philadelphia
OHIO            -  Dayton Area.
                                                                                                                00

-------
                                                             69
               APPENDIX D






SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REGULATION OF ASBESTOS






 Prepared by David Brandwein, Esquire

-------
                                                                            70
FEDERAL REGULATION OF ASBESTOS
Several agencies within the federal government have been involved with
regulating various aspects of exposure to asbestos.  Their concern with
asbestos health issues has depended on the scope of their regulatory
jurisdiction and has covered exposure to asbestos fibers in the workplace
(OSHA), the general environment, air, water, and ground (EPA), mining
operations (MESA), drugs (FDA), and consumer products (CPSC).

This section will briefly describe the extent of regulatory jurisdiction
of each of these agencies, how they have historically regulated exposure
to asbestos, and what the status of that regulation is today.   Particular
attention is paid to OSHA's regulation of asbestos in the demolition and
renovation workplace and to EPA's application of the NESHAPS for asbestos
to the demolition and renovation industry.

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA)
OSHA was established by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.
The purpose of the Act is to assure every working person safe and healthful
working conditions.  Accordingly, OSHA is concerned with worker exposure
to toxic substances in the workplace.  Under section 6 of the Act, OSHA
may publish a rule designating an occupational health standard in order
to achieve this purpose.

A standard for occupational exposure to asbestos was included in  the
initial promulgation of OSHA standards published on May 29, 1971.  The
standard derived from the 1969 regulation issued under the Walsh-Healey
Public Contracts Act, established an exposure limit of 12 fibers  (greater
than 5 microns in length) per millillter or 2 million particles per cubic
foot of air.  A petition for an emergency standard to control concentrations
of asbestos dust was submitted to the Secretary of Labor by the Industrial
Union Department of the AFL-CIO on November 4, 1971.  As a  result of  that
petition, an emergency temporary standard of 5 fibers per milliliter  of
air for occupational exposure to asbestos dust was published by OSHA  on
December 7, 1971.  This was followed on January 12, 1972, by OSHA's publi-
cation in the Federal Register of a "notice of proposed rulemaking" for

-------
                                                                          71

a permanent standard of 5 fibers per mllliliter of air for occupational
exposure to asbestos dust.

On January 24, 1972, OSHA established an Advisory Committee on Asbestos
Dust and charged its members to make recommendations with regard to the
proposed standard.  A criteria document on asbestos, which contained
recommendations for a permanent asbestos standard, was submitted by the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and OSHA
on February 1, 1972.  NIOSH recommended a 2 fiber per cc permissible level
of exposure, to become effective two years after promulgation of a permanent
standard.  On February 25, 1972, OSHA's Advisory Committee on Asbestos Dust,
by narrow margin, endorsed the NIOSH recommendations.  OSHA held public
hearings during the period March 14-17, 1972, to receive oral data, views,
and arguments from interested parties concerning the proposed asbestos
standard.  A "permanent" standard for occupational exposure to asbestos
dust was published in the Federal Register on June 7, 1972.  The regulation,
applicable "in every employment and place of employment" to every employee
exposed to asbestos dust, except those workers otherwise covered by the
Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety, and the Federal Metal and Nonmetallic
Mine Safety Acts as administered by the Mining Enforcement and Safety
Administration, became effective July 7, 1972.  The regulation established
a permissible occupational exposure level or standard of five fibers
(longer than five micrometers) per cc of air, which was to be lowered  to
2 f/cc as of July 1, 1976.

Less than two months after promulgation of the standard, the Industrial
Union Department (IUD) of the AFL-CIO, along with other unions, filed
suit (July 28, 1972) in the U.S. Court of Appeals challenging the regulation.
Among other allegations, it was charged that OSHA's decision to delay
implementation of the two fiber exposure limit for four years (Until
July 1, 1976) violated "highest degree of health protection" under section
6(b)(5) of the OSH Act.

