ABOUT THE'


     This  is a collection  of  questions  commonly  asked  about  the
 new Asbestos-Containing Materials  in  Schools  rule,  promulgated by
 the U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency  in October 1987  under
 the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response  Act  (AHERA)  of  1986.

     Many  questions are answered directly and completely, as  they
 are clearly addressed by provisions of  the rule.  Other
 questions, however, must be answered  more generally, for  the
 Agency's response to the question may change depending upon  the
 specific circumstances in  a particular  school.   Schools,  of
 course, may also be subject to State  or local asbestos management
 and abatement requirements, not reflected in this document.

     This  "100 Commonly Asked Questions" document is offered  as a
guide to help school officials, training providers  and accredited
persons better understand  the new AHERA schools  rule.  If you
have further questions, please contact  the EPA Regional Asbestos
Coordinator who serves your area or call the EPA Toxics Hotline
in Washington,  D.C., at 202/554-1404.
                   Office of Toxic Substances
            Office of Pesticides and  Toxic Substances
              U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                     Washington, D.C.   20460

                            May 1988

100 Commonly Asked Questions About the New
AHERA Asbestos—in—Schools Rule
Table of Contents
I. Effective Dates.. , ,.... . , . . . • • ... • • .11.1
II. BuildingsCoveredbytheRule..........................6
III. General LEA Responsibilities.. I 5S•I•SI •• • • • .. .....12
IV. Inspections, Reinspections, and Periodic .............16
V. Exclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
VI. Response Actions................ . .....................26
VII.. OperationsaridMaintenance(O&M)......................29
VIII. Custodial and Maintenance Worker Training.............32
IX. Management Plans......................................35
X . Recordkeeping . • 5 •••I SI •IISSSISSS .42
XI. Accreditation. ••I••*.... III...... •S•••••••Ø 555 •SSI•SI 43
XII. TEM, PCM,SamplingandAnalysis.......................50
XIII. Warning Labels........................................56
XIV • Transport and Di s p os a 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
XV. State Waivers.........................................59
XVI • Miscellaneous. . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

Acronyms Used in this Guide
ACBM Asbestos—containing Building Materials
ACM Asbestos—containing Materials
AHERA Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
LEA Local Education Agency
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
O&M Operations and Maintenance
PCM Phase Contrast Microscopy
TEM Transmission Electron Microscopy

Questions 1 — 7 On what date does each of the following
requirements become effective?
— the management plan
— specific O&M work practices
— O&M training
— periodic surveillance
— warning labels
— selection of an LEA’s Designated Person
— management plan availability for public review
Answers: — The Management Plan——The effective date of the
management plan is the date on which the LEA
begins to implement its plan. According to
AHERA § 203(i), this can be no later than
July 9, 1989.
— O&M Work Practices——After December 14, 1987,
LEAs must abide by the operations and
maintenance requirements in § 763.91, whenever
any of these activities need to be performed.
— O&M Training——(i ) The 14—hour training
requirement (see section 763.92(a)(2)) is for
specific members of the custodial and
maintenance staff who conduct activities that
may disturb ACBM. After December 14, 1987, only
custodial and maintenance staff who have had the
14—hour training are permitted to conduct such

(ii) The effective date for the 2—hour general
awareness training is defined in the rule.
Section 763.92 (a)(l) states that the LEA “...
shall ensure, prior to the implementation of the
operations and maintenance provisions of the
management plan (emphasis added), that all
members of its maintenance and custodial staff
who may work in a building that contains ACBM
receive awareness training of at least 2
hours.” As outlined in the rule, therefore, all
members of the custodial and maintenance staff
must have awareness training on or before July
9, 1989.
Periodic Surveillance——In § 763.92(b)(l), the
rule states that “... at least once every 6
months after a management plan is in effect ,
each LEA shall conduct periodic
surveillance....” in its buildings. Thus if a
management plan was put into effect on July 9,
1989, for example, the LEA would have to conduct
its first periodic surveillance by January 9,
Warning Labels——Section 763.95(a) states that
the LEA “... shall attach a warning label
immediately adjacent to any friable and
nonfriable ..“ ACBM found in routine
maintenance areas. As a result, if ACBM is

identified in routine maintenance areas, the
material must be labeled as soon as possible
thereafter. (For material identified under the
1982 rule, these materials should have been
labeled as of December 14, 1987.) After the
results of the inspections conducted pursuant to
the 1987 schools rule are known, all ACBM
identified in routine maintenance areas must be
— Selection of an LEA’s Designated Person——Section
763.84 requires that LEAs designate a person to
ensure that the actions of persons who conduct a
variety of activities, including O&M,
inspections and response actions, are carried
out in accordance with the rule. As a result,
LEAs must select a Designated Person as soon as
possible to ensure these activities are done
— Management Plan Availability for Public Review— —
Section 763.93(g)(1) states that “... upon
submission of a management plan to the Governor
for review, a local education agency shall keep
a copy of the plan in its administrative
office.” This means that the LEA must have the
plan available for public review (including
parents and staff) in its administrative office
on the day on which it is submitted. Each

individual school shall have a copy of the
school’s plan available on the same day.
Question 8: When must LEAs take certain response actions for
areas of significantly damaged surfacing ACM and
damaged or significantly damaged thermal system
insulation ACM?
Answer: Several conditions listed in § 763.90 necessitate a
quick response. For example, a room with
significantly damaged friable surfacing ACM must be
immediately isolated and access to it restricted,
if these measures are needed to protect human
health and the environment . In addition, damaged
or significantly damaged thermal system insulation
must be at least repaired and then maintained by
the LEA in an intact state and undamaged
condition. As a result, as soon as a management
planner and LEA determine that these conditions
exist, the LEA must initiate steps to take
action . The LEA cannot wait until July 9, 1989 to
address these hazards.
Question 9: The AHERA statute requires schools to begin
implementing the management plan by July 9, 1989.
Exactly what must be begun by this date?
Answer: July 9, 1989, is the latest date on which any LEA
can begin to implement its management plan. The
formal operations and maintenance plan designed for

a particular school (for example, a routine
cleaning schedule for that school), and the
response action schedule with completion dates,
must be implemented no later than July 9, 1989. A
schedule for an abatement project, for example,
will become effective on July 9, 1989, even though
the project is not scheduled until later. In
addition, the July 9, 1989, date is the latest date
on which schools can begin their periodic
surveillance and reinspection intervals. In other
words, periodic surveillance must be performed
within 6 months of July 9 if a school begins to
implement its management plan on this date.

