Asbestos/NESHAP
Demolition
Decision
Tree
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Manufacturing, Energy, and Transportation Division
Office of Compliance
June 1994
-------
DISCLAIMER
The policies in this document are intended solely as
guidance. EPA may decide to follow this guidance or act at
variance therewith, based on an analysis of individual
circumstances. Furthermore, although this guidance is directed
toward EPA asbestos NESHAP inspectors, it may also be appropriate
for State and local regulatory inspectors. However, this guidance
should be used only as a supplement to any existing State and
local program requirements.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. DEFINITIONS 2
III. DEMOLITION DECISION TREE 3
FLOW CHART 1 4
FLOW CHART 2 5
FLOW CHART 3 6
FLOW, CHART 4 7
IV. INSPECTION OF FACILITIES UNDERGOING ORDERED DEMOLITION 3
V. STRUCTURALLY SOUND FACILITIES UNDERGOING
NORMAL (other than intentional burning) DEMOLITION 8
A. Inspection of a Facility . . . . : 8
B. Material -Identification and Analysis 9
C. Removal of RACM Prior to Demolition 9
D. Discovery of RACM During Demolition 10
E. Evaluation of Unique Methods for Removing RACM 10
F. Isolating RACM Contaminated Debris 11
G. Site Assessment 11
H. Decontamination of Demolition Site ..11
VI. DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURALLY UNSOUND FACILITIES 12
A. Demolition of Structurally Unsound Facilities 12
B. Inspection of a Facility 12
C. Material Identification and Analysis 13
D. Removal of RACM Prior to Demolition 14
E. Evaluation of Unique Methods for Removing RACM 14
F. Post Demolition Inspection for RACM Contaminated Debris 15
G. Isolating RACM Contaminated Debris . 15
H. Site Assessment 15
I. Decontamination of Area Surrounding Demolition Site 16
VII. DEMOLITION OF A FACILITY BY INTENTIONAL BURNING 15
A. Inspection of a Facility 16
B. MateriajOtdentification and Analysis 16
C. Removal of RACM Prior to Demolition 16
APPENDICES
A Case Study
Bainbridge Naval Training Center, Maryland .A-1
B Case Study
Jewel Lake Condominium, Anchorage, Alaska B-l
V
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
This guidance has been prepared to help asbestos NESHAP
inspectors provide guidance to the regulated community and to
build stronger enforcement cases through more thorough and
effective inspection practices. The guidance touches on
difficult situations inspectors may encounter while
conducting an asbestos inspection. In order to limit the
scope of this document it concentrates on affected facilities
undergoing demolition and deals only with EPA guidance
regarding the asbestos NESHAP.
The primary focus of this document is the application of
a demolition decision tree that is designed to help
inspectors decide which of the NESHAP regulatory requirements
are applicable to a given situation. Determining compliance
with these requirements is addressed in the inspection
checklist found in Guidelines for Asbestos NESHAP Demolition
and Renovation Inspection Procedures (EPA 340/1-90-007,
Revised November 1990).
Regardless of the current status of a facility (e.g., a
partially burned structure, a structurally sound facility,
etc.), regulatory inspectors utilizing the decision tree
should always begin with Flow Chart 1. For example, if a
facility is an ordered demolition, the inspector must first
determine if the order was made by a qualified agency. An
inspector should then determine if the demolition is ordered
because the facility is structurally unsound and in danger of
imminent collapse. If this is true, the decision process
will proceed to Flow Chart 2, which details a chain of
decisions an inspector should consider when conducting an
asbestos NESHAP compliance inspect ion. Facilities that are
not structurally unsound and will not be demolished by
intentional burning (normal demolition) will proceed from
Flow Chart 1 to,Flow Chart 3 and possibly to Flow Chart 4.
Demolition by intentional burning is covered in Flow Chart 1.
The decision tree is accompanied by a list of pertinent
definitions and a detailed explanation of the process
including examples of situations that may be encountered.
Two case studies have been included in the appendices to the
guidance^fehat demonstrate how the demolition decision tree
can be -applied to real life situations.
1
-------
II. DEFINITIONS
Installation means any building or structure or any group
of buildings or structures at a single demolition or
renovation site that is under the control of the same owner
or operator (or owner or operator under common control).
Asbestos Containing Waste Material includes regulated
asbestos-containing material waste and materials contaminated
with asbestos including disposable equipment and clothing.
Regulated Asbestos Containing Material (RACM) is
defined as (a) friable material, (b) Category I non-friable
material that has become friable, (c) Category I non-friable
material that will be or has been subjected to sanding,
grinding, cutting or abrading, or (d) Category II non-friable
material that has a high probability of becoming or has
become crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder by the
forces expected to act on it during the course of the
demolition.
Facility means any institutional, commercial, public,
industrial, or residential structure, installation, or
building (including any structure, installation, or building
containing condominiums or ind-1 *" dual dwelling units operated
as a residential cooperative, but excluding residential
buildings having four or fewer dwelling units); any ship; and
any active or inactive waste disposal site. For purposes of
this definition, any building, structure, or installation
that contains a loft usad as a dwelling, is not considered a
residential structure, installation, or building. Any
structure, installation or buiIding that was previously
subject to this subpart is not excluded, regardless of its
current use or function.