On April 15, 1974, a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia ruled in the case, in effect, denying the IUD
petition but ordered OSHA to:

-------
                                                                            72
      o  Review the 1976 implementation date for the two-fiber exposure
         level requirement, suggesting that OSHA might require the two-
         fiber level in those sectors of the industry where it was
         already feasible to achieve; and

      o  Provide a longer period for the retention of personal and environ-
         mental monitoring records.  (The standard as promulgated, provided
         for a three-year retention period.)

OSHA republished all its occupational safety and health standards on June 27,
1974, with changes made through June 3, 1974.  There were no substantive
changes to the asbestos regulation.  On May 28, 1975, OSHA announced that
the asbestos standard was recodified from 1910.93a (Subpart G) to 1910.1001
(Subpart Z).  The purpose of this action was to simplify the reference
system for toxic substance standards.

On October 9, 1975, OSHA proposed in the Federal Register to lower the per-
missible occupational exposure to asbestos to 500,000 fibers per cubic
meter or 0.5 fibers per cc greater than five micrometers in length, with a
length-to-diameter ratio of at least three to one and a maximum diameter
of five micrometers.  The proposed revision to the standard would apply to
all employments covered by the Act except the construction industry.  OSHA
stated its intent to publish a separate revision to the standard applicable
to the construction industry.  In addition, OSHA stated that the record
developed under the 1972 regulation was inadequate to resolve  the court-s
remand in the IUD case and a new rulemaking proceeding should  be initiated.

AS of August 1, 1979, OSHA had not finalized the 1975 proposal to lower
the standard to 0.5 fibers per cc and had no timetable to do so.  No separate
standard for the construction industry is being developed at this time.
Accordingly, the standard today remains at two fibers per cc.

fllOSH, on December 15, 1976, recommended to OSHA that the asbestos standard
"be set at the lowest level detectable by available analytical techniques."
      defined this level as 0.1 fibers per cc.

-------
                                                                              73
  pursuant to the court remand regarding a longer  period  for  the retention
  of personal and environmental records, OSHA issued  an amendment  to the
  standard on March 19, 1976,  requiring that  such  records be  maintained for
  "at least 20 years."

  APPLICABILITY TO THE DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION INDUSTRY

    The OSHA asbestos  regulation is contained  in 29 CFR 1910.1001.  This
regulation,  as  do  all occupational health regulations, applies to exposure
Of  workers to the  toxic  substance in the workplace.  As  such, the standard
Applies to any  employee  engaged in the demolition or renovation industry.
     standard:
       o Establishes an eight-hour time-weighted average
         permissible exposure  level to airborne  asbestos  of
         two fibers (longer  than five micrometers) per cc of  air.
       o As a ceiling  concentration,  states that no employee  shall
         be exposed at any time to asbestos concentrations in ex-
         cess of 10 fibers longer than five microns,  per  cc of air.
     standard specifically mentions the demolition industry:
       o Employees  engaged in  the removal, or demolition  of pipes,
         structures, or equipment covered or  insulated with asbestos,
         and in the removal  or demolition of  asbestos insulation or
         coverings  shall  be  provided  with respiratory equipment and
         with special  clothing.
     requirements for  respirators and special clothing are detailed  in
     regulation, as are requirements  which apply to all industries for
     icular tools*  monitoring, caution signs,  record  keeping  and medical
e3Caminations.   Of  special interest,  perhaps,  to the  demolition industry
49  the provision concerning waste disposal:
       o Asbestos waste,  scrap, debris, bags,  containers, equipment, and
         asbestos-contaminated clothing, consigned for disposal, which
         may produce in any  reasonably foreseeable use, handling,  storage,
         processing, disposal, or transportation airborne concentrations
         of asbestos fibers  in excess of the  exposure limits  shall be
         collected  and disposed of in sealed  impermeable  bags, or  other
         closed, impermeable containers.

