Control Number: A070004 Category: Asbestos EPA Office: CAMPD Date: 08/31/2006 Title: Recycling Pipelines Recipient: Cambio, Kaaren Author: Alushin, Michael Comments: Subparts: Part 61 M Asbestos References: 61.141 61.145 Abstract: Q1: Are pipelines at the South West Pipe Services facility in Texas subject to 40 CFR part 61, subpart M? A1: Yes. EPA finds that the pipeline is considered a facility component being renovated, and is subject to the asbestos NESHAP. Q2: If the pipeline renovation, containing more than one percent asbestos and more than 260 linear feet, is made friable (i.e., crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder) subjecting the project to the regulations under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, who is considered the owner/operator? A2: EPA finds that the owner/operator can be the owner of the pipeline, the contractor removing the pipe from the ground, and the company that purchases the pipe to recycle the steel pipe, based on the definition of owner or operator in the Asbestos NESHAP. Therefore, all entities involved in a pipeline renovation operation, which is subject to the requirements of the asbestos NESHAP, would have to comply with the asbestos NESHAP standards. Q3: If the pipeline renovation is not subject to the regulations under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, and the pipe is sold to a third party, which by its work practice causes the pipe to become friable, is the pipe now regulated under the asbestos NESHAP? A3: Yes. EPA finds that the asbestos-impregnated tar or asbestos paper coating use on pipelines is considered Category II asbestos-containing material. When it was removed as nonregulated, there is the expectation the coating would remain nonfriable and disposed in an approved landfill. Selling the pipe to a third party, who then causes the coating to become friable, defeats the purpose of the rule. Once the third party causes 260 linear feet of pipe coating to become friable the job is now regulated and all applicable regulations apply under the asbestos NESHAP. Q4: Are there guidelines for recycling of old pipelines under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M? A4: No. EPA explains that there are no guidelines for recycling. However, the recycling operation may be subject to the asbestos NESHAP regulations if it causes the pipeline to become friable. Letter: Ms. Kaaren Cambio SouthWest Pipe Services, Inc. 1700 Newman Avenue P.O. Box 2187 Alvin, TX 77512-2187 Dear Ms. Cambio: I am responding to your letter of March 16, 2006 in which you identify several issues regarding coated pipelines, the recycling of such pipelines, and the asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), 40 C.F.R. Part 61, subpart M. Are the pipelines subject to the asbestos NESHAP? Under the asbestos NESHAP, pipelines are considered a facility component of the oil refinery, natural gas processing plant or other commercial, industrial or institutional operation with which they are associated. Under 40 C.F.R. 61.141, facility component means any part of a facility, including equipment. When a pipeline is removed from the ground, it is considered a renovation operation. A renovation means "altering a facility or one or more facility components in any way, including the stripping or removal of regulated asbestos-containing material (RACM) from a facility component." [40 C.F.R. 61.141]. Nonetheless, the pipes must contain at least 260 linear feet of RACM that will be stripped, removed, dislodged, cut, drilled, or similarly disturbed for the asbestos NESHAP regulations to apply. [40 C.F.R. 61.145(a)(4)(i)]. One of the materials defined in the asbestos NESHAP regulations as RACM is "Category II nonfriable asbestos-containing material (ACM) that has a high probability of becoming or has become crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by the forces expected to act on the material in the course of the . . . renovation operations." [40 C.F.R. 61.141]. Category II nonfriable ACM is defined as "any material, excluding Category I nonfriable ACM, containing more than 1 percent asbestos . . . ." Id. Category I nonfriable ACM specifically means "asbestos-containing packings, gaskets, resilient floor covering, and asphalt roofing products containing more than 1 percent asbestos," none of which apply here. Id. Based on these regulatory provisions, if the pipes at issue are wrapped either in asbestos-impregnated tar or asbestos paper, and the tar or paper contains greater than 1% asbestos, then the tar or paper are considered Category II asbestos-containing material (ACM). Furthermore, EPA believes that when the pipes are removed during a renovation operation, there is a high probability that the asbestos-impregnated tar or asbestos paper will become friable (i.e., crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder). Accordingly, where these conditions exist, the pipeline renovation operation is subject to the asbestos NESHAP renovation regulations. See 40 C.F.R. 61.145. As an example, assume a pipeline owner will renovate one mile of pipeline. The pipeline will be cut into 20 foot sections to allow the pipe to be removed safely from the ground and readied for transport. One mile of pipe cut into 20 foot sections yields 264 sections of pipe. To cut those pipes, six inches of tar/paper on each side of the cut will be made friable to allow the cutting device access to the pipe. Therefore, one foot of tar/paper per section of cut pipe will be crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder. With 264 sections of cut pipe yielding one foot of damage each, the result is an exceedance of the asbestos NESHAP's regulatory threshold of 260 linear feet on pipes for renovations. This example excludes other damage to the tar/paper that could occur during the renovation operation as a result of using heavy machinery to excavate the pipe. For instance, as the heavy machinery removes the surrounding soil, the equipment can damage the tar/paper covering, adding additional friable material to the overall linear footage. If the pipeline renovation is subject to the asbestos NESHAP, the "owner/operator" of the renovation operation is responsible for handling, transporting, and disposing of the RACM in accordance with the asbestos NESHAP. The asbestos NESHAP defines owner or operator of a demolition or renovation activity to mean: any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises the facility being demolished or renovated or any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises the demolition or renovation operation, or both. [40 C.F.R 61.141]. In your situation, as I understand it, the company that is cutting the pipes and removing them from the ground is an owner/operator of the pipeline renovation operation. (Again, this assumes that the pipeline renovation operation is subject to the requirements of the asbestos NESHAP, as discussed more fully above). As such, that company is responsible for complying with all applicable asbestos NESHAP requirements governing the handling, transportation, and disposal of the RACM. Should that owner/operator choose to sell or auction the pipe to a third party, they still are liable under the asbestos NEHSAP for ensuring that the asbestos-containing waste material is disposed of in accordance with the asbestos NESHAP's requirements. It is EPA's interpretation of 40 C.F.R. 61.145(b)(4) that the original owner/operator of the renovation operation that submits the renovation notification is required to include in the original or amended notification the name(s) and address(es) of the third party companies that acquired the renovated pipe. As contemplated by the definition of "owner or operator of a demolition or renovation activity," which is quoted in full above, there can be more than one owner/operator in connection with any given renovation operation. In the case of a pipeline renovation operation that already is subject to the asbestos NESHAP, such as the example provided above, if the "original" owner/operator sells or auctions the cut pipe to a company, such as SouthWest Pipe Services (SouthWest), who will in turn strip the tar or paper off the cut pipe sections, then that entity also becomes liable under the asbestos NESHAP as an owner/operator. This is because (1) the definition of renovation includes "the stripping or removal of RACM from a facility component" [40 CFR 61.141], which is precisely what SouthWest would be doing, and (2) the definition of owner/operator includes "any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises the demolition or renovation operation" [40 C.F.R. 61.141], which covers SouthWest under the circumstances laid out in this letter because SouthWest would be operating, controlling, and/or supervising that aspect of the renovation operation in which they are engaged. Once such an entity is an owner/operator in connection with a pipeline renovation project that is subject to the asbestos NESHAP, then that entity, along with the "original" owner/operator, also is responsible for complying with all applicable asbestos NESHAP requirements governing the handling, transportation, and disposal of the RACM. If, however, the asbestos NESHAP is not triggered by the initial actions of the owner/operator cutting the pipe into sections and removing those sections from the ground (for instance, the tar or wrap, as Category II nonfriable ACM, was kept in a nonfriable state during the renovation operation), then an entity such as SouthWest is not entering into a situation where the sections of pipe they might be obtaining already are covered by the asbestos NESHAP provisions. However, as I hope is clear above, the recycling operation that you describe in your March 16, 2006 letter nonetheless could trigger the asbestos NESHAP requirements to the extent such activities, which again appear to implicate the asbestos NESHAP's definitions of renovation and owner/operator, result in generating RACM that exceeds the asbestos NESHAP's regulatory threshold for pipe. At this time, however, EPA does not have enough information to determine whether the recycling process you describe would trigger the asbestos NESHAP provisions in this way. Following are answers to your remaining questions and observations: Question #1: The recycling operation reclaims pipe, are there guidelines under the asbestos NESHAP for a recycling operation? There are no guidelines that apply to the type of recycling you described. However, as noted above, the asbestos NESHAP regulations themselves may apply to such activities. Question #2: The recycling process as described does not cause the tar/paper removal to be made friable, so is the waste material considered not to be regulated asbestos-containing material? If the pipe came from an asbestos NESHAP regulated renovation operation, the pipe is already regulated. In light of this, and as already pointed out above, the activities you propose appear to make you an owner/operator and, therefore, along with the "original" owner/operator, fully responsible for complying with all applicable asbestos NESHAP requirements governing the handling, transportation, and disposal of the RACM. If, however, the pipe does not come from an asbestos NESHAP regulated renovation operation, but your process in fact causes the tar or paper to become pulverized, crumbled or reduced to powder, your process will have caused Category II non-friable material to become friable. This too would subject your operations to all the applicable asbestos NESHAP requirements, including those relating to notification, air emissions, handling, transportation, and disposal. At this time, however, EPA does not have enough information about your recycling process to determine whether it will or will not cause the tar or paper to become friable. Question #3: The Company proposes to handle disposal issues depending upon how it acquires the pipe. Are these correct assumptions? a) SouthWest purchases the pipe, retrieves and loads the pipe as company operations. SouthWest is the owner. b) SouthWest purchases the pipe but accepts it when loaded on their trucks. SouthWest becomes the owner once the trucks are loaded. c) SouthWest cleans the pipe for the owner/operator as a service. Pipe ownership remains with the owner/operator. If SouthWest acquires renovated pipe that is subject to the asbestos NESHAP regulations, SouthWest will be considered an owner/operator and must comply with the renovation regulations of the asbestos NESHAP. If SouthWest obtains non-regulated pipe and during the recycling process and will cause or causes the tar or paper to become friable, then SouthWest is subject to the renovation requirements of the asbestos NESHAP. Question #4: Is leaving the pipe in the ground acceptable? If the pipe simply is left in the ground (i.e., abandoned in place), the requirements of the asbestos NESHAP are not triggered and, therefore, do not apply. However, in the future, should a company cause the ACM pipe to become friable during an excavation, that operation and that company could be subject to the asbestos NESHAP regulations. Question #5: What is the process for having EPA recommend our solution for recycling old pipelines? Generally, the EPA does not endorse a specific process. Instead, it encourages companies to develop solutions to address environmental and regulatory needs. As you've described your process, it could be one solution that addresses the regulatory requirements of managing regulated asbestos-containing material under the asbestos NESHAP. However, EPA would need additional information before deciding whether that is the case. Finally, in the course of preparing this response, it was brought to my attention that another potentially hazardous material could impact your operations. Specifically, I am informed that some pipe coatings contain Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in concentrations greater than 50 ppm. If this is the case, EPA's PCB regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 61 do apply. The PCB program requires materials with greater than 50 ppm PCBs to be managed and disposed of in a responsible manner. For more information about the PCB program, please visit www.epa.gov/pcb. The Office of Civil Enforcement, the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and the Office of General Counsel have reviewed this determination. Very truly yours, Michael S. Alushin Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division Office of Compliance cc: Charlie Garlow, OCE Susan Fairchild, OAQPS Chris Kaczmarek, OGC Tom Simons, OPPTS Control Number: A060006 Category: Asbestos EPA Office: Region 8 Date: 01/31/2006 Title: Meaning of Preclude Access and Dropping Recipient: Eldon Romney Author: Hestmark, Martin Comments: Subparts: Part 61 M Asbestos References: 61.145 Abstract: Q: Could EPA clarify the meaning of the words "preclude access" and "dropping" in 40 CFR 61.145(c)(1) and 61.145(c)(6) of the asbestos NESHAP, subpart M? A: EPA finds that the use of the term "preclude access" in 40 CFR 61.145(c)(1) of the asbestos NESHAP is intended to ensure that all Regulated Asbestos Containing Material (RACM) expected to be disturbed during the demolition or renovation is removed from the facility before any action is taken that could prevent safe removal of the RACM during a later phase of the project. The use of the term "dropping" is intended to prevent RACM from falling (instead of being "placed") on the floor and to ensure that RACM is moved in a careful way to minimize asbestos fiber release. Letter: UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 8 999 18TH STREET- SUITE 300 DENVER, CO 80202-2466 Phone 800-227-8917 http://www.epa.gov/region08 Ref: 8ENF-AT Mr. Eldon Romney, President R & R Environmental, Inc. 47 West 9000 South, Suite 2 Sandy, Utah 84070 Dear Mr. Romney, This letter responds to your letter dated July 29, 2005, in which you ask EPA to explain the intent of the words "preclude access" and "dropping" in the Clean Air Act (CAA) asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations. You also ask EPA several specific questions regarding handling of asbestos material and performing asbestos abatement with regard to the asbestos NESHAP regulations. In this paragraph, we will explain the intent of the words "preclude access". 