Ordered Demolition* means a demolition that is mandated by
order of a qualified State or local govc.nr.ental agency
because a facility is either structurally unsound and in
danger of imminent collapse or it is being demolished as part
of a government project (e.g., urban renewal project or road
project).
Qualif-i:m& State or Local Governmental Agency* means the
governmental agency that has legal authority to inspect a
facility and declare it structurally unsound and in imminent
danger of collapse. Generally, these responsibilities will
be held by the local building department or local engineering
department. In order for such an agency to make declarations
concerning a building's structural soundness and risk of
collapse, the persons making such determinations must have
appropriate training and/or experience.
2
-------
Suspect RACM* means any material that is believed to contain
asbestos that is either friable or Category I or II
nonfriable material that has or will become regulated by
actions that are expected to act upon the material.
Unique Methods* means any method of removing RACM that is
not normally or has not been previously considered but when
implemented will allow the owner/operator to remove Rr>CM in
situations otherwise thought too dangerous or impossible
(i.e., the removal of material from a structurally unsound
facility).
* Definitions to be used only for the purposes of this
document.
III. Demolition Decision Tree
The demolition decision tree provided in flow charts 1-4
is designed to help regulatory inspectors determine which of
the NESHA? regulatory requirements are applicable to a given
demolition. The decision tree is a series of decisions that
an inspector should go through when evaluating the demolition
of a regulated facility. Use of the flow charts is explained
in the following discussions.
IV. INSPECTION OF FACILITIES UNDERGOING ORDERED DEMOLITION
[Refer to Flow Chart 1J
Regulatory inspectors sent out to make asbestos NESHAP
inspections of facilities undergoing demolition must first
confirm whether or not the demolition is an ordered
demolition and if so, the reason for the order and its
origin. This information should be included on the
notification.
It is important to make a distinction between ordered
demolitions that are made because the facility is
structurally unsound and in danger of imminent collapse and
those that are ordered as part of one common project, such as
a highway right of way or an urban renewal project, because
the forra#» allows for some exemptions from the requirements
of the .asbestos NESHAP.
Demolitions ordered as part of one common project may in
fact include facilities that are structurally sound. These
facilities are not exempt from any of the requirements of the
asbestos NESHAP. The owner/operator of such a facility is
required to follow all the requirements of the asbestos
NESHAP including inspection and notification and if
applicable, abatement.
3
-------
FLOW CHAHT 1
Refer the owner.'operator of me
affected facility to a qualified
governmental agency
w
NO
Was tr.e
order made by a
Qualifies state or
focal governmental
agency?
§61.U5(S)(4){XIV))
Is me demolition
ordered because the
acidly ts structurally
unsound aM in imminent
danger of collapse?
6t.us(aH3}}
Is H an ordered
demolition?
Not exempt from any
reQUifements Of the
asbestos NESHAP
Witi me
budding be
demolished by
ntentiona
burning?
GOTO
> GOTO
The asoestos NESHAP requires me removal of ail
ACM if a facility that contains greater than the
threshold amount of asbestos will be demolished
ty intentional burning. This reauiremeni includes
the removal of aU Category I and Category II
nonfrable ACM which for me purposes of
intentional burning shall always be considered
RACM (section 51,145 (c)).
YES
Thoroughly inspect
acility for ACM
Remove all RACM
orior to demolition
according to section
i U5
RACM,
Demolition by burning
is not applicable
-------
FLOW CHART 2, Structurally Unsound Facility
Remove ail
HACM ntkH <0
demolition
NOliCO
requirements
only,
{§61 MS(aK2»
is tho taint
amount ol malarial
conlahwr»g yrealer
than i% asbestos
abovo Iho threshold
amount?
Is tl possible 10
thoroughly Snspocl
{ho facJiiy lor lha
presence ol
RACttfl
is il possiote lu
remove ail ol Hie
BACM pi km to
demolition?
Analyse
representative
samples
or asbestos content
Doss any
sample contain
more ttian 1 "A
asbosios?
Demotlilion by burning
is no? applicable lo
iliucluratly unsound
facilities
Can a
|K>riion ol
tlm HACM be
removed piioi lu
demolition?
Havo unique
motfuxis ol
itnnoval boon
considered?
Evaluate unique
melltods ami uiiliia il
tpplicablG
Remove as much RACM as
(>ossiblo in accordance with
section 61 145(c).
Inspocl debris
loi BACM
Demolition.
YES
NO
Can Mks ^
HACM bo isolated
Irom II vo rest ol (ho
debris (te a wing
oi a Idcilrty)?
Dogs Iho
debits contain
any amount
Ot RACM?
NO
NO
YES
YES
Js ifie aiea
surrounding iho
facility (soil, etc )
cuntanunaled with
HACM?