-------
                                                                           74
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

                                AIR
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act of 1970 gives authority to the Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set emissions standards for hazardous
air pollutants.  On March 31, 1971, EPA published its first list of hazardous
air pollutants (asbestos, beryllium, and mercury)..  On December 7, 1971,
EPA proposed a standard for control of asbestos fiber emissions.  Following
rulemaking procedures, the standard was issued on April 6, 1973, as part
of the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS).

The NESHAPS for asbestos appears at 40 CFR 61.20.  The asbestos regulation
contains a specific subsection applying to demolition and renovation acti-
vities, Section 61.22(d).

The 1973 standard required the use of certain procedures such as wetting
and removal of load-supporting structural members before wrecking was
commenced and a prohibition "to prevent emissions of particulate asbestos
material to outside air," and required 20 days notice to EPA before commencing
demolition.  The regulation applied only to structures insulated or fire-
proofed with friable asbestos material.

The standard was significantly amended on October 14, 1975.  Renovation
was specifically added to Section 61.22(d), and guidance was given on what
demolition and renovation activities were covered by the NESHAPS, including
an exemption from certain requirements operations below a certain amount of
friable asbestos.  Wetting requirements could be suspended if  the temperature
was below freezing.  Local exhaust ventilation and collection  systems for
renovation operations were offered as an alternative to wetting.  Finally,
waste disposal techniques were mandated for all asbestos operations, based
on a "no visible emission" standard.  The standards apply to both active
and inactive waste disposal sites.

On March 2, 1977, the regulation was amended to define the term "structural
member."  The definition expanded  the scope of the regulation  to  include

-------
                                                                        75
the demolition or renovation of non-load-bearing supporting structural
members, such as non-supporting walls and ceilings, as well as from
load-supporting structural members.

On the same day, EPA proposed to further amend the NESHAPS regulation.
This proposal was finalized on June 19, 1978.  This most recent amendment
extend coverage of the demolition and renovation provisions to all friable
asbestos material (not just- fireproofing and insulation).  The amended
regulation also now specifically defines "renovation."

The 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act and Adamo Wrecking Co. v U.S.
Following the initial promulgation of the NESHAPS for asbestos in 1973,
a number of wrecking companies began challenging EPA effort to enforce
the regulations on the grounds that regulation was a work practice standard
and not a (numerical) emission standard under section 112 of the Clean Air
Act of 1970.  These arguments ultimately let to at U.S. Supreme Court Decision,
Adamo Wrecking Co. v U.S.. No. 76-911, 11 ERG 1081 (January 10, 1978).

That case arose in the narrow contact of a criminal enforcement proceeding
and was decided on an interpretation of section 112 prior to its amendment
in 1977.  The court held that the pre-1977 version of section 112 did not
authorize a portion of the national emission standard for asbestos (prescribing
certain work practices for demolition and renovation activities) because it
consisted of requirements other than numerical limitations on emissions.

In EPA's opinion, the 1977 amendments to section 112 now clearly authorize
the Administrator to promulgate work practice or other non-numerical  standards
in order to control emissions of hazardous air pollutants.  In addition,
citizens and States, under section 304, to enforce work practice and  other
non-numerical standards promulgated under section 112.

Under section 112(e) of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977, the Adminis-
trator may promulgate a "design, equipment, work practice, or operational
standard, or combination thereof" for control of a hazardous air pollutant

-------
                                                                         76
if it is infeasible to prescribe an emission standard under section 112(b)
for the pollutant.  Such infeasibility occurs, for example, when "a hazardous
pollutant or pollutants cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and
constructed to emit or capture such a pollutant" or when "the application
of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable
due to technological or economic limitations."
                              TOXICS
Under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA can
publish a rule prohibiting or limiting the manufacture, processing, distri-
bution, use, or disposal of a chemical substance that presents or will
present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.  In
April 1979, EPA decided to begin an indepth investigation of asbestos
exposure sources directed toward the development of regulations under section
6 of TSCA.  An advance notice of proposed rulemaking is planned for the
summer of 1979.