40 CFR Sec. 61.145 (c) (1) states "Remove all RACM from a facility being demolished or renovated before any activity begins that would break up, dislodge, or similarly disturb the material or preclude access to the material for subsequent removal." The purpose of the "preclude access" language is to make sure that all regulated asbestos-containing material (RACM) expected to be disturbed during the demolition/renovation could be removed from the facility. The concern is that, in a phased demolition or renovation project for instance, demolition or renovation debris material from an early phase could prevent removal of RACM in a later phase, and make it impossible to remove the RACM safely. In the following paragraphs, we will list each of your specific questions regarding the words "preclude access", with our answer following each question. What constitutes preclusion of access? In a phased demolition or renovation project for instance, demolition/renovation debris from an earlier phase of the demolition/renovation project which prevents safe removal of RACM that is expected to be disturbed constitutes preclusion of access. Can a locked door, an enclosure, encapsulation, metal or plastic sheeting, painting, etc., preclude access? If any these items are part of a demolition/renovation activity and cannot be removed to allow subsequent access to RACM that must be removed in accordance with the asbestos NESHAP, then they preclude access. What type of covering may be placed over RACM without precluding access? During normal operation and maintenance (O & M) activities, any covering which can be removed for later RACM removal may be placed over RACM. During any demolition or renovation activity, RACM expected to be disturbed must be in a state where it can be safely removed. Obviously, RACM must be protected from abuse, but at which point does restriction of access become preclusion? Restriction of access to RACM during normal O & M activities may be a prudent choice for a building owner. However, during a demolition or renovation, RACM expected to be disturbed must be in a state where it can be safely removed. In this paragraph, we will explain the intent of the word "dropping". 40 CFR Sec. 61.145(c)(6) states "For all RACM, including material that has been removed or stripped: (i) Adequately wet the material and ensure that it remains wet until collected and contained or treated in preparation for disposal in accordance with section 61.150; and (ii) Carefully lower the material to the ground and floor, not dropping, throwing, sliding or otherwise damaging or disturbing the material." EPA's intent in using the word "dropping" was to prevent RACM from falling on the floor and to ensure that RACM was moved in a careful manner to minimize asbestos fiber release. Stated another way, the intent of this provision is to ensure that all removed or stripped RACM is carefully "placed" on the ground in order to minimize asbestos fiber release. In the following paragraphs, we will list each of your specific questions regarding the word "dropping", with our answer following each question. How far may RACM fall before there is a violation of the "no dropping" provision? EPA does not specify a distance that RACM may fall without violating Sec. 61.145(c)(6)(ii). Removal of textured ceiling material (TCM) necessarily demands that the TCM "drop" after removal due to gravity; what procedures and provisions will ensure compliance with the intent of the rule? EPA does not spell out each action that owners/operators must take throughout regulated projects in order to be in compliance with the asbestos NESHAP regulations. The asbestos NESHAP regulations specify work practices to be followed during regulated projects and allow the owners/operators to choose the best means of complying with the regulations. If attempts are made to catch the TCM prior to it falling to the ground, have we complied substantially with the rule? Again, EPA requires that RACM not be dropped during a regulated demolition/renovation project and it is up to the owner/operator to ensure that this work practice standard is met. While catching the TCM prior to it falling to the ground may meet this requirement, EPA cannot definitively state that this approach will ensure that you are complying with the asbestos NESHAP regulations in all instances. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify the asbestos NESHAP regulations. This determination has been coordinated with EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. If you have further questions concerning this letter, please contact Brenda South at 303-312-7076. Sincerely, Martin Hestmark, Director Technical Enforcement Program cc: Robert Ford, UDEQ Control Number: A060005 Category: Asbestos EPA Office: Region 8 Date: 12/05/2005 Title: Regulated Asbestos Containing Material Recipient: Wangler, Kenneth Author: Hestmark, Martin Comments: Subparts: Part 61 M Asbestos References: 61.145 Abstract: Q: Does 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, require that all asbestos-containing materials be removed before the demolition of a facility? A: No. The asbestos NESHAP does not require all asbestos-containing materials to be removed before demolition. However, all Regulated Asbestos Containing Material (RACM) must be removed from a facility being demolished or renovated before any activity begins that would break up, dislodge, or similarly disturb the material or preclude access to the material for subsequent removal. Letter: UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 8 999 18TH STREET- SUITE 300 DENVER, CO 80202-2466 Phone 800-227-8917 http://www.epa.gov/region08 Ref: 8ENF-AT Mr. Kenneth Wangler, Manager Asbestos Control Program Division of Air Quality North Dakota Department of Health P. O. Box 5520 Bismarck, ND 58506-5520 Dear Mr. Wangler, This letter follows up on our August 30, 2004 determination written in response to your letter dated May 26, 2004, in which you requested clarification of the Clean Air Act asbestos National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). Our determination is enclosed. In summary, you asked if moving a facility constituted a demolition. We responded that moving a facility did constitute a demolition. You also asked three additional questions. We would now like to modify our answer to question 2, in order to be consistent with other Regions. Question 2 asked whether or not all asbestos-containing material must be removed before demolition. We answered that "non-friable asbestos-containing material which will remain non-friable during the demolition and/or the move process need not be removed. However, all friable asbestos-containing material and all asbestos-containing material that will become friable during the demolition and/or the move process must be removed before the demolition." We now modify our position to state "all Regulated Asbestos Containing Material (RACM) must be removed from a facility being demolished or renovated before any activity begins that would break up, dislodge, or similarly disturb the material or preclude access to the material for subsequent removal." This determination has been coordinated with EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these matters and clarify the asbestos NESHAP requirements. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Brenda South, of my staff, at 303-312-7076. Sincerely, Martin Hestmark, Director Technical Enforcement Program Printed on Recycled Paper Control Number: A040002 Category: Asbestos Region: CAMPD Date: 02/11/2004 Title: Application of Solvent to Floor Mastic Recipient: Peter Connell Author: Michael Alushin Comments: See related determination filed as ADI Control No. A040001. See also ADI Control No. C93. Subparts: Part 61 M Asbestos References: 61.141 61.145 Abstract: Q: Notwithstanding a prior determination, is the use of solvent and a mechanical buffer to remove asbestos-containing floor mastic subject to the Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), subpart M, under the specific circumstances defined in the request for determination? A: Yes, because the application of solvent followed by the buffer is considered abrading the floor mastic. As defined in 40 CFR section 61.141, regulated asbestos-containing material can be a Category I non-friable asbestos-containing material that will be or has been subjected to sanding, grinding, cutting, or abrading. Floor mastic, a Category I material, is potentially subject if it is sanded, ground, cut or abraded. While the use of solvent softens the floor mastic, the buffer and pad abrade the floor mastic, making this subject to the Asbestos NESHAP. Letter: Mr. Peter F. Connell MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Incorporated 10265 Rockingham Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95827 Dear Mr. Connell: I am responding to your December 23, 2003 letter and points raised in our telephone conversation of January 26, 2004, in which you expressed your opinion that my letter of December 12, 2003 was inaccurate in its assessment of the Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regarding the use of a mechanical buffer with an abrasive pad on asbestos-containing floor mastic saturated with solvent. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss your position and answer our questions. After a careful review, the Agency continues to maintain the use of the mechanical buffer with an abrasive pad on asbestos-containing solvent- saturated floor mastic is subject to the Asbestos NESHAP regulations. You disagreed with the following statement in my previous letter, "The energy from the mechanical buffer with abrasive pads will cause the floor mastic to become friable through abrading." You requested EPA to substantiate by field studies that a mechanical buffer with an abrasive pad applied to solvent-saturated asbestos-containing floor mastic would result in the asbestos becoming friable or to issue an applicability determination that says NESHAP does not regulate the process. Rather than focusing on whether the mastic becomes friable, the explanation in my previous letter should have been clearer as to why the regulations apply. The regulation at 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 61.141 states that Regulated Asbestos-Containing Material (RACM): means (a) Friable asbestos material, (b) Category I nonfriable ACM that has become friable, (c) Category I non-friable asbestos-containing material that will be or has been subjected to sanding, grinding, cutting, or abrading, or, (d) Category II nonfriable ACM that has a high-probability of becoming or has become crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by the forces expected to act on the material in the course of demolition or renovation operations regulated by this subpart. [Emphasis added] Paragraph (c) in the RACM definition applies directly to the work practice activity you described in your letter, abrading floor mastic, a Category I nonfriable asbestos-containing material. If your renovation or demolition project involves 160 square feet or more, you are subject to all the applicable Asbestos NESHAP requirements, including inspection, notification, emission controls, removal and disposal. Please note that the Agency received numerous comments on the applicability of "friable" and "nonfriable" to "asbestos-containing material" during rule development. The Agency responded in the September 1990 Background Information Document for the Asbestos NESHAP, on Page 7-8: . . . The EPA considers the deliberate sanding, grinding, or abrading of all nonfriable materials, including resilient floor covering, asphalt roofing material, packings, and gaskets to be equivalent to disturbing friable ACM and, therefore requires that these activities be controlled according to the NESHAP. . . At the time the Asbestos NESHAP was promulgated, EPA decided to treat deliberate abrading of all nonfriable asbestos-containing material as equivalent to disturbing friable asbestos-containing material, and included the activity in the definition of RACM. In our telephone conversation on January 26, 2004, you stated that the application of solvent to the floor mastic breaks down the mastic structure over time. Then, a mechanical buffer and pad are used on the solvent-saturated mastic creating a slurry. The slurry is picked up and placed into plastic bags and then into drums, readied for transport. There may be a second or third application of solvent and mechanical buffer to remove the remaining mastic. In support of your argument, you identified applicability determination C93 (April 9, 1991) in which the Agency stated that the application of solvent to floor mastic would not cause the floor mastic to be subject to the Asbestos NESHAP. While C93 does make this