***Comments in Response on Draft Quality Assurance Project Plan for the
Alternative Asbestos Control Method Demonstration Project, 70 Fed. Reg.
73237 (Dec. 9, 2005), EPA-HQ-ORD-2005-0028.***

I am Barry Castleman, ScD, Environmental Consultant. I have been
actively involved in governmental asbestos issues for over 30 years as a
consultant to federal agencies (EPA, OSHA, Department of Justice,
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Federal Trade Commission) and
non-governmental organizations, and as an independent consultant. My
formal training is in chemical engineering, environmental engineering,
and public health. I am the author of the comprehensive public health
and corporate history of asbestos (*Asbestos: Medical and Legal
Aspects*, 5th Ed. 2005, 894 pp).

I concur with the comments of the AFL-CIO Building and Construction
Trades Department and urge that EPA not proceed with this project until
resolution of the issues of restrictions on experimentation on human
subjects and compliance with relevant EPA and OSHA regulations on worker
protection and waste disposal. I also support the points made by Trial
Lawyers for Public Justice on the inadequacy of the buildings as
asbestos test buildings and the justification for at least a 30-day
extension in the comment period.

I am additionally concerned about the possibility of contamination from
the water used in the alternative \"wet method\" and do not believe the
project plan document adequately deals with the need to sample the soil
in areas where this water has run off from the demolition site to
determine the extent of asbestos contamination that has occurred and
which may then give rise to airborne environmental exposures of people
in the area. Soil sampling should not be limited to respirable-sized
fibers, since wind and physical shear forces can eventually reduce
larger particles to respirable-sized dust.

The project plan document speaks of the comparative analysis of exposure
data using the NESHAPS method and the Alternative Asbestos Control
Method, to see if the alternative method is \"statistically equal\" to
the NESHAPS method. I have never seen this term \"statistically equal\"
used before in what amounts to governmental rulemaking. As I understand
the term, EPA is proposing to accept the alternative method if the
geometric mean of the exposures measured with the alternate method is
equal to or less than the geometric mean of the exposures from the
NESHPS method. This averaging of exposures concerns me, because some
exposure measurements may be more significant than others. Moreover,
some comparable measurements for the two methods should be compared to
each other and not just lumped into composite averages of all
measurements. Furthermore, it is not logical to count individual soil
and water run-off sample analyses as being equally important to air
samples, or to disregard soil and water samples, in weighting any
composite average of all measurements of environmental exposure.

If the term \"statistically equal\" means that the comparison will be
made in a manner analogous to public opinion polling, where a 46%
approval may count as statistically indiscernible from any other value
between 43-49%, because of 3% error margins of the survey data, this is
disturbing. That approach gives the benefit of the doubt (within the
margin of error for the numbers of data points being compared) to the
alternative method, in favoring it as a cheaper regulatory option. The
presentation of any data generated should be completely transparent and
the interpretation of data should include making *any* relevant
comparisons of the analytical results of the two methods.

This acceptance of a \"statistically equal,\" cheap alternative method
of compliance may also be a departure from past practice and
inconsistent with EPA\'s duty to protect public health under the Clean
Air Act. This looks like an effort to alter the regulatory status of a
hazardous air pollutant, presented as an EPA R&D test project. Legal
requirements for rulemaking should be fully complied with. Certainly,
this one test project has such limitations that it could not justifiably
be the main basis for a rule change, however the proposed project turns
out.

I am also concerned that the methodology of both the demolition and the
sampling be subject to observation by a properly qualified independent
observer representing worker or environmental organizations, if this
test project proceeds.

\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*

Barry Castleman

Environmental Consultant

PO Box 188

Garrett Park MD 20896

Tel. 301-933-9097

bcastleman@earthlink.net

submitted January 9, 2006