Although EPA has addressed asbestos levels in ambient air through its
NESHAPS for asbestos, concern over existing problems with indoor air
contamination has continued, especially with identification of asbestos
in schools.  In December 1978, the Environmental Defense Fund  (EDF)
petitioned EPA to regulate asbestos-sprayed materials under section 6 of
TSCA by requiring manufacturers and processors of asbestos to pay for
abatement actions.  The Administrator denied the petition on March 21, 1979.

-------
                                                                          77
The Administrator found that immediate regulation was unnecessary and
that non-regulatory control measures should be evaluated first.  EPA has
not ruled out eventual regulation of existing asbestos-sprayed material;
however, in the meantime it has developed a national asbestos control program
for schools.  In May 1979, each state and school district received a
Guidance Package which provided officials with information needed to identify
asbestos-sprayed materials, to evaluate the hazards, and to take appropriate
abatement action.  EPA and HEW personnel have made themselves available
to assist the states.

-------
                                                                          78
                       HAZARDOUS WASTE

EPA initially was considering listing asbestos and asbestos wastes as
hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
However, in its proposed hazardous waste rules of December 18, 1978, EPA
did not list asbestos as a hazardous waste because it felt that existing
rules (i.e. the NESHAPS covering asbestos-containing waste material under
the Clean Air Act and the occupational health standard covering disposal
of asbestos waste under OSHA) adequately covered the disposal problem.

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA)

The Food and Drug Administration, within the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, is charged under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act with
protecting the public from unsafe and impure foods, drugs, cosmetics and
other hazards associated with these products.

On September 28, 1973, FDA proposed to restrict the use of:
     o  Asbestos filters used in the manufacture of parenteral  (injactable)
        drugs and parenteral drug ingredients; and
     o  Asbestos-containing talc used as a food, or food and drug ingredient,
        or in food and drug packaging materials.

FDA promulgated a final regulation governing the use of "asbestos-containing
or other fiber releasing filters" in the manufacture of parenteral drugs
on March 14, 1975.  FDA deferred any regulatory action on  asbestos containing
talc used in foods, drugs, or packaging materials until completion of
further analytical and biomedical research.

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION  (CPSC)

The CPSC has two basic functions:
     o  The gathering and dissemination of information relating to product
        hazards and the injuries caused by them; and

-------
                                                                         79
     o  The creation and enforcement of safety standards designed to
        eliminate or reduce product hazards.

On July 29, 1977, the CPSC proposed that it is in the public interest to
regulate consumerpatching compounds and artificial emberizing materials
(embers and ash) containing respirable free-form asbestos under the Consumer
Product Safety Act (CPSA).  These products are used in artificial fireplace
logs or are sprinkled on logs to simulate burning and glowing ashes.
In addition, the Commission stated its intent to ban as hazardous products
consumer patching compounds and artificial emberizing materials (embers and
ash) containing free-form asbestos.  On December 15, 1977, the CPSC issued
its final rule banning the following products containing respirable free-form
asbestos under the CPSA:  "(1) consumer patching compounds used to join or
repair interior walls and ceilings; and (2) artificial emberizing materials
(embers and ash) used in fireplaces to simulate live embers and ash."

Based on a completed study to determine the extent to which asbestos is used
in consumer products, the Commission is evaluating the need for further
regulatory action.  In the spring of 1979, the CPSC asked for a voluntary
recall of hand-held hair dryers that contained asbestos.

Prior to establishment of the CPSC, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
then regulating the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), issued a
proposal in the Federal Register banning "general-use garments containing
asbestos (other than garments -having a bona fide application for personal
protection against thermal injury and so constructed that the asbestos
fibers will not become airborne under reasonable foreseeable conditions of
use)."  The FHSA is now regulated by the CPSC.
CONCLUSION

The asbestos regulations of concern to the demolition and renovation
industry are those adopted  (1) by OSHA for the occupational exposure to
employees engaged in that industry and (2) by EPA for the exposure to  the
public and the environment  at large through the NESHAPS provisions of  the
Clean Air Act.