comment, it is quite specific in that the application of solvent "alone" would not cause the mastic to be crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder. Based on our discussion, the solvent alone is not sufficient to break down the mastic's structure into an asbestos-containing material that can be removed without an additional force, such as friction from the mechanical buffer. The use of the mechanical buffer introduces the means to abrade the floor mastic into the work practice. If the solvent can break down the mastic structure, other methods of removal could be used that do not require the application of friction to the material. For example, after pouring the solvent onto the mastic and waiting for an appropriate time to, a squeegee could be used to push the slurry material into piles and then picked up and placed into plastic bags. The use of wet/dry vacuums to pick up the solvent-saturated mastic after the solvent has broken down the mastic structure is another method that does not apply friction to the process. In either example, a second application of solvent could be applied to remove any remaining mastic without the use of a mechanical buffer. In summary, the use of a mechanical buffer with an abrasive pad on asbestos-containing, solvent-saturated floor mastic, 160 square feet or greater, is subject to the Asbestos NESHAP regulations, including inspection, notification, emission controls, removal and disposal. I appreciate the opportunity to address your concern about the applicability of the Asbestos NESHAP to asbestos-containing floor mastic removed by mechanical and chemical means. This letter has been reviewed by the Office of Regulatory Enforcement, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and the Office of General Counsel. Very truly yours, Michael S. Alushin, Director Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division Office of Compliance Enclosure cc: Duane James, Branch Chief, Air Enforcement Division, Region IX Robert Trotter, Region IX Charlie Garlow, Office of Regulatory Enforcement Susan Fairchild, Office of Air Quality Planning Standards Michael Horowitz, Office of General Counsel ====================================================================== Control Number: A040001 Category: Asbestos Region: Date: 12/12/2003 Title: Use of Solvent and Mechanical Buffer to Remove Floor Mastic Recipient: Peter Connell Author: Michael Alushin Comments: See related determination filed as ADI Control No. A040002. See also ADI Control Nos. C93, C108, an See related determination filed as ADI Control No. A040002. See also ADI Control Nos. C93, C108, and A960019. Subparts: Part 61 M Asbestos References: 61.141 61.145 Abstract: Q: Is the use of solvent and a mechanical buffer to remove asbestos-containing floor mastic subject to the Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, subpart M? A: Yes, because the application of solvent followed by the buffer is considered abrading the floor mastic. This situation is distinguishable from the facts in previous determinations cited in the request for a determination. Letter: Mr. Peter F. Connell MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 10265 Rockingham Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95827 Dear Mr. Connell: This regulatory interpretation is in response to your August 20, 2003 letter, where you expressed concern that a mechanical buffer and solvent to remove asbestos-containing floor mastic should not be subject to the asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). Specifically, you are questioning the letter dated May 5, 2003 from EPA Region IX to Ahmad Najjar, California Air Resources Board stating that the asbestos NESHAP applies when floor mastic is removed by a mechanical buffer and solvent. Floor mastic is considered Category I asbestos which is not subject to the asbestos NESHAP unless it is subject to sanding, grinding, cutting or abrading. In your letter, you indicate that you apply a solvent before using a mechanical buffer with abrasive pads to remove floor mastic which does not reduce the mastic to a powder but to a loose sludge that does not dry out readily. The energy from the mechanical buffer with abrasive pads will cause the floor mastic to become friable through abrading. If the solvent was not applied beforehand, some other liquid or wetting-agent would have to be used prior to or during the removal action to keep the friable mastic adequately wet, preventing visible emissions. The floor mastic being removed by a mechanical buffer and solvent is subject to the asbestos NESHAP. You identified previous determinations to support your position that your process does not cause floor mastic to be subject to the asbestos NESHAP. Determination C93 states that application of a solvent to mastic would not cause the mastic to be crumbled, or reduced to powder. That is correct. In that response, there was no mechanical force applied to the floor tile and mastic causing it to become crumbled or reduced to powder. In Determination C108, EPA responded that transite siding may or may not be subject to the asbestos NESHAP depending upon the removal process. EPA did not foresee the transite siding crumbling if the nails, screws and bolts were removed first and then the transite siding removed by hand. However, EPA went on to say, if the transite was removed by a wrecking ball, bulldozer or other heavy equipment, the transite would become subject to the asbestos NESHAP since it became crumbled through the use of mechanical force. In Determination A960019, there is a discussion of preamble language: "... most nonfriable material can be broken without releasing significant quantities of airborne asbestos fibers. It is only when the material is extensively damaged, i.e., crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder, that the potential for significant fiber release is greatly increased." The use of a mechanical buffer with abrasive pads will cause extensive damage to mastic, reducing it to a powder creating the potential for significant fiber release. It is the application of your solvent that does not create visible emissions. In regard to the use of rotary-blade equipment, Appendix A of subpart M, 40 CFR 61 applies specifically to asphalt shingles and removal methods applicable to that industry. If EPA applied the same criteria to floor mastic, the use of a mechanical buffer and abrasive pad does not slice the mastic but abrades it, causing the mastic to become friable and subject to the asbestos NESHAP. I appreciate the opportunity to address your concern about the applicability of the asbestos NESHAP to mastic removal by mechanical and chemical means. This determination has been reviewed by the Office of Regulatory Enforcement, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and the Office of General Counsel. Very truly yours, Michael S. Alushin Director Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division Attachment cc: Charlie Garlow, Office of Regulatory Enforcement Susan Fairchild, Office of Air Quality Planning Standards Michael Horowitz, Office of General Counsel Robert Trotter, Region IX ====================================================================== Control Number: A010002 Category: Asbestos Region: OECA Date: 04/30/2001 Title: State Authority Regarding Single-Family House with Asbestos Recipient: Eileen York Author: Michael Alushin Comments: See related determination at ADI Control Number A010001. Subparts: Part 61 M Asbestos References: 61.141 61.145 Abstract: Q: Why would a State and not the EPA have jurisdiction over asbestos in the case of a single-family home? A: Single-family homes are not considered "facilities" under the asbestos NESHAP, thus no Federal laws or regulations are implicated. In addition, the State in this case has an equivalent asbestos NESHAP program, to which EPA generally defers. Thus, the State takes the lead in implementing the asbestos NESHAP program in the State. The determination letter provides further guidance on technical issues. Letter: Ms. Eileen York 14809 Old Columbia Pike Burtonsville, Maryland 20866 Dear Ms. York: Everett Bishop of my staff prepared the response based upon publicly available documents and on consultations with other staff at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This letter is in response to your facsimile of March 20, 2001 in which you ask several questions regarding the applicability of the asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) to renovation in a residential home. We have responded in a question and answer format, first showing your question then providing our answer. Question #1. If vinyl asbestos floor tile containing 10-20% asbestos fibers and mastic containing 5-15% asbestos fibers were jackhammered without following the NESHAP or COMAR (Code of Maryland Administrative Regulations) regulations, what probability would exist for the asbestos fibers being released? Response #1. We will assume that the floor was jackhammered without using proper work practices, i.e., wetting the floor tile during the jackhammering operation. In this situation, we would expect that most probably asbestos fibers would be released. Question #2. Would this be toxic to breathe in? Response #2. The following information was taken from the booklet Asbestos in Your Home - How Can Asbestos Affect My Health? found at the EPA website: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/asbestos/ashome.htm. From studies of people who were exposed to asbestos in factories and shipyards, we know that breathing high levels of asbestos fibers can lead to an increased risk of lung cancer, most likely: Mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the chest and the abdominal cavity; and Asbestosis, in which the lungs become scarred with fibrous tissue. The risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma increases with the number of fibers inhaled. The risk of lung cancer from inhaling asbestos fibers is also greater if you smoke. People who get asbestosis have usually been exposed to high levels of asbestos for a long time. The symptoms of these diseases do not usually appear until about 20 to 30 years after the first exposure to asbestos. Most people exposed to small amounts of asbestos, as we all are in our daily lives, do not develop these health problems. However, if disturbed, asbestos material may release asbestos fibers, which can be inhaled into the lungs. The fibers can remain there for a long time, increasing the risk of disease. Asbestos material that would crumble easily if handled, or that has been sawed, scraped, or sanded into a powder, is more likely to create a health hazard. Question #3. Would jackhammering the asbestos tile and asbestos mastic make regulated asbestos- containing material RACM? Response #3. Based on your indications that the floor tile and mastic contain greater than one percent asbestos, they would be asbestos-containing material (ACM). Floor tile and mastic subjected tojackhammer ing would become RACM. However, in your case, your single family home does not meet the definition of "facility." A "facility" applies to any institutional, commercial, public, industrial or resident ial structure. The definition goes on to exclude residential units having four or fewer dwelling units. (See the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at Title 40 CFR Section 61.141-Definitions for the entire definition.) Question #4. Is there any type of vinyl asbestos floor tile or asbestos mastic that if subject to jackhammering could not be "crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder by hand pressure?" Response #4. To the best of our knowledge, we are not aware of any asbestos floor tile or asbestos containing mastic that can withstand the force of a jackhammer and remain undamaged. In this case, since the vinyl asbestos tile and mastic are Category I nonfriable ACM, the issue is not whether or not jackhammering puts the material in a condition that it may be damaged by hand, but whether or not it is sanded, ground, cut or abraded. Jackhammering grinds and abrades the material, therefore the vinyl asbestos tile and mastic become RACM. Question #5. Can "hand pressure" be defined to include tools, i.e., a jackhammer or is "hand pressure" defined solely to mean "hand?" Response #5. It is recognized that when nonfriable ACM is subject to certain forces, i.e., mechanical forces, weather or aging, it can be weakened to the point where it can become friable, i.e., crumbled, pul verized or reduced to powder by hand pressure and can thereby release asbestos fibers. As we understand your situation, your vinyl floor was considered nonfriable ACM which was subject to a mechanical force (jackhammer) which would have weaken the vinyl tile and mastic to the point where it could become friable and thereby release asbestos fibers. Question #6. Would EPA investigate this matter if it occurred in a facility? Response #6. If EPA acts on a complaint, it would investigate for federally enforceable issues. If there are no federally enforceable issues or the State is delegated the program, then EPA generally refers the complaint to the State for action. Due to resource constraints, EPA is not able to respond to every compliant received. Complaints are directed to the EPA's Regional offices which handle them based upon priorities, circumstances and annual resources. Question #7. Has EPA ever assisted States in matters that are outside their jurisdiction? Response #7. To the best of our knowledge, w are unaware of such a situation. If there would be a clear national benefit, EPA might assist the State, if invited. Question #8. How does a State become delegated by EPA? Response #8. The State of Maryland submitted a written request to EPA seeking delegation of authority from EPA to implement and enforce the asbestos NESHAP program. EPA evaluated the State regulations as to whether they were at least equivalent to the federal asbestos NESHAP and reviewed whether there were sufficient resources available to implement an effective program. Question #9. What laws/regulations must it (the State) enforce? Response #9. We can speak only to those regulations which have been delegated to the State of Maryland, in this instance, the asbestos NESHAP program. Any State delegated the asbestos NESHAP program should implement those regulations as effectively and evenhandedly as possible. There may be other regulations applicable to asbestos in the State of Maryland that are beyond the scope of the federal NESHAP regulations. The EPA has no