Question 10: A school district leases space from a nonschool
group (corporation, YMCA, etc.). Who is
responsible, the school district or the landlord,
for complying with the AHERA rule?
Answer: The LEA is responsible for complying with the
rule. There are several references to school
buildings under the authority of an LEA in AHERA
(see sections 203(b),(c),(d), (e),(f) and (i)).
This phrase clearly covers buildings owned by the
LEA. It also includes buildings leased by LEA5
since LEAs control access to these buildings, how
these buildings are used by occupants (e.g.,
classes in certain rooms, administrative offices in
others), the furnishings within the buildings, and
the scheduling of school—related activities. As a
result, an LEA which leases a school building
exercises authority with respect to the use of the
building as a school. Section 763.85(a) of the
rule states that leased school buildings are
covered and that the LEA is responsible.
Question 11: If an LEA owns a building but does not currently
use it as a school, must it be inspected by October
12, 1988? (For example, what if changes in school
population have forced a school district to close a
school and to rent the building out to a religious
group for services?)

Answer: The LEA doesn’t have to inspect such a building by
October 12, 1988. However, § 763.85(a)(1)
indicates that LEAs shall inspect each school
building that they lease, own, or otherwise use.
As a result, before an LEA decides to use a
building already leased or owned as a school
building, the LEA must first inspect the building.
In addition, § 763.93(a)(3) states, “If a local
education agency begins to use a building as a
school after October 12, 1988, the local education
agency shall submit a management plan for the
school [ to the State] prior to its use as a
school .“
Question 12: If an LEA obtains a building in April of 1990, for
example, how soon must the LEA inspect it?
Answer: Section 763.85(a)(2) addresses this issue. “Any
building leased or acquired on or after October 12,
1988, that is to be used as a school building,
shall be inspected as described in (a)(3) and (4)
of this section prior to its use as a school
Question 13: A school building burns down. An LEA wants to use
a local conununity center for 6 months due to the
emergency. Does this temporary school building
have to be inspected?

Answer: Section 763.85(a)(2) states that, “In the event
that emergency use of an uninspected building as a
school building is necessitated, such buildings
shall be inspected within 30 days after
commencement of such use.”
Question 14: Will for profit schools be required to comply with
the EPA rule?
Answer: No. Section 202(7) of AHERA specifically refers
only to non—profit schools. As a result, schools
operated on a for profit basis are not covered.
Question 15: Are State—run schools (e.g., prison schools,
schools for the handicapped, etc.) covered by
Answer: That usually depends on State law. AHERA section
202 states that “. .. the term ‘school 1 means any
elementary or secondary school as defined in
section 198 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 2854).” The
definition to which this refers states: “the term
‘elementary school’ means a day or residential
school which provides elementary education, as
determined under State law , and the term secondary
school means a day or residential school which
provides secondary education, as determined under
State law , except that it does not include any
education provided beyond grade 12...” (20 U.S.C.

2854) Thus, individual State law addresses whether
a State—run school is covered as an elementary or
secondary school.
Question 16: Several high school students take advanced
placement classes with college freshmen at the
State university. Does a classroom or building
that these students frequent have to be inspected?
Answer: No. AHERA § 203 refers to school buildings under
the authority of an LEA . These classrooms are not
under an LEA’S authority, and therefore are not
Question 17: Each year the local high school has its annual play
at a local community center. Rehearsals and the
actual shows run for over 2 months. Is this
building covered?
Answer: If the local community center is not under the
authority of the LEA, this building is not covered.
Question 18: Are churches or sanctuaries that are under the
LEA’s authority, which are attended by students for
religious purposes during normal school hours,
required to be inspected?
Answer: No. However, if a church is under the authority of
an LEA and is used for other school instruction
(e.g., math, spelling, etc.) as part of the
school’s curriculum, then it must be inspected and
included in the management plan.

Question 19: Are the school district’s administrative offices
(such as the Board of Education or the
Superintendent’s Office) covered by AHERA, even if
students never attend classes in these buildings?
Answer: Yes. Among the structures covered in the
definition of “school building” in AHERA (section
202) and the rule (section 763.83) would be “...
any other facility used for the instruction or
housing of students or for the administration of
educational or research programs (emphasis added).”
Question 20: Are the school system’s maintenance or storage
facilities (e.g., bus garage or warehouse) covered
by the rule?
Answer: In general, the answer is yes. Section 202 of
AHERA and section 763.83 of the rule define “school
building” to include “... any maintenance, storage,
or utility facility, including any hallway,
essential to the operation of any facility
described in this definition of school building
under paragraphs (1),(2), or (3).” Paragraphs (1),
(2), and (3) cover classrooms, libraries,
gymnasiums, and administrative offices. For
purposes of the rule, the facility is deemed
essential if the LEA uses the facility. Vacant
facilities of this type (i.e., empty storage
facilities, empty warehouses, etc.) are not deemed
essential, and therefore are exempt, because they

are not used. Once the LEA begins to use these
facilities, however, they become essential and must
be addressed as required by the rule.
Question 21: An LEA has a school building which is no longer
being used and is scheduled for demolition. Is the
LEA required to have an accredited contractor and
workers do the abatement work which is required
under NESHAPS?
Answer: Not under AHERA, although individual States or
localities may have other statutes. A building
that is abandoned and scheduled for demolition is
not covered by AHERA since the building is no
longer being used as a school.
Question 22: Several LEAs bus students to bowling alleys or YMCA
swimming pools and gymnasiums for physical
education classes. Must LEAs inspect these
Answer: No. These buildings are not covered by the rule.
Question 23: A school uses a single room in a nonschool building
on a regular basis as a classroom for elementary
and secondary education purposes during regular
school hours. Is the room covered by the rule? Is
the entire building also covered?
Answer: The single room used by the school on a regular
basis as a classroom is covered by the rule. The
rest of the building is not covered.