II an owner/opi'ialor ol a facility Ituit was not pi.'viously
inspected, can demonstrate (IhroiKjh records, Muo prints,
etc) that liio del)iis does no! contain HACM, Umi the
" disiMisal ut tlm NffUtAP may not apply
No additional
requirement?: apply
Dispose ol ail
doOris as BACM In
accordance with
section 61 150
Decontaminate tho area
surrounding Iho demolition
Silo (i c . remove
contaminated bwl. etc)
isolate Itio contaminated
debris and dispose ol
according fo §61 150.
Non-contaminated debus
may bo disposed of as
normal demolition debits.
Sues Ihat havo not removed
HACM prior to domolilion writ
need a situ assessment lo
dcletnuno il tho immediate area
surroudinrj the demolition silo
lias been contaminated.
-------
Structurally Sound Facility
FLOW CHART 3
Is II ACM
Category I
nonmablo
Material?
YES
YES
Thorowglsly inspect
facility lor HACM
NO
NO
YES
GOTO ( B2
NO
Analyze representative
samples for asbestos
content.
NO
GOTO ( B2
YES
NO
NO
>- GO TO
YES
GOTO { B2
YES
f Is 11ms
total amount ot
material containing
qrealer than 1%
asbestos above the
vilw«siK>!il aiiuHKst?
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
Remove all HACM in
accordance with section
fit 145(c) and dtsposo ot in
accordance with 61 150
NO
•~GOTO ( B2
-------
FLOW CHART 4, Structurally Sound Facility (cont.)
Romovo Uu) HACM
prior to continuing
demolition in
NoIicb
requirements
Duong
demolition was
suspect RACM
discovered that was
previously
Inaccoi^jfclfl?
Is Iho total
amount ol material
containing greater
than 1% asbestos
abovo Iho threshold
amount?
Docs any
sample contain
moro titan 1%
asbestos?
Is it possiblo
to safety
remove
Iho HACM?
Analyze leprecentaive
samples lor asbostos
content
Ooconiaminale Iho aiea
surrounding the demolition silo (i.u .
romovo contaminated soil, etc )
No additional
foquijoinonts
Is Iho aroa
surrounding Uio
lacility (sort, olc )
contaminated wHh
RACM?
Evaluate uniquo
NO
melltods and utilize
<
II applicable
Silos (tint havo not removed
RACM prior to demolition will
nood a sito assossmonl to
doloimlno il the immodmlo area
surrouding Iho domolilion silo
has boon conlaininated
Isolalo Iho contaminatod dobris
and disposo ol according to
§61 150 Non-contamuiatod dobris
may bo disposed ol as clean
domoliton debris
Can the HACM bo
isolated liom the rosl
ol Iho dobris (to.a
wing ol a laciMy)?
Havo uni()oo
molhods ol
removal been
considered?
(>is|H)So nl all debris as HACM in
accoidanco with soclion Gl 150
-------
Buildings declared unsafe (ordered by a State or local
governmental agency) and in danger of collapse as a result of
some emergency such as a fire, earthquake or other disaster,
must typically be demolished immediately and cannot await an
inspection by EPA. Section 61.145 (a)(3) of 40 CFR gives
certain exemptions to the requirements of the asbestos NESHAP
only when the facility is structurally unsound and in danger
of imminent collapse. However, with respect to the
procedures for emission control, ordered demolitions are
subject to paragraphs (c)(4) through (c)(9) of section
61.145. Additionally, paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2),
(b)(3)(iii), (b)(4) (except (b) (4) (viii) ) , and (b) (5) of
section 61.145 still apply to ordered demolitions.
To discourage abuse of this provision, the notification
that is submitted must identify the' government: representative
who ordered the demolition, the date the order was issued and
the date demolition was ordered to begin. Representatives
from a qualified governmental agency typically make those
determinations.
If the appropriate agency is unable to make such a
determination (e.g., aue to lack of resources or personnel)
it may be appropriate for that agency to retain the services
of a private contractor or State regulatory agency to make
the determination.
Conversely, it would be inappropriate for the
owner/operator of a facility to retain the services of a
private contractor or use in-house professionals to make such
a determination because it would be in their best interest to
have the building categorized as being structurally unsound
in order to gain the exemptions and subsequent cost savings
from not having to adhere to all of the requirements of the
asbestos NESHAP.
V. Structurally Sound Facilities Undergoing
Normal (other than intentional burning) Demolition
[Refer to Flow Charts 3 & 4)
A. inspection of a Facility
A majority of inspections will be of structurally sound
facilities undergoing normal (other than intentional burning)
demolition. Guidance for demolitions can be found in A Guide
to Normal Demolition Practices Under the Asbestos NESHAP (EPA
340/1-92-013, September 1992). Section 61.145 requires a
thorough inspection of the affected facility prior to
8
-------
demolition. The responsibility to thoroughly inspect lies
with the owner/operator of the affected facility.
A thorough inspection includes identifying all asbestos
containing materials present including Category I and II
nonfriable ACM and the quantities to be affected, the nature
of the demolition and the steps that will be taken to control
any release of fibers. Guidance for inspections can be found
in EPA's Guidelines for Asbestos NESHAP Demolition and
Renovation Inspection Procedures (EPA 340/1-90-007, November
1990, (Revision)).