jurisdiction in enforcing or overseeing implementation of those State specific regulations. Question #10. Does EPA oversee or fund any of these State programs? Response #10. The EPA provides grants to States to assist them with their compliance monitoring and enforcement activities for several environmental programs. In addition, EPA does conduct State oversight inspections for those programs which have been delegated to the State. Question #11. Why should the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) have jurisdiction in your home? Response #11. Since Maryland has an equivalent asbestos NESHAP program, the MDE has the lead for implementing the asbestos NESHAP program in the State. As I noted in my March 9, 2001 letter, there are citations under the Maryland administrative regulations, outside of the federal asbestos NESHAP program, that could apply to your situation. However, only MDE staff can determine whether those citations apply to your situation. I encourage you to speak to the asbestos staff at the Maryland Department of the Environment, Air and Radiation Division. You can reach them at (410) 631-3200. I appreciate your concern about asbestos contamination and the proper method for removal and disposal. Since demolition was performed in a single unit dwelling, the asbestos NESHAP regulations would not apply in your situation. There may be State-specific regulations concerning asbestos removal, but you need to confer with Maryland officials for the proper determination. Very truly yours, Michael S. Alushin Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division Office of Compliance cc: Everett Bishop ====================================================================== Control Number: A990002 Category: Asbestos Region: Region 5 Date: 01/14/1999 Title: Dry Removal Recipient: Barnes, James Author: Czerniak, George Comments: Subparts: Part 61 M Asbestos References: 61.145 Abstract: Q: May engineers conduct dry removal of asbestos material on pipe where the pipe is hot and the use of water could damage equipment or pose a safety hazard? A: The structure contains several boilers, and all of them do not need to operate at any given time. Dry removal is allowed only on the main header that can never be shut down or bypassed. Letter: January 14, 1999 James D. Barnes, CIH Manager, Industrial Hygiene Services Hanson Engineers Incorporated 1525 South Sixth Street Springfield, Illinois 62703-2886 Dear Mr. Barnes: This is in response to your December 17, 1998, letter to Dave Fodor of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA), in which you request approval to conduct dry removal on a portion of pipe associated with an asbestos abatement project to be conducted at the Illinois Secretary of State (ISOS) Capital Complex Power House. Mr. Fodor forwarded this letter to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) for our review and response. Your letter requests approval to conduct dry removal of asbestos material on 5,000 linear feet of pipe and 667 joints and elbows. You state that because the Capital Complex Power House cannot be deactivated, the temperature of the pipes will be between 140 and 360 degrees Fahrenheit. The use of water on these pipes could damage equipment or cause a safety hazard. Ms. Linda Hamsing, of my staff, has reviewed your request and discussed the specifics of the project with your associates, David Watts and Al Raufeisen. Based on Ms. Hamsing's review, U.S. EPA can only partially approve your request. U.S. EPA agrees that the use of water on hot pipes can present a safety hazard by increasing the risk of worker heat exhaustion or causing the pipes to explode. However, U.S. EPA expects that in nearly all cases, asbestos removal can be scheduled to occur during an equipment shutdown or be done while the equipment is bypassed. In the instant case, although there is a continuous need for steam and heat to be provided to the Capital Complex, the Power House contains several boilers, all which do not need to operate at any given time. Therefore, a significant portion of the asbestos material should be able to be removed at times throughout the year when certain boilers are shutdown. It is only that portion of pipe constituting the main header (where all boilers eventually tie into) that can never be shutdown or bypassed. Therefore, U.S. EPA will only approve the use of dry removal of asbestos material on the main header of pipe. Although Mr. Watts and Mr. Raufeisen did not indicate the length of the main header, it is U.S. EPA's understanding that it constitutes a relatively small portion of the total 5,000 linear feet of pipe/667 joints and elbows to be removed in the Power House. Please keep in mind that the asbestos NESHAP requires that certain procedures be followed when dry removal is conducted. These requirements are set forth in 40 C.F.R. 61.145(c)(3)(i)(B), a copy of which is enclosed with this letter. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Ms. Hamsing at (312) 886-6810. Sincerely yours, George T. Czerniak, Chief Air Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Branch Attachment cc: Dave Fodor Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Tom Ripp U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ====================================================================== Control Number: A980002 Category: Asbestos Region: Region 1 Date: 11/05/1998 Title: Inactive Landfill Requirements Recipient: O'Brien, Phillip Author: DeVillars, John Comments: Subparts: Part 61 A General Provisions Part 61 M Asbestos References: 61.141 61.145 61.151 Abstract: Q. Do residential, commercial, industrial, or publicly-owned properties, that received asbestos-containing waste materials generated from "manufacturing" facilities (as that term is defined at 61.141) as "free fill" need to comply with the Asbestos NESHAP provisions promulgated at 40 CFR 61.145 and 61.151 and 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart A? A. The provisions of Part 61, Subpart A apply to all sources covered by the Asbestos NESHAP unless specifically exempted. Section 61.151 would apply to all properties as long as the asbestos-containing waste material was from a regulated manufacturer and was not deposited within the past year. The provisions at 40 C.F.R. 61.145 do not apply since soil is not considered a facility component or load-supporting structure. Letter: AIRBORNE EXPRESS DELIVERY Philip J. O'Brien, PhD, Director Waste Management Division State of New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services 6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95 Concord, NH 03302-0095 Re: Application of NESHAP Regulations to Asbestos Contaminated Properties in and around Nashua and Hudson, NH Dear Dr. O'Brien: This correspondence is a response to your letter, dated June 25, 1998, in which you request an applicability determination from EPA with respect to certain parts of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants or "NESHAP" regulations, codified at 40 CFR Part 61, Subparts A and M. Specifically, you have asked whether certain NESHAP provisions apply to various properties in New Hampshire that you maintain were contaminated by manufacturing wastes generated by the Johns-Manville Corporation. Based on information provided by you, we understand these wastes were incorporated into what had been offered by Johns-Manville as "free fill" and deposited for decades at residential, commercial, and other properties in the Nashua and Hudson, NH area Your inquiry pertains to the following regulatory requirements, each of which we address separately, below: 1. 40 CFR 61.151 (Standard for inactive waste disposal sites for asbestos mills and manufacturing and fabricating operations); 2. 40 CFR 61.145 (Standards for demolition and renovation); and, 3. 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart A (General Provisions). Section 61.151 Based on the information you have provided, 40 CFR 61.151 would apply to the subject properties to which Johns-Manville transported asbestos- contaminated fill materials. Since the last waste disposal occurred more than a year ago for all of the sites and the source of the waste was Manville and its manufacturing operations, the sites fall within the definition of "inactive waste disposal site" at 40 CFR 61.141. With the application of Section 61.151 to the sites, any activities undertaken by owners and operators must be accomplished in compliance with those regulations, as each requirement applies, under the specific circumstances of the particular site. Those provisions include all or a portion of the following requirements: discharging no visible emissions, covering the waste materials, installing signs and fencing, implementing an EPA-approved alternative control method, providing written notification prior to disturbing wastes, and recording information in title documents. We understand that some of these requirements may seem burdensome when applied, for example, to individual, residential property owners or even some very small business entities. We note, however, that no such requirements should be triggered where activities are not undertaken to excavate or otherwise disturb asbestos. Therefore, the application of the requirements to any particular piece of property remains largely within the control of the owner or operator of the parcel (except, for example, where asbestos is disturbed due to weather conditions, floods, erosion, or the like). In addition, since excavation, digging, or other activities that disturb soil would not be regulated to the extent they did not involve asbestos materials, the importance of obtaining an accurate site survey cannot be overstated. For any site owner or operator, knowing precisely where asbestos waste is located on the property should provide an accurate indicator of when the requirements of 40 CFR 61.151 apply. 40 CFR 61.145 We believe the requirements of this section do not apply to activities involving the Johns-Manville waste buried on the subject properties since soil is not usually considered a facility component or a load supporting structure. Accordingly, digging, excavation, or other like activities that would disturb the asbestos waste would not be considered altering a facility component or wrecking or taking out a load supporting structure as contemplated by the definitions of "renovation" or "demolition" at 40 CFR 61.141. Although some or all of the demolition and renovation requirements might apply to activities at or in industrial, commercial, municipal, or multi-residential (i.e., greater than 4 units) facilities contaminated by Johns-Manville wastes, such application would be the result of other demolition or renovation activities not involving the Manville wastes located in soils, exclusively. 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart A (General) The general provisions of the NESHAP regulations apply to all sources covered by any portion of the NESHAP regulations, unless specifically exempted. No such exemption applies to these sites under Section 61.151 or otherwise under Part 61 and, accordingly, Subpart A of the Part 61 regulations applies. While we are aware that the application of this Subpart to some activities at or on certain smaller parcels arguably may stretch the original intent of the requirements within Subpart A, as a legal matter, the sites are not exempt and, thus, the regulatory requirements apply to regulated activities occurring on the subject properties. I hope this letter clarifies our position regarding the application of federal NESHAP regulations to asbestos wastes located at the above-referenced properties. Note that the representations set forth in this applicability determination are intended solely as guidance on issues of applicability, not enforcement. This guidance is offered based on the specific, limited facts you have presented and does not represent final Agency action, is not binding on EPA, and does not create any enforceable rights, substantive or procedural. EPA Headquarters representatives, including contacts within the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, have reviewed and concurred on this determination along with legal and technical representatives within the Office of Environmental Stewardship, EPA Region 1 (New England). If you have any further questions or concerns about this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the Regional NESHAP Coordinator, Wayne R. Toland, in the Air Technical unit at (617)565-3260. For legal matters, contact Senior Attorney Hugh W. Martinez in the Regulatory Legal Office, at (617)565-4526. Sincerely yours, | s | John P. DeVillars, Regional Administrator EPA Region 1 - New England cc: Pamela Sprague, NH DES ====================================================================== Control Number: A000001 Category: Asbestos Region: Region 9 Date: 08/03/1998 Title: Asbestos NESHAP Recipient: Kara Young Author: Trotter, Robert Comments: Subparts: Part 61 M Asbestos References: 61.141 61.145 Abstract: Q: Is the demolition of a small structure regulated under the asbestos NESHAP? A: If a regulated structure, such as a service building or stack is being demolished or moved, notification provisions of the NESHAP will apply. Of course, if asbestos is present in any of these structures, the asbestos must be properly removed before the material is disturbed or the structure is demolished. If the structure is a small shed or shack, such as a roadside stand, the structure is not subject to NESHAP notification requirements if no asbestos is present. Q: Is the movement of a small structure regulated under the asbestos NESHAP? A: Yes. As noted in a previous determination, the movement of a structure off of a foundation is classified as a demolition of that structure. Letter: UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 August 3, 1998 Kara Young Environmental Scientist Salt River Project P.O. Box 52025 Mail Station PAB352 Phoenix, AZ 85072 Dear Ms. Young: Thank you for your request for an EPA clarification regarding the Asbestos National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) applicability for the moving and demolition of small structures. In general, mobile sources are not regulated under the demolition and renovation provisions of the asbestos NESHAP. For example, vehicles such as house/office trailers, cargo carriers, other wheeled vehicles, and shipping containers used for storage are not regulated under the demolition provisions of the NESHAP. Another example of sources not regulated under the NESHAP