Question 24: Sections 763.84(g)(2) and 763.93(e)(3)(4) refer to
the “... trained person designated by the LEA to
implement the management plan ....“ The Rule does
not indicate what specific training course is
required to qualify the person(s) responsible for
implementing the management plan. Should this
person be “accredited” and would it be as a
management planner or contractor/supervisor or
project designer? What would constitute adequate
t ra i n i ng?
Answer: The LEA’s designated person is not required to be
accredited; however, he or she must have some
minimal training. Section 763.84(g)(2) lists the
training requirements. No specific hours of
training were required since a designated person in
a small LEA with only nonfriable ACBM may not need
to have as much training as the designated person
for a large city school system. Section
763.93(e)(4) requires, however, that the LEA list
the course name, dates, and hours of training
undertaken by the designated person.
Question 25: Can an LEA designate a committee instead of one
person to coordinate asbestos programs for an LEA?
Answer: No. Section 763.84(g)(l) requires each LEA to
designate “ a person” . This person or the LEA,

however, may choose to appoint an advisory
Question 26: Can a group of LEAs share a Designated Person?
Answer: Yes.
Question 27: Must an LEA’s Designated Person be an employee of
the LEA, or can this person be an outside
consultant, available on a part—time basis? Does
the Designated Person have to be “on—site” at the
LEA, or can he/she be located at another location?
Answer: The Designated Person does not have to be an LEA
employee. Section 763.80(a) allows LEAs to
delegate the duties of their Designated Person
under the rule, but the LEAs remain responsible for
the proper performance of those duties. The
Designated Person does not have to be on—site at
the LEA.
Question 28: Many LEAs intend to select certain person(s) who
are permanent employees of the district to become
accredited inspectors, management planners, project
designers, contractor/supervisors and abatement
workers. Does EPA foresee any problems with this
approach, since § 763.84(h) cautions against
“conflict of interest” among accredited personnel?
Answer: The conflict of interest provision in the rule
pertains to outside contractors who serve in two or
more capacities. (see rule preamble discussion, p.

41836). LEAs have the option to use their own
employees to carry out all tasks.
Question 29: What is the definition of school as contained in
Section 198 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 2854)?
Answer: The following excerpts include key terms from the
1965 Act. LEAs should contact their appropriate
State agency for specifics on State law.
20 U.S.C. 3381, Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965
(c) The term “elementary school”
means a day or residential school
which provides elementary
education, as determined under
State law.
(f) The term “local educational
agency” means a public board of
education or other public
authority legally constituted
within a State for either
administrative control or
direction of, or to perform a
service function for, public
elementary or secondary schools in
a city, county, township, school
district, or other political
subdivision of a State, or such
combination of school districts or
counties as are recognized in a
State as an administrative agency
for its public elementary or
secondary schools. The term also
includes any other public

institution or agency having
administrative control and
direction of a public elementary
or secondary school.
(h) The term “secondary school”
means a day or residential school
which provides secondary
education, as determined under
State law, except that it does not
include any education provided
beyond grade 12.
20 U.S.C. 2854
(7) The term “elementary school”
means a day or residential school
which provides elementary
education, as determined under
State law, and the term “secondary
school” means a day or residential
school which provides secondary
education, as determined under
State law, except that it does not
include any education provided
beyond grade 12.

Question 30: What specifically must be inspected, and what need
not be inspected? Where do you draw the line?
Determining the location of every material that may
contain asbestos may be impossible. Should an
inspector tear up the school building (e.g., knock
down walls) to find asbestos?
Answer: EPA will require LEAs to ensure that accredited
inspectors conduct a thorough and complete
inspection. However, in most cases, EPA does not
intend that the accredited inspector undertake
destructive steps (e.g., tearing down a wall) in an
attempt to locate ACBM.
An accredited inspector is expected to take
reasonable steps to locate ACBM. Specifically, an
accredited inspector is expected to conduct a
thorough visual inspection, examine all concealed
accessible areas (e.g., above drop ceilings, inside
ventilation shafts, etc.) and carefully review
building plans and use his or her own knowledge to
determine if ACBM was used in areas that are
inaccessible. Building plans may provide some
helpful information about where to look for ACBM,
but they are not a substitute for a thorough
An accredited inspector must answer two questions
with respect to inaccessible areas:

1) Is there reason to suspect that ACBM is present?
2) Is there reason to believe fibers could be
released from ACBM and carried from the area?
If the answer to both questions is “yes”, the
inaccessible area must be examined. If the answer
to question number one is “no”, no further action
is needed. If the answer to question number one is
“yes”, but question number two is answered “no”,
the LEA should inventory the material as assumed
ACBM and keep track of the material during periodic
surveillance and reinspection.
The second question above is important. A key
aspect of most inspector training courses is
understanding how the air circulates inside a
building. If air circulates through an area that
contains asbestos, asbestos fibers could be carried
to the rest of the building.
Question 31: Does nonfriable surfacing and miscellaneous ACM
have to be assessed? What about thermal system
Answer: Nonfriable miscellaneous and nonfriable surfacing
ACBM do not have to be assessed. However, thermal
system insulation with no damage must be assessed
if it has potential for damage or potential for
significant damage. The definitions of potential
damage and potential significant damage in § 763.83
include circumstances under which there is a

“... reasonable likelihood that the material or its
covering (emphasis added)” will become damaged or
significantly damaged. The term “covering” applies
to thermal system insulation. Thus, thermal system
insulation can be characterized as having potential
for damage or potential for significant damage.
In addition, § 763.90(a) states that the LEA “...
shall select and implement in a timely manner the
appropriate response actions in this section
consistent with the assessment conducted in §
763.88 (emphasis added).” Therefore, the areas
requiring response actions under § 763.90 must be
assessed under § 763.88. Section 763.90(e) states
that “... if any friable surfacing ACM, thermal
system insulation ACM , or friable miscellaneous ACM
that has potential for damage is present in a
building, the local education agency shall at least
implement an operations and maintenance program
(emphasis added).” Similarly, thermal system
insulation ACM with the potential for significant
damage also has response action requirements.
Since both § 763.90(e) and (f) list response
actions for thermal system insulation with the
potential for damage and significant damage, such
material must be assessed under § 763.88.

Question 32: Can unaccredited persons under the supervision of
an accredited inspector collect samples, and look
in crawl spaces and other areas to locate ACBM?
Answer: No. Sections 763.85, 763.86, and 763.88 all
specifically require an accredited inspector to
conduct the necessary tasks in order to fulfill the
inspection and reinspection requirements.
Question 33: Must encapsulated ACBM be reassessed every 3 years?
Answer: During a reinspection, in addition to checking
friability, encapsulated ACBM must be closely
examined to determine whether the response action
has failed. If the response action has failed, the
area must be reassessed.
Question 34: A school building includes a “covered exterior
hallway or walkway”. Does this include both the
underside and roof of these areas?
Answer: Only the underside of the hallway or walkway is
Question 35: By what date must the reinspection be finished? Is
it October 12, 1991, July 9, 1992, or 3 years from
the original inspection?
Answer: Section 763.85(b)(1) states that “At least once
every 3 years after a management plan is in effect,
each local education agency shall conduct a
reinspection . . .“ of each school building. If a
management plan became effective on July 9, 1989, a

reinspection must occur no later than
July 9, 1992.
Question 36: Can a building inspector use his/her own lab to
analyze the bulk samples taken?
Answer: Yes, if the lab has interim EPA or NBS
Question 37: Can an LEA just assume that some or all friable and
nonfriable suspect material contains ACM rather
than taking samples’?
Answer: Yes. Sections 763.86(a) ,(b) ,(c), and (d)
explicitly permit suspect ACBM to be assumed to be
Question 38: What is “suspect” ACM? Can EPA provide a complete
Answer: EPA—approved training courses address what type of
materials might contain asbestos. In addition,
these courses provide guidance on where these
materials are typically located in buildings.
A complete list of all suspected ACBM would be
difficult to compile. However, the following is a
partial list of materials that are classified as
either suspected ACBM for purposes of the rule, or
as materials not covered by the rule. Within the
latter category, some materials may contain
asbestos, but they are not building materials under
the rule and therefore are not included in the

AHERA rule. Other materials would not contain any
asbestos, or enough asbestos to be defined as ACM
under the rule.