-------
                                                                           80
Although it would simplify enforcement by federal and state authorities
and minimize the economic impact on the industry if one could say that
the two regulations overlapped and therefore satisfying the requirements
of one of the programs resulted in compliance with the other, that is not
the case.  The OSHA occupational health standard is a numerical exposure
limit (two fibers per cc/8 hour average); the EPA NESHAPS is a work practice
standard.  It may be possible to meet the OSHA standard through practices
other than those required by EPA, conversely, using the EPA-mandated
procedures may not achieve the OSHA workplace exposure levels.

One area for possible coordination of requirements is waste disposal.
The PSHA regulation requires collection and disposal of asbestos waste in
sealed impermeable containers.  The EPA regulation prohibits visible emissions
during any activity dealing with disposal of asbestos-containing waste
material  and the use of waste disposal sites operated in accordance with
mandated procedures.  The Asbestos Work Group of the Inter-agency Regulatory
Liaison Group (IRLG), of which EPA and OSHA are members, may want to consider
reviewing these requirements to determine whether coordination is appropriate
and achievable.

-------
                                                      81
         APPENDIX E








MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS OF ASBESTOS








         Prepared by:




      D. Carries, Geologist

-------
                                                                           82
MINERALOGY OF ASBESTOS
Dr. Malcom Ross's article entitled "The Asbestos Minerals:  Definitions,
Descriptions, Modes of Formation, Physical and Chemical Properties, and
Health Risk to the Mining Community" elaborates on the problems delineating
mineral species in the asbestos group.  Dr. Ross states that many other
minerals in addition to those identified in Chapter 5 sometimes possess
habits described as aciculas. asbestifonn, elongate. fibrous. bladed.
lamellar, filliform. prismatic, or columnas.  For example, minerals of the
zeolite group having acicular habit, fibrous calcite and quartz, acicular
wollastonite, prismatic pyroxenes, elongate chrystallites of attapulgite,
an<^ filiform sepiolite.  Since these minerals are not exploited for com-
mercially valuable properties of asbestos, they are not called "asbestos"
by geoscientists.  Dr. Ross also points out that,

    "At present, the most widely used definition of 'asbestos' by various
     groups concerned with environmental health problems, including the
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Mining
     Enforcement and Safety Administration (MESA), is from the notice
     of proposed rule-making for 'Occupational Exposure to Asbestos1
     published in the Federal Register (Oct. 9, 1975, p. 47652-47660)
     by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
     In this notice, the naturally occurring minerals: chrysotile,
     amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite,
     are classified as 'asbestos1 if the individual crystallites or
     crystal fragments have the following dimensions:  length - greater
     than 5 micrometers, maximum diameter - less than 5 micrometers,
     and a length to diameter ratio of 3 or greater.  Any product
     containing any of these minerals in this size range are also defined
     as asbestos.

     The crushing and milling of any rock usually produces some mineral
     particles that are within the size range specified in the OSHA rules.
     Thus, these regulations present a formidable problem to those analyzing

-------
                                                                          83
     for asbestos minerals in the multitude of materials and products
     in which they may be found in some amount, for not only must the
     size and shape of the asbestos particle be determined,  but also
     an exact mineral identification must be made.

     A wide variety of amphiboles is found in many types of common rocks;
     many of these amphiboles might be considered asbestos depending
     upon the professional training of the person involved in their study
     and the methods used in mineral characterization.  Campbell et al
     have carefully described the differences between the relatively
     rare fibrous varieties of the amphiboles and the common nonfibrous
     forms.