would be vehicles registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles. The movement of air monitoring stations are normally not regulated under the Asbestos NESHAP standard. However, if a regulated structure, such as a service building or stack is being demolished or moved, notification provisions of the NESHAP will apply. Of course, if asbestos is present in any of these structures, the asbestos must be properly removed before the material is disturbed or the structure is demolished. If the structure is a small shed or shack, such as a roadside stand, the structure is not subject to NESHAP notification requirements if no asbestos is present. Large mobile structures used for public or commercial use are regulated under the NESHAP. For example, a portable classroom being demolished or moved to another school would require notification under the asbestos NESHAP. I have enclosed EPA's "Common Questions on the Asbestos NESHAP" that references mobile homes as regulated facilities. Your final question is whether a building being moved is subject to the asbestos NESHAP. I have included an EPA determination which clarifies the movement of a structure off a foundation as demolition. If you have any further questions on the Asbestos NESHAP, please feel free to contact me at (415) 744-1145. Sincerely, Robert S. Trotter Asbestos NESHAP Coordinator enclosures ====================================================================== Control Number: A970006 Category: Asbestos Region: Region 5 Date: 06/20/1997 Title: Demolition of Airport Taxiway Recipient: Nurre, Larry Author: Czerniak, George Comments: Subparts: Part 61 M Asbestos References: 61.141 61.145 Abstract: Q: Does subpart M apply to the demolition of an asbestos-containing asphalt taxiway at the Mankato, Minnesota Municipal Airport? A: No. The asphalt taxiway is neither a "facility" nor a "facility component" as defined in 40 CFR 61.141. Letter: (AE-17J) June 20, 1997 Mr. Larry V. Nurre Southern Minnesota Construction Co., Inc. 1905 Third Avenue P.O. Box 3069 Mankato, Minnesota 56002-3069 Re: Demolition of Asphalt Taxiway at Mankato Municipal Airport Dear Mr. Nurre: This is in response to your letter dated June 16, 1997, concerning applicability of Federal rules to the proposed demolition of an asphalt taxiway at Mankato Municipal Airport. According to your letter and the additional information you sent to our office, the asphalt is approximately 7 inches thick, including a top layer about 1.5 inches thick containing 3.5-4.4 percent chrysotile asbestos. You propose a removal process that involves separately wet milling the asbestos containing top layer and sending it to an approved asbestos landfill. You also propose to test this material once it has reached the landfill, to explore its possible future use. The Federal rule promulgated at 40 C.F.R. 61, Subpart M - National Emission Standard for Asbestos is designed to prevent asbestos fibers from becoming airborne and therefore a threat to human health. We have researched your specific project, however, and we find that the asphalt taxiway at Mankato Municipal Airport is neither a "facility" nor a "facility component" as defined in 40 C.F.R. 61.141. The taxiway is neither a "structure, installation, or building," nor does it contain any specific "load-supporting structural members." Therefore, the demolition project as described in your letter of June 16, 1997, does not fall under the applicability of 40 C.F.R. 61.145 - Standard for demolition and renovation. Nevertheless, we do believe that the procedure described in your June 16, 1997, letter concerning the removal and disposal of the asbestos-containing asphalt layer takes important precautionary measures toward reducing risk to human health. We highly recommend adequately wetting the material to reduce the risk of any asbestos fibers becoming airborne, as well as disposing of the material in an approved asbestos landfill. Thank you for this opportunity to discuss this matter with you. If you have any further questions regarding this issue, please contact Julie Brandt, of my staff, at (312)886-6768. Sincerely yours, George Czerniak, Chief Air Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Branch cc: Ann Foss MPCA ====================================================================== Control Number: A960035 Category: Asbestos Region: METD Date: 01/01/1997 Title: Single Family Dwelling Work by Non-profits Recipient: Smith, Winston Author: Rasnic, John Comments: Subparts: Part 61 M Asbestos References: 61.141 61.145 Abstract: Q. What requirements apply to non-profit agencies that renovate or demolish single family homes? A. Non-profit agencies are not treated differently than other owners or operators of such activities. However, the Agency's position on single-family homes will be clarified with an amendment to the regulations. Letter: MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Asbestos NESHAP Applicability Determination Regarding Residential Properties FROM: John B. Rasnic, Director Stationary Source Compliance Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards TO: Winston A. Smith, Director Air, Pesticides & Toxics Management Division Region IV This is in response to your memorandum, dated January 24, 1994, requesting that the Stationary Source Compliance Division (SSCD) make an applicability determination concerning the asbestos National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for non-profit agencies performing renovation and demolition of single family homes. An owner or operator of demolition or renovation activity is defined, in 40 CFR 61.141, as "any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises the facility being demolished or renovated or any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises the demolition or renovation operation, or both." The definition does not exempt a non-profit agency from the requirements of the NESHAP. Therefore, if the non-profit agency renovates or demolishes any regulated "facility", as defined in 40 CFR 61.141, then that non-profit agency must follow 40 CFR 61.145, the "Standard for demolition and renovation" and any other applicable NESHAP requirements. Specifically on the issue of single family homes, the Office of General Counsel, the Office of Enforcement, and the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards are involved in a review of the requirements of the asbestos NESHAP as it applies to demolitions of single-family homes. We intend to clarify our position with an amendment to the asbestos NESHAP. If you have any questions, please contact Tom Ripp of my staff at (703) 308-8729. cc: Regional Asbestos NESHAP Coordinators ====================================================================== Control Number: A960034 Category: Asbestos Region: SSCD Date: 12/16/1993 Title: Landfill Activities Recipient: Wersan, David Author: Rasnic, John Comments: Subparts: Part 61 M Asbestos References: 61.141 61.145 61.150 61.154 Abstract: Q. Does normal compaction at a landfill cause demolition debris containing floor tile or asphalt roofing materials to be converted into RACM contaminated debris, or does the application of cover avoid further NESHAP requirements? What are the responsiblities of the original owner, the deomlition contractor and the landfill operator? A. The owner/operator of the waste diposal site must cover nonfriable ACM with a minimum of six inches of nonasbestos-containing material prior to compaction or other activities that could create RACM. The waste disposal site owner/operator is responsible for fulfilling all NESHAP requirements if any RACM creating activities are performed in the landfill. Typical landfill activities such as unloading and waste segregation do not subject ACM to the asbestos NESHAP. The original owner is responsible for selecting a transporter and disposal site owner/operator that will comply with NESHAP. Q. Would a policy that assumed debris from a demolition or fire to contain asbestos unless an inspection proved otherwise be consistent with the asbestos NESHAP? A. An inspection should occur before demolition. After a fire an inspection must be done. The area that is subject to the rule can be limited according to the results of the inspection. Notice is required where no asbestos is detected. Q. What are the responsibilities for the landfill operator with respect to ACM that is pulverized or powdered versus RACM from a regulated source? What about ACM from residential or other unknown sources? A. The landfill owner is not obligated to distinguish between ACM and RACM from a regulated source. However, the owner is encouraged to investigate and determine the origin of waste suspected of containing asbestos because the owner is responsible for landfilling all RACM from regulated sources in accordance with NESHAP requirements. Letter: Mr. David Wersan Assistant Commissioner Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Indiana Department of Environmental Management 105 South Meridian Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6015 Dear Mr. Wersan: Your August 6, 1993 letter to Mr. Andrew Anderson of EPA Region 5 was forwarded to the Stationary Source Compliance Division (SSCD) for a response. Specifically, you requested guidance for the handling of various asbestos-containing material (ACM) at landfills. The following are answers to your questions: Question 1: Will normal compaction activity at a landfill cause demolition debris containing floor tile to be converted into RACM contaminated debris? If so, what are the specific obligations of the original owner, the demolition contractor and the landfill operator under NESHAP with regard to notification and handling? Does the RACM contaminated debris need to be adequately wetted prior to further compaction or will the application of daily cover per 40 CFR 61.154(c) relieve the landfill of further NESHAP obligation? Response 1: Compaction activities at a landfill may cause floor tile to become a regulated asbestos-containing material (RACM) if the floor tile is not covered with at least 6 inches of non-asbestos material prior to compaction. As defined in 40 CFR 61.141, Category I nonfriable means asbestos-containing packings, gaskets, resilient floor covering and asphalt products containing more than one percent asbestos determined using the methods specified in Appendix A, Subpart F. 40 CFR Section 1, Polarized Light Microscopy. As defined in section 61.141, Category I nonfriable asbestos-containing material is considered RACM if the material becomes friable or is subjected to sanding, grinding, cutting or abrading. The original owner is responsible for selecting an acceptable waste transporter and owner/operator of a disposal site that will transport, handle and ultimately dispose of the waste in accordance with the asbestos NESHAP. It is not the intent of EPA to hold the original owner responsible for some of the actions of the transporter or the owner/operator of the disposal site. The owner/operator of the landfill is responsible for fulfilling all NESHAP requirements if any compaction activities that cause the ACM to become RACM are performed in the landfill. For the owner/operator of the waste disposal site to operate within the boundaries of the asbestos NESHAP, Category I and II nonfriable ACM from a regulated facility shall be covered with a minimum of 6 inches of nonasbestos-containing material prior to 2 undergoing any activities that will crush, pulverize, compact or otherwise cause the material to become RACM. If Category I or II nonfriable material becomes RACM by means of compaction or any other activity, and visible emission is observed, the owner/operator of the landfill is in violation of the asbestos NESHAP. Question 2: Does EPA believe normal compaction operations at sanitary landfills will result in asphalt roofing materials, gaskets and packings being "...pulverized or reduced to powder..." and therefore converted to RACM? Response 2: Asphalt roofing materials, gaskets, and packings like floor tile are all defined in section 61.141 as Category I nonfriable ACM. Response 1 applies to all Category I nonfriable ACM. Question 3: What are the NESHAP handling requirements for disposal of Category II nonfriable ACM? Response 3: If a landfill owner/operator provides a minimum six inches of nonasbestos-containing cover for Category I or II nonfriable ACM that is in good condition prior to compaction activities, then the owner/operator of the landfill is not subject to the asbestos NESHAP. However, if the Category I or II nonfriable ACM is subjected to compaction activities or other activities that would cause it to become RACM without a minimum of six inches of cover, the owner/operator of the landfill may be in violation of the asbestos NESHAP. Since activities such as unloading off of trucks for disposal and waste segregation (without compaction) do not normally subject nonfriable materials to sanding, grinding, cutting, or abrading, such materials are not considered asbestos- containing waste materials and are not regulated by the asbestos NESHAP. Question 4: The Office of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (OSHWM) has proposed a policy where debris from ordered demolitions or cleanup after fires or other calamity will beassumed to contain RACM, unless an accredited inspector has certified the debris to be RACM-free. Would this policy be consistent with the Federal NESHAP? If not, what are the specific obligations of the original owner, the demolition contractor and the landfill operator under NESHAP with regard to notification and handling of debris which is potentially RACM contaminated? Response 4: A thorough inspection should be done prior to demolition of a regulated facility. However, in cases where a thorough inspection could not be performed prior to demolition (e.g., as a result of a fire), an inspection must be conducted to confirm the presence or absence of asbestos in the debris. If the structure was known to contain ACM prior to the burning or if test results show the presence of asbestos in the debris, then the 3 debris must be handled in accordance with section 61.150(a)(3). If the asbestos contamination can be isolated to a certain section of the debris (e.g., wing of a building) then only that area which is contaminated is subject to the rule. If no asbestos contamination is detected in the debris (the asbestos content does not have to be greater than one percent to be classified as asbestos-containing waste material), then the debris is not subject to 40 CFR 61.150 but notification is