EPA requires inspectors in the regulated community to
attend and pass the 3-day Building Inspectors Course under 40
CFR Part 763, the revised Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan
(MAP) as mandated by section 15(a)(3) of the Asbestos School
Hazard Abatement Reauthorization Act (ASHARA).
B . Material Identification and Analysis
Category I nonfriable material that has not been or will
not be subjected to sanding, cutting or abrading and will not
become friable during demolition and subsequent clean-up and
disposal is not subject to the handling requirements of the
asbestos NESHAP.
Category II nonfriable material that is not friable and
will not become friable (crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to
powder) during demolition and subsequent clean-up is not
subject to the handling requirements of the asbestos NESHAP.
Once all suspect RACM is identified, and it is
determined that the facility contains greater than the
threshold amount (260 linear feet, 160 square feet or 35
cubic feet), the material(s) should be assumed to be RACM, or
sampled and analyzed to verify that RACM is or is not
present.
If either the suspect amount of asbestos is below the
threshold amount or the asbestos content of the
representative sample(s) contain less than one percent, only
the noticre requirements listed at 40 CFR 61.145(a) (3) apply.
C . Removal of RACM Prior to Demolition
If RACM exists in quantities above the threshold amount,
then all the RACM must be removed prior to demolition. RACM
may include Category I nonfriable material that is friable or
9
-------
is likely to be subjected to sanding, grinding, cutting,
abrading, or burning during demolition. Most normal
demolition techniques will not require the removal of
Category I nonfriable ACM that is not in poor condition and
is not friable prior to the demolition. However, waste
consolidation methods both at the demolition site and at the
disposal site may render these materials friable, RACM may
also include Category II nonfriable material that has a high
probability of becoming crumbled, pulverized or reduced to
powder by the forces expected to act on the material during
the course of the demolition. Most Category II nonfriable
ACM is expected to become RACM during demolition. EPA
recommends that all Category II nonfriable ACM be removed
prior to demolition to avoid any further requirements of the
asbestos NESHAP.
D. Discovery of RACM During Demolition
Suspect RACM that is discovered during demolition which
was previously inaccessible must be sampled and analyzed for
its asbestos content when the combined amount of suspect RACM
(the amount of RACM identified during the initial inspection
and the amount of newly discovered suspect material) is above
the threshold amount.
If the threshold amount is exceeded and the samples
tested contain more than one percent asbestos, all of the
RACM must be removed if possible. If the asbestos cannot be
safely removed, the asbestos-containing material must be kept
wet and the entire waste pile (or the portion that contains
asbestos-containing waste material) must be disposed of as
asbestos-containing waste material in accordance with 40 CFR
61.150. The cost of disposing of the entire contaminated
waste pile as asbestos waste should discourage contractors
from this as a means to avoid the removal requirements of the
asbestos NESHAP.
When the combined amount of suspect RACM (the combined
amount of RACM identified during the inspection and the
amount of newly discovered material) is less than the
threshold amount or the samoles of intact material {not
samples-** contaminated waste) contain less than one percent
of asbestos, only the notice requirements found in 40 CFR
61.145(a)(3) would apply to the demolition.
E . Evaluation of Unique Methods for Removing RACM
When newly discovered RACM is difficult or "impossible"
to remove, innovative methods of removal, should be evaluated
and used if applicable. These unique methods might include
10
-------
the use of equipment such as cranes, a specially adapted
grappling bucket (Bainbridge Case Study, see Appendix A) or
temporarily shoring up a structure. If unique methods have
not been considered by the contractor, the demolition should
not continue while the RACM remains in place until unique
methods have been considered and determined to be infeasible.
When the asbestos cannot be safely removed, the asbestos-
containing material must be kept wet and the entire asbestos
contaminated waste pile (or the portion that is contaminated)
must be disposed of as asbestos-containing waste material in
accordance with 40 CFR 61.150,
F. Isolating RACM Contaminated Debris
Sometimes RACM is identified in only one room of a
facility or a wing of a facility. Contaminated debris that
can be isolated must still be disposed of in accordance with
40 CFR 61.. 150 of the asbestos NESHAP while the remainder of
the debris (non-contaminated) may be disposed of as normal
"clean" demolition debris. This determination should be made
based on a visual inspection and analyses of samples of the
waste. If any asbestos contamination is found in an area
(even below one percent) then the • .ste must be disposed of
in accordance with section 61.150, unless the owner/operator
of the affected facility can demonstrate that the intact
material contained less than one percent.
G. Site Assessment
Any facility that undergoes demolition without removing
all of the RACM should undergo a site assessment to determine
if the immediate area surrounding the facility has been
contaminated with asbestos.
A site assessment should include but is not limited to a
visual evaluation and a comprehensive soil sampling scheme to
determine compliance with the asbestos NESHAP. The degree of
testing should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
H. Decontamination of Demolition Site
If the surrounding soil has been contaminated by the
demolition activities at the site, the site must be cleaned
up to background levels of asbestos contamination.