Not Covered
Material Suspected ACBM by AHERA Rule
Concrete x
Cinder block x
Surfacing materials (e.g., spray— x
applied or troweled—on materials
on walls and ceilings)
Blackboards x
Wall board (material could be x
gypsum, transite, or other
Pressed wood x
Thermal system insulation x
Corrugated—like paper x
product used for thermal
system insulation
Wall or ceiling carpet x
Gaskets in heating and air x
conditioning equipment
Floor tile (includes adhesives) x
Ceiling tile and panels x
Exterior roofing shingles x, could
Auditorium curtains x, could
Cement asbestos water pipe x
Chemical lab table and desk tops x, could
Fire doors x
Fire brick for boilers x

Not Covered
Material Suspected ACBM by AHERA Rule
Suspected ACBM stored in school x, could
ACBM cloth adjoining airducts x
Chemical lab gloves x, could
Fire blanket x, could
Glass x
Steel x
Sheeting in fume hood x
Brake shoes x, could
Kiln bricks and cement x
Bunsen burner pad x, could
conta in

Question 39: Please define what is meant by the phrase, “any
change in condition”, as it refers to surveillance?
Answer: A maintenance person conducting periodic
surveillance would notice water damage, major
delamination, a major fiber release, or even minor
damage. For surfacing material, damage might also
include separation of ACM from the substrate;
flaking, blistering, or crumbling of the ACM
surface; and scrapes, gouges, mars, or other signs
of physical injury. Asbestos debris may also
indicate damage. For thermal system insulation,
damage may include gouges, punctures, water damage,
crushed areas and torn or missing coverings. The
person conducting periodic surveillance will have
to be aware of the material’s previous condition,
documented in the management plan, in order to
determine if any changes in the materialss
condition has occurred.
Question 40: Should the management planner exercise a quality
control function over the inspector’s report?
Answer: Section 763.88(d) requires the accredited
management planner “to review the results” of
inspections, assessments, and reinspections.

Question 41: Can an inspector who received accreditation in 1988
grant an inspection exclusion for all or part of a
school he inspected in 1985?
Answer: Yes. The accredited inspector would essentially
state that all or part of his previous inspection
has met the requirements of the new rule (see §
763.99). In general, the accredited inspector is
the person who can determine that the LEA is
eligible for an exclusion (see sections
763.99(a)(l), (2), (3), (5), (6), and (7)).
However, under § 763.99(a)(7), an architect or
engineer can sign a statement that no ACBM was
specified for use in the construction of a school
built after October 12, 1988.
Under § 763.99(a)(4), the lead agency in a State
that has received a waiver from § 763.85(a) can
grant an exclusion.

Question 42: Is the removal of nonfriable asbestos—containing
floor tile considered a response action that
requires the use of accredited personnel? If more
than 3,000 square feet is removed this summer, must
TEM be used for clearance?
Answer: If the floor tile or its adhesive material does not
become friable during the removal process, it is
not a response action, since the definition of
response action refers to a method “that protects
human health and the environment from friable
ACBM.” If the material becomes friable during
removal, however, the job is then a response action
requiring both accredited personnel, and the use of
TEM if the area exceeds 3,000 square feet.
Typically, vinyl asbestos floor tile is tightly
bound and asbestos is generally not released under
normal use. However, during a removal operation,
the tile could be rendered friable. In addition,
any sanding operations conducted to remove the
adhesive beneath the tiles would render the
adhesive material friable.
Question 43: Is the installation of carpet over damaged A/V
floor tile an enclosure?
Answer: No. An enclosure is defined in § 763.83 as “an
airtight, impermeable, permanent barrier around
ACBM to prevent the release of asbestos fibers into

the air.” Carpeting is not impermeable, permanent,
or airtight.
Question 44: What does the term “timely fashion” mean? How will
EPA enforce this?
Answer: On page 41839 of the preamble EPA addresses the
“timely fashion” issue:
However, LEAs should be advised that in
providing a schedule for beginning and
completing each response action as
required in § 763.93(e)(6), the LEA is
specifying what constitutes
implementation of preventive measures
and response actions in a timely
fashion for that LEA (emphasis
added). EPA and State enforcement
officials will be monitoring LEA
adherence to these schedules to
determine whether enforcement actions
are warranted against those schools
which fail to meet their own deadlines
for completing preventive measures and
response actions. In reviewing
management plans, States may reject
plans if the schedule for response
actions is not reasonable and timely
(AHERA § 205(c)(1)).
Question 45: If, during a periodic surveillance check, a
custodian finds damaged thermal system insulation,
what must be done?
Answer: Section 763.90(b) states that tt••• if damaged or
significantly damaged thermal system insulation ACM

is present in a building, the local education
agency shall:
1) At least repair the damaged area.
2) Remove the damaged material if it is not
feasible, due to technological factors, to
repair the damage.
3) Maintain all thermal system insulation ACM and
its covering in an intact state and undamaged
As a result, the LEA must at least repair the
damaged area and make sure that the thermal system
insulation is constantly maintained in an intact
state and undamaged condition.
Question 46: Is ceiling tile friable or nonfriable? If it is
friable, must accredited persons and TEM be used to
remove 3,600 square feet of ceiling tile in a
Answer: Like all other materials, the friability of ceiling
tile must be determined by hand pressure. If the
ceiling tile is friable, and the inspector either
assumes ceiling tile is ACM or sampling confirms
the presence of ACM, accredited persons and TEM
must be used in the example outlined above.
—28 --

Question 47: Please define the phrase, “... materials that are
about to become friable ...“
Answer: If a workman is about to sand nonfriable floor tile
that was assumed to be ACBM, this material would
shortly become friable. The material would
immediately be subject to the O&M requirements
found in § 763.91.
Question 48: Are there circumstances under which initial
cleaning requires the use of an accredited
Answer: No. Section 763.9l(c)(l) does not require
accredited personnel for this task.
Question 49: Must an accredited person develop the O&M plan?
Answer: No. AHERA stipulates that only certain activities
require an accredited person. Section 206(a)(3) does
not require an accredited person to develop the O&M
plan. However, EPA strongly recommends that schools
use an accredited management planner to develop the
O&M plan to ensure that the plan is consistent with
the regulations.
Question 50: O&M covers friable material only. What about
nonfriable ACBM with the potential for damage?
Does this type of material need to be addressed in
an O&M plan?