required. Question 5: Is a landfill operator required to distinguish between pulverized and/or powdered ACM from an exempt source and RACM from a regulated source? What criteria are used to distinguish unregulated ACM from RACM after debris has arrived at the landfill? What are the landfill's obligations under NESHAP when handling residential ACM or ACM from unknown sources? Response 5: ACM from non-regulated sources or from sources not defined as facility under section 61.145 or ACM that is under the threshold amount as defined in section 61.145 is not subject to the requirements for disposal found under section 61.150. However, RACM from a regulated source shall follow the disposal requirements under 40 CFR 61.150 and shall be disposed of in an active waste disposal site that is operating in accordance with 40 CFR 61.154. The asbestos NESHAP does not require the owner/operator of a landfill to identify the origin of the ACM waste material or make any distinctions between pulverized and/or powdered ACM from an exempt source and RACM from a regulated source after the debris has arrived at the landfill. However, when debris is suspected to contain asbestos, we recommend that the owner/operator of the landfill identify the origin and content of the ACM waste material. If the ACM waste is RACM from a regulated source, the original owner and the landfill owner/operator are subject to requirements of the asbestos NESHAP. This determination has been coordinated with EPA's Office of Enforcement and the Emission Standards Division of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. If you have any questions, please contact Jeffery KenKnight of my staff at (703) 308-8728. Sincerely, John B. Rasnic, Director Stationary Source Compliance Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards cc: Sims Roy, ESD (MD-13) Charlie Garlow, OE (2242) Tom Ripp, SSCD (6306W) Chris Oh, SSCD (6306W) Jeffery KenKnight, SSCD (6306W) Regional Asbestos NESHAP Coordinators ====================================================================== Control Number: A930018 Category: Asbestos Region: SSCD Date: 01/04/1993 Title: Clarification of Term "Operator" Recipient: Deery, Brian Author: Rasnic, John B. Comments: Subparts: Part 61 M Asbestos References: 61.145 61.145(b) Abstract: CONTROL #A930018 The term "operator" relative to the responsibilities for notification under 40 CFR 61.145 in a project where there is more than one owner/operator is clarified. In the case in question, the parties involved have the following options: 1) The owner, asbestos abatement contractor or demolition company submits a single notification for the entire project which includes the abatement and demolition. 2) The owner submits a basic project notification while one operator submits a separate notification for both the abatement and demoliton. 3) The owner submits a basic project notification while each operator submits a revised or amended notification for their respective activity detailing the activities, dates, etc... It is up to the parties involved to decide who will fulfill the notification requirements as required under 40 CFR 61.145. Letter: Control # A930018 Mr. Brian Deery Director Municipal-Utilities Division The Associated General Contractors of America 1957 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Dear Mr. Deery: This is in response to your letter dated November 17, 1992 requesting a clarification of the asbestos National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). You requested a clarification of the term "operator" relative to the responsibilities for notification under 40 CFR 61.145. You stated that it is common practice for an owner to hire one business to undertake an asbestos abatement while hiring a separate business to undertake the demolition or renovation and want to know which "owner/operator" is responsible, in this situation, for the notification requirements. Under the situation you described above, both the abatement and demolition companies are considered "operators". Both operators and the owner are subject to 40 CFR 61.145. In a project where there is more than one owner/operator, the parties involved have the following options: 1) The owner, asbestos abatement contractor or demolition company submits a single notification for the entire project which includes the abatement and demolition. 2) The owner submits a basic project notification while one operator submits a separate notification for both the abatement and demolition. 3) The owner submits a basic project notification while each operator submits a revised or amended notification for their respective activity detailing the activities, dates, etc... Only one notification is required for the entire project; however, there can be more than one. At anytime, if any information changes or if an additional activity is performed which is not included in the original notification, then the original notification needs to be updated/revised by submitting a new notification in accordance with 40 CFR 61.145(b)(2). It is up to the parties involved to decide who will fulfill the notification requirements as required under 40 CFR 61.145 since there is more than one owner and/or operator. I have enclosed a copy of a response letter address to Mr. C. R. Sledge of Asbestos Consultant dated October 5, 1992, which may clarify other notification requirements. This determination has been coordinated with EPAžs Office of Enforcement and the Emission Standards Division of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. If you have any questions, please contact Chris Oh of my staff at (703) 308-8732. I appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you and trust this information will be helpful. Sincerely, John B. Rasnic, Director Stationary Source Compliance Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Enclosure cc: Sims Roy, ESD (MD-13) Charlie Garlow, OE (LE-134A) Tom Ripp, SSCD Regional Asbestos NESHAP Coordinators ====================================================================== Control Number: A930014 Category: Asbestos Region: OAR Date: 12/29/1992 Title: Components Covered with ACM Recipient: Singer, Henry J. Author: Rosenburg, William G. Comments: Subparts: Part 61 M Asbestos References: 61.140 61.141 61.142 61.143 61.144 61.145 61.145(a) 61.145(c)(2) 61.146 61.147 61.148 61.149 61.150 61.151 61.152 61.153 61.154 61.155 61.156 61.157 Abstract: CONTROL #A930014 The applicability determination in question does not alter the asbestos NESHAP. It merely clarifies the NESHAP's applicability with regard to the Jacob Javitz renovation. Therefore, it is not an "unintended rulemaking". The determination does not contradict EPA's policy of in-place management of ACM (asbestos-containing material), which is outlined in EPA's "Managing Asbestos In Place" (20T-2003, July 1990) (also known as the "Green Book"). In fact, the applicability determination supports the policy of in-place management, inasmuch as it indicates the possible consequences for owners and operators when ACM is not managed in-place, or is improperly managed. The applicability determination does not transform the lifting of nonasbestos ceiling tiles from an operation and maintenance operation into full-fledged abatement activity. The asbestos NESHAP is applicable to renovation and demolition activities, not to general maintenance activities. Since the May 2, 1991 determination was only a clarification of the asbestos NESHAP, the applicability determination adds no new annual cost for in-place management above what was contemplated in the asbestos NESHAP. Letter: Control # A930014 Mr. Henry J. Singer Director Safety and Environmental Management Division General Services Administration Public Buildings Service Washington, DC 20405 Dear Mr. Singer: This letter is in response to Mr. Richard G. Austin's October 6, 1992 letter and your July 9, 1992 letter requesting our assistance in resolving several issues arising from the May 2, 1991 applicability determination ("Applicability of the Asbestos NESHAP to Facility Components Coated or Covered with Asbestos Containing Materials") made by the Stationary Source Compliance Division of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Your letters indicate that the General Services Administration (GSA) is concerned that: 1) EPA's May 2, 1991 applicability determination is "unintended rulemaking;" 2) the applicability determination undermines EPA's policy of promoting management of asbestos in-place where feasible; 3) the applicability determination transforms the lifting of any nonasbestos ceiling tile in every school and public and commercial building, which has either asbestos fireproofing or thermal insulation, from an operation and maintenance procedure into a full-fledged abatement activity; and 4) the controls described in the applicability determination could lead to annual costs of over the $100 million "major rule" threshold. EPA's response to GSA's four concerns are as follows: 1) Under the May 2, 1991 applicability determination, EPA found that the asbestos National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (asbestos NESHAP), 40 C.F.R. 61.140 - 61.157 applied to a renovation operation at the Jacob Javitz Plaza (the Javitz renovation) in which contractors removed over 160 square feet of drop-ceiling tile in order to replace the ceiling and lighting fixtures above. The ceiling tiles were covered with asbestos that had either degraded from the sprayed-on structural insulation above, had been previously disturbed during maintenance operations, or had been disturbed in the process of removing the tile and performing the work. This determination does not alter or in any way contradict the asbestos NESHAP; it is, in fact, fully consistent with the asbestos NESHAP and merely clarifies the NESHAP's applicability, with regard to the Javitz renovation. Therefore, it is not an "unintended rulemaking." The work practice and waste disposal standards for demolition and renovation activities under the asbestos NESHAP are designed to reduce the emission of asbestos that can potentially be released in demolitions and renovations involving asbestos-containing material (ACM). According to the GSA letters, GSA's major difficulty with the applicability determination is the determination's interpretation of the words "covered" and "coated", as used in the asbestos NESHAP, "as referring to facility components which have any dust or debris." The asbestos NESHAP applies to any renovation [the Javitz renovation was clearly a renovation as defined under 40 C.F.R. 61.141] where the amount of regulated asbestos-containing material (RACM) being stripped, removed, dislodged, cut, drilled, or similarly disturbed equals or exceeds a threshold amount (e.g. 160 square feet on facility components other than pipes). See 40 C.F.R. 61.145(a)(4). The asbestos NESHAP defines "remove" to mean "to take out RACM or facility components that contain or are covered with RACM from a facility." 40 C.F.R. 61.141 (emphasis added). The revised definition of "remove" was added to the asbestos NESHAP on November 20, 1990 (55 FR 48406) to make clear EPA's continuing intention to regulate any asbestos that is removed from a facility including facility components covered with asbestos. See "National Emission Standards for Asbestos Background Information for Promulgated Asbestos NESHAP Revisions," p. 4-25 (EPA 450/3-90-017, October 1990). See 40 C.F.R. 61.145(c)(2), which mandates specific work procedures "when a facility component that contains, is covered with, or is coated with RACM is being taken out of [a] facility as a unit or in sections." The previous paragraph shows that the asbestos NESHAP clearly applies to ceiling tiles covered with RACM that are removed during a renovation. Despite GSA's reservations, there can be little question that the ceiling tiles removed in the Javitz renovation were covered with RACM. The ceiling tiles in the Javitz renovation had been contaminated by asbestos that had either fallen from the insulation above or had been disturbed during the renovation. EPA observed dry, friable asbestos strewn on the top of the ceiling tiles throughout the affected area. These facility components were "covered with RACM" under any reasonable interpretation of the word "covered." Their removal is therefore subject to the requirements of the asbestos NESHAP. Moreover, as discussed below, there are significant health reasons for regulating such operations. The existence of dry, deteriorated RACM above these ceiling tiles greatly increases the risk of exposure to asbestos. The purpose of the demolition and renovation section of the asbestos NESHAP is generally to reduce the risk of exposure during and after such activities. EPA's decision to regulate such operation is thus consistent both with the language and the underlying purpose of the asbestos NESHAP. 