Alternatively, the site may be operated in accordance with
section 61.154 (Standard for active waste disposal sites) and
closed in accordance with section 61.151 (Standard for
11
-------
inactive waste disposal sites for asbestos mills and
manufacturing and fabricating operations). However,
according to 40 CFR 61.05, the establishment of an active
waste site requires prior approval from EPA or the delegated
State program. To clean up the site to background levels, it
will probably be necessary to remove all the asbestos
contaminated soil. The contaminated soil should be treated
and disposed of as asbestos-containing waste material.
VI . DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURALLY UNSOUND FACILITIES
(Refer to Flow Chart 2]
A. Demolition of Structurally Unsound Facilities
Facilities declared unsafe and in danger of imminent
collapse as a result of some emergency such as a fire,
earthquake or other disaster can not be demolished by means
of fire because of the inability to properly inspect such
facilities for the presence of asbestos.
A representative from a qualified governmental agency
typically makes this declaration.
B . Inspection of Facility
Facilities declared unsafe because of some emergency
such as fire, earthquake or other disaster can often be
dangerous if not impossible for regulatory inspectors to
enter and EPA would not expect an inspector to enter such an
environment.
Some facilities that are too dangerous to enter may
contain suspect RACM (e.g., roofing, siding, etc.) that can
be easily identified without entering the facility.
In some cases, a facility is declared unsafe when only
one wall or a portion of a facility is unsound. Occasionally
a facility is made unsound when the key structural load
supporting members from the facility are intentionally
removed^ avoid the inspection and removal (if applicable)
requirements of the asbestos NESHAP. In such cases the
owner/operator of that facility can:
• Make the facility safe to enter by knocking down the
portion that is unsafe or temporarily shoring up the
structure, thus allowing the inspector to go in to
conduct a thorough inspection, subsequently triggering
abatement if applicable.
12
-------
• Identify materials in the safe portion of the facility
that are suspect and abate if applicable. Unsafe
portions of the facility (portions that can not be
safely inspected) should be carefully pulled down while
applying adequate amounts of water to control ar.y
visible emissions.
• Assume the entire facility or the portion that was not
thoroughly inspected to be asbestos and properly handle
and dispose of all the demolition debris as asbestos-
containing waste material.
Any portion of a facility that can be safely entered
should be thoroughly inspected. A thorough inspection
includes identifying all asbestos containing materials
present including Category I and II nonfriable ACM and the
quantities to be affected, the nature of the demolition and
the steps that will be taken to control any release of
fibers
EPA requires that inspectors in the regulated community
attend and pass the 3-day Building Inspectors Course under 40
CFR Part 763, the revised Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan
(MAP) as mandated by section 15(a)(3) of the Asbestos School
Hazard Abatement Reauthorization Act (ASHARA).
C. Material Identification and Analysis
Before demolition may begin, all suspect ACM (all
material that can be safely examined) must be identified,
including Category I and II nonfriable material. Once all
suspect RACM is identified, and it is determined that a
facility contains greater than the threshold amount (260
linear feet, 160 square feet or 35 cubic feet), the
material(s) should be assumed to be RACM, or sampled (in the
safe portion of the facility) and analyzed to verify that
RACM is or is not present.
Category I nonfriable material that has not been or will
not be subjected to sanding, cutting or abrading and will not
become friable during demolition and subsequent clean-up is
not sublet to the handling requirements of the asbestos
NESHAP
Category II nonfriable material that is not friable and
has not or will not become friable (crumbled, pulverized, or
reduced to powder) during demolition and subsequent clean-up
is not subject to the handling requirements of the asbestos
NESHAP.
13
-------
If either the suspect amount of asbestos is below the
threshold amount or the asbestos content of the
representative sample(s) contains less than one percent, only
the notice requirements listed at 40 CFR 61.145(a)(3) apply.
D. Removal of RACM Prior to Demolition
RACM that exists in quantities above the threshold
amount (that can be safely removed) must be removed prior to
demolition. RACM may include Category I nonfriable material
that is friable or is likely to be subjected to sanding,
grinding, cutting, or abrading during demolition. Most
normal demolition techniques will not require the removal of
Category I nonfriable ACM that is not in poor condition and
is not friable prior to the demolition. However, waste
consolidation methods both at the demolition site and at the
disposal site may render these materials friable. RACM may
also include Category II nonfriable material that has a high
probability of becoming crumbled, pulverized or reduced to
powder by the forces expected to act on the material during
demolition. Most if not all Category II nonfriable ACM is
expected to become RACM during demolition. EPA recommends
that all Category II nonfriable ACM be removed prior to
demolition to avoid any furthe equirements of the asbestos
NESHAP.
S . Evaluation of Unique Methods for Removing RACM
When RACM is difficult or "impossible" to remove,
innovative methods of removal should be evaluated and used if
applicable. These unique methods might include the use of
equipment such as cranes or a specially adapted grappling
bucket (Bainbridge Case Study, see appendix A). If unique
methods have not been considered by the contractor, the
demolition should not continue while the nACM remains in
place until unique methods have been considered and
determined to be infeasible.