Answer: Nonfriable surfacing and miscellaneous materials
need not be covered by an O&M plan, even if they
have potential for damage or significant damage.
However, as stated in § 763.90(e) and (f),
thermal system insulation with the potential for
damage or significant damage must be covered in an
O&M program as described in § 763.91.
Question 51: What is the difference between § 763.91, which
addresses operations and maintenance activities,
and the O&M plan required in § 763.93?
Answer: The operations and maintenance requirements listed
in § 763.91 are in effect for all LEAs whenever
specific maintenance activities are conducted or
accidents occur. The O&M plan as part of the
management plan is a particular control program
tailored to each individual school. Section 763.91
describes the procedures which LEA5 must carry out
for certain O&M activities, such as cleaning, in
their buildings after December 14, 1987. An O&M
plan in § 763.93 is a specific control program for
a particular school building. For example, the O&M
plan for a certain school may include a monthly
schedule for routine cleaning, and may also include
specific requirements of how to prevent fiber
release from ACBM within the school building. (The
procedures for such a plan are provided in
S 763.91.) The O&H plan for a particular school

may also include a permit system to exercise
control over work conducted in the school that
could disturb ACBM. The O&M plan must be
implemented as part of the school’s management plan
no later than July 9, 1989.

Question 52: a) Will any of the custodial and maintenance worker
personnel who have received previous training be
“grandfathered ” in? b) If so, what criteria will
these workers have to meet, and what will be the
process for making the determination?
Answer: a) Custodial and maintenance personnel may be
“grandfathered”. Section 763.92(a)(3) states that
“... local education agency maintenance and
custodial staff who have attended EPA—approved
asbestos training or who received equivalent
training for O&M and periodic surveillance
activities involving asbestos shall be considered
trained for purposes of this section.”
b) In making this determination, LEAs will need to
determine if previous training adequately covered
the topics required in § 763.92(a)(l) and (2).
Equivalent training in this case means comparable
training; it need not be exactly the same.
Obviously a training course taken in 1985 could not
have covered the AHERA statute or regulation, or
the OSHA standard. Previous instruction, however,
must have covered the following key items:
information on health effects; how to recognize
ACBM and damaged ACBM; and, for staff who may
disturb ACBM, information on handling ACBM, use of
respirators and hands—on training. Additionally,

EPA recornrriends that. individuals who have received
equivalent training in the past receive information
Question 53: What are the qualifications or exact training
needed by an individual who conducts the 2—hour
awareness training and the 14—hour additional
training for the maintenance and/or custodial
Answer: The regulation does not require specific
qualifications for instructors who perform O&M
training. LEAs should, however, select instructors
with a professional or educational background in
the asbestos field.
Question 54: Does EPA plan to develop a “canned” training
program for the 2—hour training course required for
custodial and maintenance workers under § 763.92?
Answer: With EPA funding, the National Asbestos Council and
the American Association of School Administrators
(AASA) have worked jointly to develop a videotape
and instructor’s manual that generally cover the
requirements for the 2—hour awareness training for
custodial and maintenance staff. One of EPA’s
funded training centers, Temple University, is also
developing an awareness video. As required by the
rule, custodial and maintenance staff must also
receive site—specific training (e.g., location of

ACBM in their building). LEAs interested in the
AASA videotape should contact AASA at (703)875—0723
for details.
Question 55: Sections 763.92(a)(1) and (2) refer to 2—hour
training and 14—hour training. If an LEA’s workers
have not taken the 3—day course to become
“accredited” abatement workers, and the LEA decides
to have workers receive the 2—hour and 14—hour
training, where should the workers go for the
abbreviated training? How is this training
Answer: EPA anticipates that LEA5 will use a variety of
resources to train custodial staff. Private
consultants, LEA staff, local colleges and labor
groups are potential sources of instructors for O&M
training. Section 763.94(c) requires LEAs to keep
specific information on O&M training, including the
location of the training and the number of hours of

Question 56: Under what circumstances can a State disapprove a
management plan? Is an LEA required to accept
changes recommended by the State?
Answer: Section 205(c)(l) of AHERA states
the Governor may disapprove a
management plan within 90 days
after the date of receipt of the
plan if the plan:
(A) does not conform with the
regulations under § 203(i) (or
with § 204(d) if there are no
(B) does not assure that
contractors who are accredited
pursuant to this title will be
used to carry out the plan, or
(C) does not contain a response
action schedule which is
reasonable and timely, taking into
account circumstances relevant to
the speed at which the friable ACM
in the school buildings under the
local education agency authority
should be responded to, including
human exposure to the asbestos
while the friable ACM remains in
the school building, and the
ability of the local education
agency to continue to provide
educational services to the
According to § 205(c)(2) of AHERA, “if the State
Governor disapproves a plan, the State Governor
shall explain in writing to the LEA the reasons why

the plan was disapproved and the changes that need
to be made in the plan. Within 30 days after the
date on which notice is received of disapproval of
its plan, the LEA shall revise the plan to conform
with the State Governor’s suggested changes
(emphasis added). The Governor may extend the 30—
day period for not more than 90 days.”
The LEA, therefore, must revise its plan to
conform with changes specified by the State in
conformance with § 205(c)(l). If the LEA’s plan
does not conform with the State’s modified plan,
the school is in violation of AHERA.
Question 57: An LEA has to develop an asbestos management plan
for each school. Does this mean an LEA has to have
a separate management plan for each of its schools,
or can it have one large plan that covers all of
its schools?
Answer: LEAs must have a separate management plan for each
school, according to § 763.93(a)(l). In addition,
§ 763.93(g)(3) states, “Each school (emphasis
added) shall maintain in its administrative office
a complete, updated copy of the management plan for
that school.” To clarify further, this does not
mean that each building on a school’s campus needs