2) The GSA letters state that GSA believes the May 2 applicability determination undermines EPA's policy of in-place management of ACM; however, the letters do not explain how the May 2 determination, which applies to renovations where RACM contaminated ceiling tile is being removed, could undermine the in-place management policy, which applies to situations where there is no renovation activity and no RACM is being removed from a facility. The May 2, 1991 determination does not undermine EPA's policy of in-place management of ACM, which is outlined in EPA's "Managing Asbestos In Place" (20T-2003, July 1990) (also known as the "Green Book"). In fact, the applicability determination supports the policy of in-place management, inasmuch as it indicates the possible consequences for owners and operators when ACM is not managed in-place, or is improperly managed. The Green Book "...recommends a pro-active, in-place management program whenever asbestos is discovered." Pro-active management of asbestos in-place does not include allowing the ACM to deteriorate to the point where it falls off facility components and contaminates other nonasbestos components. In fact, allowing such deterioration defeats the overriding purpose of in-place management, which is to maintain ACM in good condition, ensure proper cleanup of asbestos previously released, and prevent further release of asbestos. This deterioration greatly increases the risk of asbestos fiber release and increases the risk of exposure to airborne asbestos fibers, particularly for maintenance and utility workers. Such increased exposure could lead to increased cases of asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma, diseases which have been linked to asbestos exposure. An owner/operator of a facility that allows asbestos-containing materials to deteriorate to the point where it drops off of a facility component, and essentially becomes RACM as defined in 40 CFR 61.141, is subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 61.145 Standard for Demolition and Renovation when removing the RACM and any materials contaminated by the RACM. 3) The May 2 applicability determination does not transform the lifting of nonasbestos ceiling tiles from an operation and maintenance operation into full-fledged abatement activity. The GSA letters appear to misconstrue the scope of the asbestos NESHAP. The asbestos NESHAP is applicable to renovation and demolition activities, not to general maintenance activities. Therefore, the removal of ceiling tiles that are contaminated with asbestos dust or debris from a facility is subject to the regulation. However, lifting the ceiling tiles, moving them to the side for access to the space above the drop ceiling, and then returning the ceiling tiles would generally not be subject to the asbestos NESHAP, because such activity would not generally be defined as a renovation activity, i.e., an activity that alters the facility or its components. The May 2 applicability determination reinforces EPAžs policy of promoting management of asbestos-containing material in-place where feasible, but does not change operation and maintenance programs into full-fledged abatement programs. EPA does, however, strongly recommend replacing any asbestos-containing ceiling tiles or ceiling tiles contaminated with asbestos dust or debris that are frequently moved for access to the space above the drop ceiling with ceiling tiles that are not contaminated and do not contain asbestos. In addition, a pro-active management plan should include provisions to prevent further contamination of the ceiling tiles. Frequently, the space above a drop ceiling contains air plenums used to transport conditioned air (for heating and cooling). When the air handling system is on, these plenums are under positive pressure, and if they leak, the air may stir up any asbestos dust or debris on the ceiling tiles, which may then contaminate the air both above and below the ceiling tiles. 4) Regarding Mr. Austin's concern for increased costs, since the May 2, 1991 determination was only a clarification of the asbestos NESHAP, the applicability determination adds no new annual cost for in-place management above what was contemplated in the asbestos NESHAP. Moreover, the $100 million annual cost estimate is not realistic. Based on conversations with GSA, it has become evident that the GSA estimate assumes that the ceiling tiles in every building that contains asbestos above drop ceilings are contaminated with asbestos debris, and will have to be removed. It also assumes that this will have to be done annually (even where in-place asbestos management programs have been implemented). This is not the case. First, as discussed in part three above, this determination does not change operation and maintenance programs into full- fledged abatement programs. Therefore, much of the cost that is attributed to the May 2 applicability determination is based on a faulty premise. Second, even in situations where a renovation is taking place, an asbestos abatement program is not necessary where the threshold amounts of RACM are not involved. If an owner/operator of a building implements a proper in-place management program in the maintenance of its facility, there is little to no likelihood that nonasbestos ceiling tiles would become covered with asbestos; therefore, the probability that removal of nonasbestos ceiling tiles in such facilities would trigger the requirement of the asbestos NESHAP would be significantly reduced if not eliminated. EPA believes that the practices it outlined in the Green Book are being followed in many facilities across the nation. Thus in those facilities, it is significantly less probable that removal of nonasbestos ceiling tiles would trigger the requirements of the asbestos NESHAP. Finally, even where ceiling tiles have been contaminated and the asbestos NESHAP is triggered, when these contaminated items are removed, if a proper in-place management program is implemented after such removal, there should be no need for additional decontamination of such materials, especially on an annual basis. Thus these costs should be onetime costs, not annual costs. EPA has not prepared a detailed economic analysis of these costs; however, based on the facts EPA has outlined above, EPA believes that the annual costs implicated by this decision are negligible. Ceiling tiles that are "covered or coated" with asbestos debris may be decontaminated and left in the facility or, if they are to be replaced, may be disposed of as nonasbestos-containing waste material. Wet wiping the ceiling tiles, then cleaning them with a filtered vacuum cleaner (using an air cleaning device that meets the requirements of 61.152) would comply with the NESHAP. Ceiling tiles decontaminated in this manner may be treated as nonasbestos-containing materials. We will continue to look at the decontamination issue to determine if there are other methods that would sufficiently decontaminate the ceiling tiles and also be in compliance with the asbestos NESHAP. Sincerely yours, William G. Rosenberg Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation bcc: Administrator Deputy Administrator Office of General Counsel Office of Pollution, Prevention and Toxics Tom Ripp, SSCD Charlie Garlow, OE (LE-134A) Sims Roy, ESD (MD-13) Michael Horowitz, OGC (LE-132A) Regional Asbestos NESHAP Coordinators Denise Devoe, OAQPS (ANR-443) ====================================================================== Control Number: A930004 Category: Asbestos Region: SSCD Date: 06/11/1992 Title: Residential Dwellings for Fire Training Recipient: Miller, Paul F. Author: Rasnic, John B. Comments: Subparts: Part 61 M Asbestos References: 61.140 61.141 61.142 61.143 61.144 61.145 61.146 61.147 61.148 61.149 61.150 61.151 61.152 61.153 61.154 61.155 61.156 61.157 Abstract: CONTROL #A930004 The requirements of the asbestos NESHAP (40 CFR Sections 61.140 through 61.157) as it applies to buildings to be burned by fire departments for training purposes. Three specific questions are addressed: training for firemen who inspect for their department and the cost of training; the reporting procedure and type of notification required prior to burning and what procedure would be followed if asbestos were/were not found; and requirements for a removal permit for the fire department. Letter: Control # A930004 Paul F. Miller North Carolina State Firemanžs Association Office of Secretary Box 188 Farmville, NC 27828-0188 Dear Mr. Miller This letter is in response to your May 22, 1992 letter requesting clarification of the requirements of the asbestos NESHAP (40 CFR Sections 61.140 through 61.157) as it applies to buildings to be burned by fire departments for training purposes. Enclosed are some guidance documents (EPA 340/1-90-015, 016, 018, 019, and 021) that may help you understand the requirements of the asbestos NESHAP. Your specific questions are addressed below. The responses apply only to the Federal requirements of the asbestos NESHAP. The North Carolina State Firemen's Association should check to see if any delegated local agency has more stringent requirements than the Federal Rule. 1. ... what type of training would be required for the fireman who inspect for their department, and what would be the cost of training, if any? Response: The asbestos NESHAP does not specify any requirements for training the person(s) who thoroughly inspect the affected facility. However, EPA recommends that the person(s) who conduct the inspection of the facility attend and pass the 3-day Building Inspectors Course developed under the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) program. The cost of the training is several hundred dollars. EPA, through its contractor ATLIS Federal Services, Inc. maintains a current listing of accredited training providers and courses throughout the United States. Also, it is possible for you to purchase a copy of the model inspector training materials if you are interested in developing an in-house training capability. For more information, you may call ATLIS at (301) 984- 1929. 2. ... what would be the reporting procedure, and what kind of notification would be required prior to burning? ...what procedure would be followed if asbestos were found, and conversely, if no asbestos were found? Response: As stated in the letter to Congressman Howard Coble, House of Representatives (enclosed with your May 22 letter), When the amount of ACM in the building is less than the threshold amounts discussed above, the asbestos NESHAP only requires the following: (1) that an inspection of the building be conducted and; (2) that the owner or operator notify EPA or its delegated authority of the demolition at least 10 days in advance of commencing the demolition operation. These requirements are contained in sections 61.145(a) and (b) of the asbestos NESHAP. If the amount of asbestos-containing material (ACM) is greater than the threshold amounts, then the asbestos must be removed in accordance with section 61.145(c) and disposed of in accordance with section 61.150. 3. ... would a removal permit be required for the fire department? Response: EPA does not require permits to remove asbestos- containing material. Once again, these responses only address the requirements of the Federal asbestos NESHAP. Delegated agencies may have more stringent requirements. Caroline Robinson (phone # 404-347-5014) is the asbestos NESHAP coordinator for EPA Region IV which includes North Carolina. She should be able to answer further questions on the asbestos NESHAP, and give you contact names for local delegated agencies. This determination has been coordinated with EPA's Office of Enforcement, the Emission Standards Division of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, and the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. If you have any questions, please contact Tom Ripp of my staff at (703) 308-8727. Sincerely, John B. Rasnic, Director Stationary Source Compliance Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Enclosures bcc: Sims Roy, ESD (MD-13) Phil King, EAD (TS-799) Scott Throwe, SSCD (EN-341W) Omayra Salgado, SSCD (EN-341W) Charlie Garlow, OE (LE-134A) Regional Asbestos NESHAP Coordinators ====================================================================== Control Number: C108 Category: Asbestos Region: SSCD Date: 01/08/1992 Title: Applicability to Category II Material Recipient: Burke, James J. Author: Rasnic, John B. Comments: Subparts: Part 61 M Asbestos References: 61.141 61.145 Abstract: Transite siding, a Category II material, does not become subject to the NESHAP by merely breaking it; it must be, or must have a high probability of becoming, crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder in the course of the demolition or renovation. The extent of breakage that would normally result from carefully removing transite panels and lowering them to the ground would not result in crumbling, pulverizing, or reducing the panels to powder. Because the level of breakage that will render nonfriable material friable depends in part on the condition of the material prior to the operation, determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. Examples of conditions whereby category II material would become RACM are given. Letter: Control Number: C108 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Asbestos NESHAP Clarification on What Constitutes Crumbled, Pulverized, or Reduced to Powder FROM: John B. Rasnic, Director Stationary Source Compliance Division TO: James J. Burke, Chief Toxics and Pesticides Branch Region III (3AT30) This memorandum is in response to your October 17, 1991 memorandum in which you requested a policy determination on when asbestos-containing materials (ACM), which are damaged during the course of demolition and renovation, become friable ACM. Specifically, you inquired at what point does damaged nonfriable ACM, such as transite siding, become regulated. As you stated in your memorandum, the word "broken" has been deleted from the definition section because it could be mistakenly interpreted as substantially increasing the scope of the standard. Most nonfriable materials can be broken without releasing significant quantities of airborne fibers. It is only when the material is extensively damaged that the potential for significant fiber release is greatly increased. Transite siding, which is a Category II nonfriable ACM, becomes regulated ACM if it has a high probability of becoming or has become crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder by the forces expected to act on the material in the course of the demolition and renovation operations. There is a difference between merely breaking a transite panel, and crumbling, pulverizing or reducing it to powder. If a Category II material, such as transite, is in good condition it can be broken without causing the material to become regulated. Transite panels are typically bolted or nailed to buildings on which they are attached. The extent of breakage which would normally result from carefully removing a transite panel from a building and lowering it to the ground prior to demolition would not result in crumbling, pulverizing or reducing the panel to powder. The extent of breakage which will render the ACM friable depends to some degree on the condition of the ACM prior to the abatement operation. This is true for both Category I and II ACM. Therefore, it is difficult to make a general statement on the level of breakage which causes ACM to be regulated. A case by case determination must be made considering the condition of the material and the forces which have or will act upon it. Under the definition of "regulated asbestos containing material" (RACM) in the asbestos NESHAP, EPA listed sanding, grinding, cutting or abrading as work practices which, when subjected to Category I ACM, would cause that material to be regulated. Similarly, we can give examples of work practices which will cause Category II ACM, such as transite, in any condition to become RACM. Any demolition operation (i.e., use of a wrecking ball; implosion; use of a bulldozer, backhoe or other heavy machinery to knock the building over) will extensively damage Category II ACM such that it is crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder. Dropping Category II material, such as transite panels, from a building as a means of transporting it to the ground, will also cause the ACM to be regulated in most conditions. The burning of any ACM, including Category I and II, will also cause that material to become regulated. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of work practices which will cause Category II ACM to be crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder. It does, however, provide guidance on the type of work practices which we believe will cause Category II ACM to be subject to the asbestos NESHAP. This determination has been coordinated with EPA's Office of Enforcement and the Emission Standards Division of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. If you have and questions, please contact Scott Throwe of my staff at FTS 678-8699. Sincerely, John B. Rasnic, Director Stationary Source Compliance Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards cc: Sims Roy, ESD (MD-13) Charles Garlow, OE (LE-134A) Omayra Salgado, SSCD (EN-341W) Tom Ripp, SSCD (EN-341W) Regional Asbestos NESHAP Coordinators ====================================================================== Control Number: C103 Category: Asbestos Region: SSCD Date: 08/07/1991 Title: Res. Structures Acquired by Municip. Corp. Recipient: Blackwood, James Author: Rasnic, John B. Comments: Subparts: Part 61 M Asbestos References: 61.141 61.145 61.150 Abstract: Residential buildings acquired and demolished for the purpose of an urban renewal project are considered institutional buildings and are not exempt from the asbestos NESHAP. While a notification for demolition would be required, the work practice and waste disposal requirement would only apply where the combined amount of asbestos exceeds the threshold amounts. Homes resold by the Redevelopment Commission, which are then renovated by the new homeowner, are not subject to the asbestos NESHAP since the NESHAP does not apply to single family dwellings. Letter: Control Number: C103 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION Mr. L. James Blackwood, II Coggin, Hoyle, Blackwood, and Brannan 108 Commerce Place Greensboro, North Carolina 27401 Dear Mr. Blackwood: This is in response to your June 18, 1991 letter requesting clarification of two issues concerning the applicability of the asbestos NESHAP to residential structures acquired by a municipal corporation. Issue 1: "The demolition of structures containing less than four residential units acquired by the Redevelopment Commission of Greensboro under its eminent domain authority;" Response: In the preamble to the November 20, 1990 revisions to the asbestos NESHAP (FR 48412 November 20, 1990), EPA stated that, "[we do] not consider residential structures that are demolished or renovated as part of a commercial or public project to be exempt from the rule. For example, the demolition of one or more houses as part of an urban renewal project, a highway construction project, or a project to develop a shopping mall, industrial facility or other private development would be subject to the NESHAP." Residential buildings which are acquired and demolished for the purpose of an urban renewal project are considered institutional buildings and, as discussed above, are not exempt from the asbestos NESHAP. In addition, as stated in the above mentioned Federal Register notice, "[a] group of residential buildings under the control of the same owner or operator is considered an 'installation' and is, therefore, covered by the rule." However, while a notification for demolition would be required, the work practice and waste disposal requirements in 40 CFR Section 61.145 and Section 61.150 would only apply where the combined asbestos in the buildings was over the threshold amounts (80 linear meters on pipes or at least 15 square meters on other facility components). Issue 2: "The resale of property owned by the Redevelopment Commission of Greensboro in which it is required that specific renovations be performed by the new homeowner;" Response: Although the buildings are originally purchased by the Redevelopment Commission of Greensboro for institutional purposes (i.e., urban redevelopment), the actual renovation activities take place after the residential buildings are sold to single family owners. The Redevelopment Commission does not own or manage the buildings at the time the renovations are performed. The asbestos NESHAP does not apply to renovations of single family buildings (including buildings which have four or fewer dwelling units). Consequently, the asbestos NESHAP would not apply to the resale of homes by the Redevelopment Commission and the renovation of those homes by the new homeowners. This determination has been coordinated with EPA's Office of Enforcement, the Emission Standards Division of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Region IV. Of you have any questions, please contact Scott Throwe of my staff at (703) 308-8699. Sincerely, John B. Rasnic, Director Stationary Source Compliance Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards cc: Sims Roy, ESD (MD-13) Charles Garlow, OE (LE-134A) Omayra Salgado, SSCD (EN-341W) Tom Ripp, SSCD (EN-341W) Regional Asbestos NESHAP Coordinators ====================================================================== Control Number: C98 Category: Asbestos Region: SSCD Date: 05/20/1991 Title: Asbestos Gaskets Recipient: Lingenfelder, Jim Author: Rasnic, John B. Comments: Subparts: Part 61 M Asbestos References: 61.141 61.145 61.150 Abstract: Asbestos gaskets are Category I nonfriable asbestos-containing material. If gaskets are not sanded, cut, ground, or abraded, they would not be considered regulated asbestos-containing material (RACM). The demolition and renovation provisions would apply to asbestos gaskets where the gaskets are considered RACM and the amount being removed exceeds 160 square feet for a single renovation or during a calendar year for individual nonscheduled operations. If asbestos gasket material is in good condition and gasket removal spray and a hand scraper are used, the material would not be considered RACM and would not be subject to the asbestos NESHAP. Letter: Control Number: C98 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 MAY 20 1991 OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION Mr. Jim Lingenfelder Durable Manufacturing Co. 4669 Southwest Freeway Suite 800 Houston, Texas 77027 Dear Mr. Lingenfelder: This is in response to your April 4, 1991 letter to Scott Throwe of my staff in which you requested a clarification of the applicability of the Asbestos National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) to asbestos gaskets. In your letter you have presented your understanding of the Asbestos NESHAP as it applies to asbestos gaskets. You are correct in stating that asbestos gaskets are considered Category I nonfriable asbestos containing material (ACM). In the recently revised Asbestos NESHAP, promulgated on November 20, 1990, Category I nonfriable ACM is defined in 40 CFR Section 61.141 as "asbestos containing packings, gaskets, resilient floor covering and asphalt roofing products" containing more than 1 percent asbestos determined using the methods specified in Appendix A, Subpart F, 40 CFR Part 763, Section 1, Polarized Light Microscopy. In addition, the Asbestos NESHAP defines regulated asbestos containing material (RACM) in regards to Category I material as "...nonfriable ACM that will be or has been subjected to sanding grinding, cutting or abrading." Therefore, asbestos gaskets that have not been and will not be subjected to these processes would not be considered RACM. The demolition and renovation provisions in Section 61.145 and the waste disposal provisions in Section 61.150 would apply to asbestos gaskets where the gaskets are considered RACM, as discussed above, and the amount of asbestos gaskets being removed is at least 160 square feet for a single renovation project or more likely, during a calendar year for individual nonscheduled operations. In your April 4 letter you also describe a problem that occurs during the removal of asbestos-gaskets from flanges. You stated that in some cases the gasket may tear leaving some of the gasket on the face of the flange. You are correct in stating that the use of a sanding or abrading operation to remove the remaining gasket would render the material friable. However, if the gasket is in good condition despite the tearing, we believe the process you describe of applying a gasket removal spray and using a hand scraper will not damage the material such that it will be crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder. Therefore, if the asbestos gasket is in good condition and gasket removal spray and a hand scraper is used, the material would not be considered RACM and would not be subject to either the demolition and renovation or the waste disposal requirements of the Asbestos NESHAP. This determination has been coordinated with EPA's Office of Enforcement and with the Emission Standards Division of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. If you have any questions, please contact Scott Throwe of my staff at (703) 308-8699. Sincerely, John B. Rasnic, Acting Director Stationary Source Compliance Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards cc: Sims Roy, ESD (MD-13) Charles Garlow, OE (LE-134A) Omayra Salgado, SSCD (EN-341W) Tom Ripp, SSCD (EN-341W) Regional Asbestos NESHAP Coordinators ====================================================================== Control Number: C81 Category: Asbestos Region: Region 5 Date: 12/18/1990 Title: Letter to Otto Klein, State of Illinois Recipient: Klein, Otta T. Author: Prasinos, Christina Comments: Subparts: Part 61 M Asbestos References: 61.141 61.145 61.150 61.154 Abstract: Waste containers must be labeled with the name of the waste generator, and vehicles used to transport waste must be appropriately marked; however, the NESHAP-required signs for the transport vehicles do not have to remain affixed during transport. Recordkeeping and reporting requirements now apply to the owner/operator of disposal sites. Reporting significant amounts of improperly contained waste would apply to any amount that can easily be seen and tested; any amount over one-half cubic foot would be significant. A thorough inspection, which is the responsibility of the owner or operator, means every accessible area of an affected facility is inspected; survey results are not required to accompany the notification. The training requirements would be satisfied by state certification courses as long as they cover the topics listed in the NESHAP. Letter: Control Number: C81 United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 December 18, 1990 Otto T. Klein, Jr. Asbestos D/R Coordinator Division of Air Pollution Control Illinois Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 Dear Mr. Klein: This is a response to your questions raised in your letter dated December 3, 1990, regarding the revised NESHAP Regulation, effective November 20, 1990. The answers to your questions are as follows: 1. Page 48416. The revised regulation requires the owner or operator of an active waste disposal site to maintain Waste Shipment Records (WSRs) and report in writing the receipt of a significant amount of improperly-enclosed or uncovered waste to EPA by the following working day. The owner or operator of an active waste disposal site is required by the revisions to send a signed copy of the WSR back to the waste generator no more than 30 days after receipt of the waste, to attempt to reconcile discrepancy between the quantity given on the WSR and the quantity actually received. 2 Page 48419, 61.145(a). The word "thoroughly" means that every accessible area is inspected in the affected facility or part of the facility where the demolition or renovation will take place. A contractor may send a Notice of Demolition/Renovation without a copy of the "owners" survey results including PLM lab results, Categories I and II nonfriable ACM. Such a requirement is not made by the old or the revised asbestos NESHAP. Page 48419, 61.145(b)(4)(v). The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) is not responsible for confirming that a "thorough inspection" was done. The owner or operator is liable for providing documentation if requested to do so. Procedure constitutes PLM with point counting. If the amount of asbestos is greater than 10-percent even that is not required. 3. Page 48419, 61.145(a)(4). By "Combined Amount" we mean summation of amounts of the same units (linear feet, square feet, etc.). The regulation clearly states that the amount of RACM to be stripped, removed, dislodged, cut drilled or similarly disturbed is at least 260 linear feet or 160 square feet, 35 cubic feet. 4. Page 48419, 61,145(a). The owner or operator is responsible for performing the thorough inspection. 5. Page 48421(B)(8). The requirements of the training are not accounted for by length and depth. As long as the training is given by an eligible institution or contractor, i e., State EPA certification courses, and covers the topics mentioned in the revised NESHAP, it is accepted by the U.S. EPA. The certificate of completion of such training is sufficient documentation or evidence of training. 6. Page 48429, 61.150(a)(1)(v). Containers or wrapped materials must be labeled with the name of the waste generator and the name of the waste disposal site as required. Contractors are allowed to purchase bags with the abatement company's name printed on them, if they so desire. Part (iv) is an independent requirement from (v). 7. Page 48429, 61.150(a)(1)(iv). No such requirement is made. The signs indicating asbestos transport do not have to remain on the truck during transport. However, the Department of Transportation (D.0.T.) has certain requirements which you might be interested in investigating. 8. Page 48415. "Malfunction" is not defined for the demo/reno program. Filters and negative air machines are not regulated by the NESHAP demo/reno. However, if visible emissions are a result of such a malfunction, violations are reported. 9. 61.154(e)(iv). "Significant" is any amount that can easily be seen and tested. For waste containing asbestos material we feel that any amount over half a cubic foot is significant. For any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at (312) 886-6819. Sincerely, Christina Prasinos Compliance Section II ======================================================================