When the asbestos cannot be safely removed, the asbestos-
containing material must be kept wet and the entire asbestos
containtaarted waste pile (or the portion that is contaminated)
must be"'disposed of as asbestos-containing waste material in
accordance with 40 CFR 61.150.
14
-------
P. Post Demolition Inspection for RACM Contaminated
Debris
Demolition debris from a facility that is demolished
without an inspection or demolished with RACM in place must
be inspected. All ACM material must be identified and
treated properly.
Debris that is inspected and found to contain any amount
of RACM is assumed to be entirely contaminated unless the
owner/operator of the facility can demonstrate through
building and/or maintenance records that the facility either
contains no asbestos or that the quantities are less than che
threshold amount or the contaminated debris can be
sufficiently isolated from the majority of the demolition
debris.
G. Isolating RACM Contaminated Debris
Sometimes RACM is identified in only one room of a
facility or a wing of a facility. Contaminated debris that
can-be isolated should be disposed of in accordance with
section 61.150 of the asbestos NESHAP while the remainder of
the debris (non-contaminated rtebr-c' can be disposed of as
normal "clean" demolition debris. This determination should
be based on a visual inspection and sampling and analysis of
the debris. If any asbestos contamination is found in an
area (even below one percent), the waste must be disposed of
in accordance with section 61.150, unless the owner/operator
of the affected facility can demonstrate that the intact
material contained less than one percent.
H. Site Assessment
Any facility that undergoes demolition -without removing
all of the RACM should undergo a site assessment to determine
if the immediate area surrounding the facility has been
contaminated with asbestos.
A site assessment should include but is not limited to a
visual-jejjraluation and a comprehensive soil sampling scheme to
determine compliance with the asbestos NESHAP. The degree of
testing should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
15
-------
I . Decontamination of Area Surrounding
Demolition Site
If a site assessment detects contamination of soil
surrounding a demolition site, the site must be cleaned up to
background levels of asbestos contamination. Alternatively,
the site may be operated in accordance with 40 CFR 61.154
(Standard for active waste disposal sites) and closed in
accordance with 40 CFR 61.151 (Standard for inactive waste
disposal sites for asbestos mills and manufacturing and
fabricating operations). However, according to 40 CFR 61.05,
the establishment of an active waste site requires prior
approval from EPA or the delegated State program. To clean
up the site to background levels, it will probably be
necessary to remove all the asbestos contaminated soil. The
contaminated soil should be treated and disposed of as
asbestos-containing waste material.
VIX. DEMOLITION OF A FACILITY BY INTENTIONAL BURNING
[Refer to Flow Chart 1]
A." Inspection of Facility
In order for a facility to be demolished by burning,
section 61.145 requires a thorough inspection of the affected
facility prior to demolition.
EPA requires inspectors in the regulated community to
attend and pass the 3-day Building Inspectors Course under 40
CFR Part 7 63, the revised Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan
(MAP) as mandated by section 15(a)(3) of the Asbestos School
Hazard Abatement Reauthorization Act (ASHARA).
B . Material Identification and Analysis
Before intentionally burning a facility, all suspect ACM
must be identified including all Category I and II nonfriable
material.
C . Removal of RACM Prior to Demolition
The asbestos NESHAP requires the removal of all ACM if a
facility will be demolished by intentional burning. This
requirement includes the removal of all Category I and II
nonfriable ACM which for the purposes of intentional burning
shall always be considered RACM (section 61.145(c)).
16
-------
Appendix A.
CASE STUDY
The Bainbrldge Naval Training Center
Background
The Bainbridge Naval Training Center (BNTC) near Port
Deposit, Maryland, is a federal facility owned by the U.S. Navy
occupying approximately 1,300 acres in a residential and rural
area in northeast Maryland.
The BNTC was an active Navy facility from the early 1940s
until 1976. On November 3, 1986, the U.S. Congress authorized the
Secretary of the Navy to dispose of the Bainbridge facility by
sale to private parties or transfer to other government agencies.
Over 700 abandoned buildings and structures in various stages of
dilapidation existed on the site. Congress specified that before
any sale, the Secretary of the Navy was required to "restore such
property to a -condition that meets all applicable Federal and
State of Maryland environmental Drotection regulations" Public Law
99-956.
Site Description
The buildings at the BNTC were mainly one to three story wood
frame structures. A few of the buildings were masonry and several
of the wood frame structures had concrete grade slabs. Some of
the buildings contained friable asbestos in the form of boiler
wrap and pipe lagging, while most buildings had asbestos-cement
transite board (Category II non-friable ACM) on the exterior, the
interior, or in both areas. Because of the age of the buildings,
the lack of maintenance, exposure to the elements, and vandalism,
the buildings at BNTC were in various stages of dilapidation.
Some of the structures had collapsed entirely, while nearly all
the other structures to be demolished had sustained some
structural damage making thorough inspections difficult and in
some cases impossible.