     If the definition of asbestos from the point of view of a health
     hazard does include the common nonfibrous forms of amphibole, par-
     ticularly the hornblende and cummingtonite varieties, then we must
     recognize that asbestos is present in significant amounts in many
     types of igneous and metamorphic rocks covering perhaps 30 to 40
     percent of the United States.  Rocks within the serpentinite belts,
     rocks within the metamorphic belts higher in grade than the green-
     schist facies, including amphibolites and many gneissic rocks, and
     amphibole-bearing igneous rocks such as diabase, basalt, trap rock,
     and granite would be considered asbestos-bearing, including deposits
     in the largest open-pit mine in the world at Bingham, Utah.  Asbestos
     regulations would thus pertain to many of our country's mining
     operations, including much of the construction industry and its
     quarrying operations for concrete aggregate, dimension stone, road
     metal, railroad balast, riprap, and the like.  The asbestos regu-
     lations would also pertain to the ceramic, paint, and cement indus-
     tries, and to many other areas of endeavor where silicate minerals
     are used.1'

Clearly, the criteria for delineating the asbestos minerals is subject to
interpretation and may require further refinement in the future.

-------
                                                                              84
USES OF ASBESTOS IN BUILDING MATERIAL

The following tables were taken from "Engineering Aspects of Asbestos

Dust Control."  The different grades of chrysotile and price/ton from
Quebec are presented in Table 9.  It can be seen from this table that
the majority of the materials contain mostly chrysotile with relatively
minor amounts of the amphibole varieties of asbestos.  Asbestos cement

pipe and flooring products account for a significant portion of asbestos
distributed for commercial use.


                             TABLE  9


     Grades of Asbestos - Quebecr-with Prices as of January 1977
                                          Price/Ton
  Grade No.         Type                  (Canadian $)
     1         Crude                      3,300-4,000
     2         Crude                      1,800-2,175
     3         Spinning fiber               850-1,700
     4         Asbestos cement fiber        464-950
     5         Paper fiber                  315-435
     6         Paper and shingle fiber      230-275
     7         Shorts                        85-200

-------
                                                                           85
 QUANTITY OF ASBESTOS RELEASED BY RENOVATION
 Table 10was taken from "Asbestos-Containing Materials in School Buildings:
 A Guidance Document "  The methods of resolution to remove asbestos
 presented fall into two general categories:

 1.  Asbestos containment through the use of a sealant (encapsulation) ys
     barrier (enclosure) system.

 2.  Complete removal of the asbestos material from the structure.

 Selection of the appropriate method or combination of methods will depend
 upon a number of factors including characteristics of the asbestos material,
 structure use and configuration, uses activity, and cost.

ASBESTOS IN THE AMBIENT AIR RESULTING FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

Table 11 was taken from the "Asbestos:  An Information Resource" report.
This table lists the average and range of asbestos in the U.S. urban  areas.

-------
\&v
                          tot
                                                             oŁ Contamination from Sprayed Asbestos
               Alternatives
                                  Typical Fiber
                                  Concentration
                                  In Work„Area
                                  	(f/cm3)a
                                                               Comments
 1.  Removal
        Dry methods
         (loose material)
    b.
Wet methods
1)  Untreated
    (loose material)
2)  Amended water
    (loose material)
3)
        4)  Amended water
            (cementitious material)
            Amended water
            (loose material inadequate
                 application)
2.  Retention
        Ceiling barrier, lath
        (loose material). Dry

        Ceiling, hangers
        (loose material). Dry

        Sealant, encapsulation
        (loose material).
                                   82.2b  (11)C
                          >100.0  (-)



                            23.1  (6)

                             2.8  (56)


                            18.4  (12)


                             0.5  (5)




                             6.4  (9)


                             1.1  (12)

                             0.0  (15)
Much dust and debris made work conditions difficult.
Required hose supplied respirators  (very restrictive).
Fibers move across decontamination barriers.
Very dusty conditions, contamination control impossible.
Building contamination evident.

Little dusting. Heavy water runoff.

Nearly no water runoff.  Acceptable conditions.
No visible dusting.

Some.dusting evident. Dry patches in material noted.
Poor contractor performance in wetting material.