the management plan, just the administrative office
for that school.
Question 58: After October 12, 1988, under what circumstances
will LEAs have to submit a revised management plan
to the State for review?
Answer: Sections 763.93(a)(2) and (3) require LEA5 to
submit management plans to their States for school
buildings leased, otherwise acquired, or used as
school buildings after October 12, 1988. This
requirement is for buildings added to the plan .
Question 59: Must LEAs notify their State when they update their
management plans after a reinspection?
Answer: No. The rule does not require LEAs to notify their
State when they update the management plan as a
result of a reirispection. This pertains to
buildings already in the management plan. However,
through their own regulations, States may require
LEAs to notify the appropriate State agency when
plans are updated as a result of a reinspection.
Question 60: When must the LEA initially notify parent, teacher,
and employee groups in writing about the
availability of the management plan?
Answer: Section 763.93(g)(4) requires LEAs to notify in
writing parent, teacher, and employee organizations
of the availability of the management plan when the

management plan is submitted to the Governor (State
designee) and at least once each school year .
Question 61: If the LEA5 have been inspected by an accredited
inspector, samples have been taken and analyzed,
and no asbestos—containing material has been found,
must the district still develop a management
plan? At what point is it not necessary to develop
a plan?
Answer: The answer to the first part of this question is
yes. Section 763.93(e) requires the results of the
inspection to be reported in the management plan.
With respect to the second part of the question,
all LEAs , even a school built after October 12,
1988, with an exclusion based on an architect’s
statement that no ACBM was used in construction
(see § 763.99(a)(7)), must have a management
plan . In this case, the management plan would
simply include the architect’s statement and the
notification to parents, teachers, and employees
regarding the availability of the plan.
Question 62: If, in 5 years, an LEA has all ACM removed from a
school building, does the annual written
notification requirement regarding the management
plan availability and asbestos—related activities
still apply?

Answer: The annual written notification to parents,
teachers, and other school employees remains in
effect even if a school indicates it has removed
all ACM. The purpose of the availability of the
management plan is to enable the public to
determine if the LEA has implemented the management
plan satisfactorily.
Question 63: Are the LEA5 required to keep and/or maintain their
management plan for any specified length of time?
Answer: The rule does not specify a date after which LEAs
no longer need a management plan. As a result,
LEA5 should plan to keep their management plans
indefinitely. Certain records, however, can be
discarded within a certain period of time after the
ACBM has been removed (see § 763.94).
Question 64: Section 763.93(f) states that the LEA “may” require
a statement signed by an accredited management
planner that the plan is in compliance with the
Rule, but that this statement may not be signed by
the person responsible for implementing the plan
(even though he/she may be an accredited management
planner). Why is the plan implementor prohibited
from signing this statement?
Answer: Section 763.93(f) comes directly from the statute
( 203(1)). However, as noted in the actual
language, such a statement is not required. The

purpose of this prohibition is to discourage
conflict of interest between the management plan
preparer and an abatement contractor. For LEAs
with a concern about conflict of interest between
the management planner and the abatement
contractor, or about the adequacy of the plan, such
a statement should be considered.
Question 65: What forms of written public notifications are
acceptable? It no specific organizations exist for
the LEA to address, what constitutes acceptable
written notification?
Answer: LEAs have a great deal of flexibility with respect
to methods of notifying parents, teachers, and
employees. However, § 763.93(g)(4) requires LEAs
to keep a copy of the notification. A letter to
the PTA and the employees’ union is acceptable.
In the absence of such formal organizations, the
LEA must still notify parents, teachers, and
employees in writing. As stated on page 41841 of
the rule’s preamble, in some instances this
notification could take the form of a newspaper
advertisement, an article in an LEA newsletter, or
some other form. The Agency will further examine
these methods of notification on a case—by—case
basis. LEA5 unsure about how to properly notify
these groups should contact their Regional Asbestos

Please note, under § 763.93(g)(4), LEAs must
include in the management plan a description of the
steps taken to notify such organizations, and
maintain a dated copy of the notification.

Question 66: How should the periodic surveillance results be
documented? flow detailed does the information have
to be and what constitutes adequate records?
Answer: Section 763.94(d) requires LEAs to “... record the
name of each person performing periodic
surveillance, the date of the surveillance, and any
changes in the conditions of the materials.”
A one—page checklist (i.e., change/no change)
with sufficient room for comments by the person
conducting the surveillance would be adequate. If
changes are noticed, the comments must describe
each change clearly.

Question 67: Does a person have to take the training course and
exam from the same sponsor for accreditation?
Answer: AHERPI sections 206(b)(1) and (c)(l) indicate that
persons seeking accreditation need to take a
training course and pass an examination. For full
accreditation through an EPA—approved course,
persons must take the course and exam from the same
training course sponsor . States that have
accreditation programs may require persons seeking
accreditation to pass a State—administered exam.
Section 206(c)(1) of AHERA states that “... the
Administrator shall ensure that any EPA—approved
training course is consistent with the model plan
(including testing requirements) developed under
subsection (b). A contractor may be accredited by
taking and passing such a course. ”
Question 68: If an individual took a course at an EPA training
center after January 1, 1985, and was
“grandfathered in” as having taken an approved
course, when does this person have to take a course
to become fully accredited? When is the first
refresher course required?
Answer: Persons who are “grandfathered in” after January 1,
1985, do not have to take a course to become fully
accredited until one year after their State has or
was required to have an accreditation plan approved

by EPA, and do not have to take the first refresher
course until 2 years after their State has or was
required to have an accreditation plan approved by
EPA. For example, a State legislature convenes in
January 1988. By July 1988, the State must have
developed an accreditation program that meets the
Model Plan. Contractors, inspectors, management
planners, workers, supervisors and abatement
project designers in that State have one year to
become fully accredited (i.e., July 1989). The
first refresher training would be required by July
1990. These dates are still in effect for
individuals even if the State fails to act, in
which event, they would complete EPA-approved
courses at the specified intervals.
Question 69: What is the time frame for accredited individuals
to take the required refresher training course?
For example, are they required to take the
refresher course prior to the expiration of their
accreditation, or 60 days after? If they do not
take the refresher course prior to expiration or
some subsequent date including a grace period, will
they be required to take another full training
course and pass the required examination before
they can be reaccredited?
Answer: Individuals must take an annual refresher course to
maintain their accreditation, as specified in the

answer to Question 68. In the example cited above,
if a person fails to take the refresher course
within the 1—year prescribed period, their
accreditation ceases. As a result, those persons
cannot conduct AHERA work in their pertinent
discipline. They will have 12 more months to take
the refresher course in order to resume conducting
AHEP.A work. If a refresher course is not taken
during that period (i.e., within 24 months after
accreditation), the entire training course (e.g., 4
days for supervisors) must be repeated and the exam
Question 70: When would a conflict of interest exist among
accredited personnel?
Answer: A conflict of interest with respect to accredited
personnel would exist if, for example, the
management planner and abatement contractor worked
for the same firm. The planner might recommend to
the LEA more expensive response actions than are
necessary in the management plan.
Question 71: May a person serve as an accredited inspector and
management planner on the same school project?
Answer: Yes. EPA anticipates that many LEAs will have the
same person conduct both tasks. However, LEA5 must
still evaluate whether that person has a conflict
of interest (see section 763.84(h)).