Naw's Preliminary Agreement with the State of Maryland
The Navy decided to turn the BNTC site over to the State of
Maryland. Irtfdoing so, the Navy agreed as mandated by Congress to
"restore the-'"property to a condition that meets all applicable
Federal and State of Maryland environmental protection
regulations." The restoration activities included demolition and
clean-up at the BNTC site. The Navy contracted a private
demolition company to demolish and clean-up the BNTC site. Before
EPA's involvement, most buildings that were standing at the BNTC
had only friable asbestos insulation removed prior to demolition.
A-l
-------
Recrulatorv Inspections
During several inspections of the BNTC site in 1991, EPA
inspectors observed that the demolition activities were being
conducted in violation of the notification, demolition, emission
control, and disposal requirements of the asbestos NESHAP. The
transite material found on the exterior and interior of most
buildings was initially thought by the State of Maryland and the
Navy to be exempt from the requirements of the asbestos NESHAP.
The intent of EPA to regulate the demolition of buildings
containing transite material (asbestos-cement material) is
expressed in the preamble to the final promulgation of the
asbestos NESHAP published November 20, 1990, 55 FR 48408. EPA's
applicability determination of January 8, 1992, was made to
further clarify what types of activities are likely to cause
Category II nonfriable ACM to become RACM.
The Navy then conducted an inspection of the BNTC and
concluded that all but four of the buildings were structurally
unsound. The buildings were inspected by the Navy and categorized
into four classes:
.• Remedial Class 1: a building requiring removal of all
friable asbestos (primarily insulation materials) but
which will not be demolis"*
Remedial Class 2: a building requiring pre-demolition
"removal of friable asbestos from parts of the structure
that can be safely entered."
Remedial Class 3: a building that has collapsed or is
structurally unsound in its present condition and is to
be demolished "as is," with the debris treated as
asbestos-containing waste material.
Remedial Class 4: a building requiring no action.
The Navy Categorized most of the buildings as remedial
Class 3, therefore buildings were demolished "as is," with no
abatement prior to demolition and the debris was treated as
asbestos containing material.
Application -~gf Demolition Decision Tree to the BNTC
The Demolition Decision Tree is written in a generic format
so that it can be applied to various demolition scenarios. The
BNTC site because of the number and variety of buildings is a good
example of how the application of the Decision Tree may help
inspectors decide which of the NESHAP regulatory requirements are
applicable to a given demolition.
A-2
-------
In applying the decision tree to the ENTC site (beginning
with Flow Chart 1), the inspector should first determine whether
the demolition is an ordered demolition. If the demolition is not
an ordered demolition, the facility is not exempt from any of the
requirements of the asbestos NESHAP. When demolitions are
"ordered," the inspector should determine if the order was made by
an appropriate governmental agency. Although EPA does not have
any criteria for such determinations, they should be made at the
request of the regulating agency by registered engineers or
building inspectors who are trained (qualified) to make such
decisions. Ordered demolitions typically come from a governmental
agency that regulates building safety. The fact that a faci lity
is off limits or has been declared unusable, is insufficient
grounds for allowing certain exemptions (section 61.145(a)(3)) to
the requirements of the asbestos NESHAP. Prior to the start of
demolition at the BNTC site, the Navy conducted their own survey
and concluded that the vast majority of the buildings were
structurally unsound. It should be obvious from Flow Chart 1,
that the initial survey which was conducted by the Navy was
inappropriate.-- The appropriate nrocedure in this situation would
have been for the State of Maryland, EPA, or an independent
contractor (agreed to by the regulatory agency and the Navy) to
conduct .a comprehensive survey of the affected facilities.
Structurally Unsound Facilities ("1 w Chart 2)
Facilities declared structurally unsound and in danger of
imminent collapse would move from Flow Chart 1 to Flow Chart 2.
The buildings declared structurally unsound at the BNTC site were
categorized as Remedial Class 3 buildings by the Navy.
Regulatory inspectors should then determine if it is possible
for the owner/operator to inspect a facility or the portion that
is safe for the presence of asbestos. If facilities or safe
portions of facilities contain suspect RACM in amounts greater
than the threshold amount, representative samples should be
sampled and analyzed for asbestos content. If tne samples contain
more than one percent asbestos, inspectors should investigate the
possibilities of removing all the RACM or RACM from the safe
portions (Remedial Class 2) of the facility. Whenever possible,
all RACM should be removed prior to demolition. When RACM is
identified in facilities that have been declared unsafe,
inspectors sh^tld evaluate unique methods for removing the RACM.
Unique methods may include the demolition of the portion deemed
unsafe or temporarily shoring up the unsafe portion of the
structure thereby creating a safe working environment allowing for
proper inspection and abatement as applicable. Other unique
methods might include the use of specially adapted demolition
equipment. The demolition contractor at the BNTC site attempted
to remove the transite siding with a modified grappling bucket.