No dusting noted, good penetration of water.  Material
falling off in sheets and chunks intact.
                                                  Contact and disturbance of material during installation
                                                  by wood strips with visible emissions.

                                                  Penetration of ceiling by hangers and subsequent
                                                  disturbance by movement.

                                                  Force of application varied during spraying adjustments.
                                                  One air sample that produced a zero count by optical
                                                  microscopy, had 7 x 103 ng/ra3  by TEM indicating signi-
                                                  ficant small particle release by spray contact disturbance.
aDetennined by NIOSH Method, phase contrast microscopy.

 Mean
lumber of observations.
                                                                                                             oo

-------
                                                                               87
                                 TABLE  11

                          AIR ASBESTOS  CONCENTRATIONS *



                     Atmospheric Concentrations of Asbestos

                             in  Some U.S. Urban Areas
                                         Concentration

                                                     o
                                         (Nanograms/m )

Berkely, CA
Boston, MA
Chicago, IL
pay ton, OH
Frankfort, KY
jlouston, TX
Los Angeles (Freeway)
LOS Angeles (Control)
Hew York City, NY
Manhattan, NY
Brooklyn, NY
Bronx, NY
Queens, NY
g tat en Island, NY
Pittsburgh, PA
Philadelphia, PA
port Allegany, PA
jlidgewood, PA
gan Francisco, CA
Washington, D.C.
Average
6.8
5.0
24
6
0.09
5
27a
43a
13.2
30a
19a
12a
9a
8a
4
70a
15a
20a
25
21
Range
2.1-12

9.5-200
0.4-11
0.02-0.15
4-6


8.2-41
8-65
6-39
2-25
3-18
5-14
2-8
45-100
10-20
15 (SIC)
8.7-68
1.6-40
^ Identified as chrysotile asbestos by the authors.

* Data from asbestos:   A Information Resource,  by the Stamford Research
  Institute International, May,  1978

-------
                                                                                88
      Table  12  Summary of Analytical Methods for Asbestos
jlethod
Feature Examined
  Comment
Light Microscope

   1.  With phase con-
      trast at 400 X

   2.  Dispersion
      staining
2C-Ray Diffraction

jnfrared Spectroscopy
       Absorption
jjeutron Activation
^mission  Spectroscopy
        Analysis
     and DTA
g canning  Electron
^icroscope with
jlicroprobe

transmission  Electron
Microscope with
^icroprobe
Morphology


Refractive index
and morphology
Crystal structure


Characteristic ab-
sorption bands
Elemental composi-
tion
Elemental composi-
tion
Elemental composi-
tion
Weight loss on
heating due to
dehydroxylation

Surface  topology
of the fiber and
elemental analysis


Shape outline, elec-
tron diffraction,
and elemental
analysis
Limit of resolution about
O.Suro.

Skilled operators can dis-
tinguish asbestos fibers.
Limit of resolution about
O.Sum. •

No information on fiber size
or size distribution.

Ambiguity is possible.  No
information on fiber size or
size distribution

No information on size or
size distribution.  High
sensitivity for trace
elements.

No information on size or
size distribution.  Special-
ized nuclear equipment
needed.
No size or size distribution
information.  Both gross and
trace  constituents determined.

No information on size or
size distribution.  Specificity
to asbestos not yet resolved.
Most SEMs have a theoreti-
cal resolution limit of  about
10.0-20.0nm.  Background
can give interference.
Resolution limit down to
0.40 nm.  Transfer to grid
can lead to statistical  errors
in counting.

-------
                                                                              89
PROBLEMS IN MEASURING ASBESTOS
The analytical techniques in Table 12 were taken from "Engineering Aspects
of Asbestos Dust Control."  A study of this Table shows that each method
provides data on specific features of the dust cloud.  The important
measurements include:  (1) the total fiber concentration, (2) fiber size
distribution, and (3) a reliable measurement of the longer respirable
fibers that meet the criteria set by regulation of greater than 5 microns
long and less than 5 microns in diameter.

-------