Question 72: Can an LEA hire one abatement firm both to conduct
a response action and to carry out the TEM
clearance air monitoring on that project?
Answer: No. In Appendix A on page 41858 of the rule under
“Sampling”, it states that TEM ••• sampling
operations must be performed by qualified
individuals completely independent of the abatement
contractor to avoid possible conflict of
interest.” The LEA would have to select another
person or firm “completely independent” of the
abatement contractor to do this work. The
abatement firm would not be allowed to subcontract
this work since the subcontractor is not
“completely independent” of the contractor.
Question 73: Can an LEA itself become approved as a training
Answer: Yes.
Question 74: How can an LEA find accredited personnel to perform
inspections, develop management plans, and conduct
response actions?
Answer: In States with EPA—approved programs, the LEA
should contact the appropriate State agency
responsible for accreditation. In States without
approved programs, LEAs may communicate with the
contacts from EPA—approved courses and request a
list of accredited individuals. LEA5 also have the

option of hiring accredited personnel from a State
with an EPA—approved program. Of course, LEAs may
also choose to solicit proposals to conduct
inspections, management plans and response actions
in newspapers, professional or trade journals. The
requirement that persons must be accredited should
be emphasized in the LEA’s description of the
project. Two national organizations, the National
Asbestos Council and the National Insulation
Contractors Association, have or are in the process
of developing lists of their members who have
accreditation credentials. Finally, LEAs may have
their own personnel trained and accredited through
EPA—approved courses or State programs.
Question 75: Must an individual respirator fit test be given to
each and every training course participant? Many
training providers are concerned about their
liability. Shouldn’t the student be required to
furnish a doctor’s statement that indicates the
student can safely wear a respirator?
Answer: Training entities must provide students with the
opportunity for respirator fit testing. If a
student declines to be fit—tested, that is his or
her prerogative. In addition, a training entity
may require the student to furnish medical evidence
that he or she is capable of wearing a
respirator. Therefore, if a student has a medical

statement from a physician indicating that he or
she can be fit—tested, and the student wants to be
fit—tested, the training entity must fit—test the
Question 76: Must an accredited designer be used to design a
response action?
Answer: Section 763.90(g) requires that “Response actions
including removal, encapsulation, enclosure or
repair, other than small—scale, short—duration
repairs, shall be designed and conducted by persons
accredited to design and conduct response actions
(emphasis added).” An accredited designer, then,
must develop the job specifications for a response
Question 77: If an abatement designer takes the course for
contractors and supervisors, and his/her
certificate says “contractor/supervisor”, how can
the individual prove that he/she is qualified to
design abatement projects?
Answer: The designer should show the LEA the relevant
section of the Model Accreditation Plan that
enables a person who has successfully completed the
contractor/supervisor course to be accredited as a
designer (see plan page 15878, “Abatement Project

Question 78: Where does it say in the AHERA rule that LEAs must
use accredited workers and supervisors to conduct
asbestos abatement work after December 14, 1987?
Answer: Section 763.90(g) requires response actions to be
designed and conducted by persons accredited to
design and conduct response actions. On page
41826, under the heading “Dates”, it states that
the “... rule shall be effective on December 14,
1987.” As a result, the requirement to use
accredited personnel under AHERA is in effect as of
December 14, 1987. Any asbestos—related work
requiring accreditation conducted after that date
must use accredited persons.

Question 79: With respect to TEM, what does the term “contiguous
portions” mean?
Answer: The intent of § 763.90(i)(8) is to prevent an LEA
from artificially dividing up a large project so as
to avoid the TEM requirement. For example, an LEA
that has a 3,300 square foot gymnasium cannot
artificially divide the gym into 3 separate areas
of 1,100 square feet, and then conduct separate
abatement in each area, clearing each area by
PCM. These areas are obviously contiguous, thus
TEM is required.
However, an abatement job in wing A of a building
that totals 1,700 square feet and a job in a
separate, non—contiguous wing that totals 1,500
square feet are not contiguous portions of
Question 80: If an LEA plans to remove 3,500 square feet of ACBM
from six adjacent classrooms joined by a hallway,
does TEM have to be used for clearance of the
entire area or can the LEA choose to remove the
ACBM from each classroom separately and use PCM to
clear each separate room?
Answer: TEM must be used unless clear engineering reasons
exist for dividing such a project into smaller
areas. A primary reason EPA permitted the use of
PCM for the 3—year phase—in period was to enable an
—50 --

LEA to minimize its total abatement expenses for a
small project (e.g., less than 3,000 square
feet). For one small project, EPA believes the
additional cost of TEM analysis at current prices
could greatly increase the total cost of the
project. However, permitting an LEA to subdivide
what would normally be one large project into
several smaller projects defeats the purpose of the
TEM requirement. As necessary, EPA will review
such situations on a case—by—case basis.
What is meant by the phase “at approximately the
same time” (in § 763.90(i)(8)) as it relates to TEM
The intent of § 763.90(i)(8) is to prevent an LEA
from avoiding the TEM requirement by either
artificially dividing up a larger project, or by
removing ACBM in stages over the course of a
relatively short period of time from what normally
would have been one large project if the TEM phase—
in did not exist. For example, if an LEA removed
1,600 square feet of surfacing ACBM in June 1988,
and 1,600 square feet of adjacent surfacing ACBM a
few weeks later, EPA would consider this to be
removing contiguous portions of ACBM at
“approximately the same time”. As necessary, EPA
will review such situations on a case—by—case
b as is. Material belongs to:
Office of Toxic Substances Library
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W. TS-793
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-3944
Question 81:

Question 82: Would surfacing ACBM on ceilings of two classrooms
on two separate floors be viewed as contiguous
Answer: No. Even if one classroom was directly beneath the
other •classroom, these would not be contiguous
areas under the rule. Each floor would normally
have its own containment barrier.
Question 83: With regard to TEM, is there a plan to establish a
certain number of air samples to be collected for
abatement project clearance based on square
footage/area or cubic footage/volume?
Answer: No. As stated in Appendix A, the minimum number of
TEM samples that need to be collected for each test
site is 13 samples . These break down as follows:
— 5 samples per abatement area
— 5 samples per ambient area positioned at
locations representative of the air entering the
abatement site
— two field blanks
— one sealed blank
Not all of these samples will have to be analyzed,
in certain cases.
Question 84: Are there criteria for doing aggressive air
Answer: Yes. Unit III.13.7.d. of Appendix A in the rule
provides criteria for aggressive air monitoring.