This method proved ineffective, forcing the demolition contra*, ^.or
A-3
-------
to remove as much of the transite material as deemed feasible by
hand. If unique methods have not been considered by the
contractor, the demolition should not continue while the RACM
remains in place until unique methods have been considered and
determined to be infeasible.
The lower portion of Flow Chart 2 should make it clear to an
inspector that demolition debris from facilities not thoroughly
inspected or debris from facilities demolished with RACM in place,
must be thoroughly inspected. Debris containing any amount of
asbestos (even below one percent) should be treated and disposed
of as RACM in accordance with section 61.150. Non-contaminated
material that can be isolated from asbestos contaminated waste may
be disposed of as "clean" demolition debris in any landfill that
normally accepts demolition material. Because the demolition
techniques used at the BNTC site caused most if not all transite
material (Category II nonfriable) to become RACM, the demolition
debris was assumed to be entirely asbestos contaminated and was
disposed of as RACM in accordance with the NESHAP. EPA inspectors
observed that the demolition activities were being performed in
violation of the emissions control requirements of the asbestos
NESHAP (section 61.145(c)). The observed visible emissions at the
BNTC site and the data obtained through air monitoring was enough
evidence to expect some degree of contamination to the environment
in and around the demolition sites. To fu1fi11 its obligation to
"restore such property to a condition that meets all applicable
Federal and State of Maryland environmental protection
regulations," the Navy was required to submit a comprehensive soil
sampling protocol for determining possible site contamination
levels at the BNTC site. The results of the soil sampling
revealed contamination at those sites demolished with transite
material in place. As a result of the contamination, the soil was
removed and disposed of as asbestos containing waste material.
Lessons Learned
The BNTC case is a good example of how the application of the
demolition decision tree would have prevented a lot of confusion as
to which of the regulatory requirements were applicable to the
demolition activities. Specifically, it could have made clear
EPA's intent on regulating the demolition of buildings containing
transite material.
A-4
-------
Appendix B.
CASE STUDY
Jewel Lake Condominium
Anchorage, Alaska
Background
The Jewel Lake Condominium facility was a 20 unit, three-
story structure that suffered extensive fire damage. The third
floor and the main stairway were severely burned. Smoke and water
damage, were prevalent throughout the remainder of the building.
It was declared a public nuisance and hazard by both the Alaska
Department of Occupational Health and Safety (ADOHS) and the
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) Public Works Department, Division
of Building Safety. It was condemned {ordered) by the MOA and
declared unsafe due to the danger of imminent collapse.
A survey of the facility found extensive use of asbestos
containing materials within the surviving portions of the
building. The building contained 28 fire doors (containing
Amosite) and 12,000 square feet of asbestos containing sprayed-on
material•(acoustical plaster).
The original demolition plan called for a complete knock-down
of the structure. The plan also called for a backhoe to break up
the debris before disposing of the entire debris pile as asbestos
contaminated waste.
The building was located in a densely populated neighborhood
and the work was to be conducted at temperatures below freezing
which would make the application of adequate amounts of water
impractical.
Application of Demolition Decision Tree
In applying the decision tree to the Jewel Lake Condominium
site, an inspector should first confirm that the demolition was
ordered by a qualified governmental agency. The Jewel Lake site
was "ordered" by the ADOHS and the MOA. Both the ADOHS and the
MOA conform with the definition of "qualified governmental
agency." The inspector should then determine if the order was
made because_-)sfee facility is structurally unsound and in danger of
imminent col-lapse. The Jewel Lake facility suffered extensive
fire damage, causing the structure to become structurally unsound
and in danger of imminent collapse as determined by a construction
engineer working for the MOA. In addressing structurally unsound
facilities in the Decision Tree move from Flow Chart 1 to Flow
Chart 2.
A thorough inspection of the facility confirmed the presence
of suspect asbestos containing materials in quantities above the
B-l
-------
threshold amount. Subsequent analyses of the suspect materials
confirmed the presence of asbestos. Using the middle section of
Flow Chart 2 (unique methods), the inspector should determine if
the utilization of unique methods will facilitate the removal of
RACK before demolition. The "unique methods" used at the Jewel
Lake site, included the knock-down and removal of only the damaged
portion (unsafe portion) of the facility. This portion was
removed with adequate amounts of water and disposed of entirely as
asbestos contaminated material. The remaining intact portion of
the facility was demolished and disposed of as normal debris after
abatement of all the remaining RACM.
Lessons Learned
The application of the demolition decision tree to the Jewel
Lake site would have clearly defined which portions of the
asbestos NESHAP are applicable. The apparent confusion among the
regulated and regulatory communities caused a five month delay in
the demolition of the Jewel Lake facility. The Demolition
Decision Tree guidance clearly states that even in cases where a
facility is declared unsafe, all options of removing RACM should
be considered. In the Jewel Lake case, the upper floor (the
burned, o.ut portion) was removed, thereby creating a safe working
environment. This allowed for the proper abatement of all the
remaining RACM prior to the demolit. Removing the damaged
portion of the Jewel Lake facility avoided the near certain
contamination to the surrounding neighborhood that would have
occurred considering the proposed work plan.
B-2
------- |