Question 85: Please define the term “nonfriable suspected
ACBM.” Also, what does the term “manner sufficient
to determine” mean with respect to sampling such
Answer: Nonfriable suspected ACBM could be wallboard or
floor tile. “Manner sufficient to determine” means
the accredited inspector must take an appropriate
number of samples for that material. For example,
a number of training courses recommend that an
inspector take the same number of samples for
materials like floor and ceiling tiles as the
inspector would for surfacing material. Other
training courses suggest that three samples should
be taken from homogeneous areas of such material.
Question 86: Please clarify the use of the term, “homogeneous
area”, which has a regulatory definition of being
uniform in color or texture, when applied to
thermal system insulation having pipe lagging that
has either been discolored or applied differently
to give the appearance of possessing a different
Answer: The accredited inspector must make a judgment on
whether pipe lagging is indeed uniform in color and
texture. If the suspect material looks darker due
to water damage, it is appropriate for the
inspector to consider this as part of the same
homogeneous area. If the suspect material has been

applied differently, however, it probably would not
be uniform in color and texture since there would
be a noticeable difference in the suspect
material’ s appearance.
Question 87: If PCM is being used for clearance, does the
sampling volume table in the mandatory TEM method
have to be followed to determine the sampling
volume for the PCM samples?
Answer: No. The table is required only for samples which
will be analyzed by TEM. The table was set up to
maintain an analytical sensitivity of 0.005 fibers
per cubic centimeter (f/cm 3 ) for the TEM
analysis. The table does not apply to the PCM
Question 88: How does one determine the amount of air to sample
for the PCM analysis to maintain a limit of
quantification of 0.01 f/cm 3 ?
Answer: Follow the procedure in the EPA Silver Book,
specifically outlined on pages 4—5. The volume
required to reliably quantify fibers down to 0.01
f/cm 3 may be calculated using the first formula on
these pages. Note that for NIOSH 7400, the minimum
fiber loading is specified. Also, alert labs that
the area of viewing for a field will vary between
microscopes and that they must determine this value
from their microscopes.

Question 89: Can dual—headed pumps be used at abatement sites
when taking the five samples?
Answer: This avoids the intent of the directions given in
the nonmandatory appendix for TEM. The method
states: “Position ambient samples at locations
representative of the air entering the abatement
site.” A dual—headed pump will not sample air at
two different locations.
Question 90: Can someone collect more than five samples inside
the abatement site and pick the best of the results
for the clearance test?
Answer: No. An equal number of samples should be taken
inside and outside the abatement site for
clearance. The minimum number is five inside and
five outside. The rule does not prohibit the
collection of more than five samples inside and an
equal number outside; however, collection of a
higher number inside and then selecting only five
of those values is not appropriate.
Question 91: How can the public get copies of the listing of
accredited laboratories?
Answer: Contact a Regional Asbestos Coordinator or call the
TSCA Hotlirie at (202) 554—1404.

Question 92: Do you have to label enclosed or encapsulated ACBM
in routine maintenance areas?
Answer: Yes. Section 763.95(a) states that “... the local
education agency shall attach a warning label
immediately adjacent to any friable and nonfriable
ACBM and suspected ACBM assumed to be ACM located
in routine maintenance areas (such as boiler rooms)
at each school building. This shall include:
1) Friable ACBM that was responded to by a means
other than removal .
2) ACBM for which no response action was carried
Question 93: What are some examples of routine maintenance areas
that would require labeling? What does routine
Answer: Examples are boiler rooms, equipment rooms, pipe
tunnels, fan rooms, air handling rooms, or any
other area that serves primarily as a maintenance
“Routine” means that a maintenance or custodial
person frequents an area (see above) on a regularly
scheduled or predictable basis to perform
maintenance activities.

Question 94: In general, will school employees other than
custodial and maintenance workers have to stay out
of routine maintenance areas?
Answer: The rule does not prohibit other school employees
from entering routine maintenance areas.

Question 95: In Appendix D of the rule, dealing with the
transport and disposal of asbestos waste, should
the “shoulds ” be interpreted as “shalls”? In other
words, are these recommendations now requirements?
Answer: The recommendations in the transport and disposal
guidance document have not become requirements.
LEAs have to comply with applicable DOT and NESHAP
regulations governing transport and disposal, not
with the recommendations found in Appendix D.
Enforcement of Appendix D will be based on the
current DOT and NESHAP regulations cited in the
Appendix, not on the recommendations suggested

Question 96: Can EPA delegate the AHERA regulatory program to
government agencies such as county and city
governments? Several county and city governments
have programs which are more stringent.
Answer: With respect to § 763.98 which addresses State
waivers, these waivers apply only to States.

Question 97: Who will review the management plans submitted by
the Department of Defense (DOD)?
Answer: Section 203(1) of AHERA requires the Secretary of
Defense to carry out “... any function, duty, or
other responsibility imposed on a Governor of a
State [ for any school] operated under the defense
dependents’ education system provided for under the
Defense Dependents’ Education Act of 1978 (20
U.S.C. 921 et seq.).”
Question 98: Does the regulation explicitly prohibit any
conflict of interest?
Answer: Yes. In Appendix A to the rule, the regulation
states that TEM “... sampling operations must be
performed by qualified individuals completely
independent of the abatement contractor ...“
Question 99: What are EPA’s plans for developing standardized or
model forms for inspections and/or management
Answer: The EPA—funded model training course materials for
trainers, available for purchase by calling
301/468—1916, and the LEA Guide to assist LEAs in
complying with the new rule, mailed to LEAs in
February, include model forms and formats for
inspections and management plans, respectively.

Question 100: In a high school vocational—tech class dealing with
automobile brake repairs, or in a school
maintenance facility that repairs brakes on school
buses, is the asbestos hazard from brake dust
covered by AHERA?
Answer: No. AHERA covers asbestos-containing building
materials only, and brake shoes are not building
materials under AHERA. However, EPA believes it is
advisable to establish a program to contain brake
dust and prevent its release (see also OSHA’s
Appendix F to its rule). EPA has proposed a rule
to phase out the use of asbestos in brakes and
other products. Information on establishing a
program to control brake dust can be found in the
publication 1
Guidance for Preventing Asbestos Disease Among Auto
Mechanics . This publication is available from:
Superintendent of Documents
u.s. Government Printing Office
Washington, DC 20402
—61 --