EPA-450/3-90-017

                  National Emission Standards
                                
                       for Asbestos ----
                                
                     Background Information
                                
                    for Promulgated Asbestos
                                
                        NESHAP Revisions
                                

                  Emissions Standards Division

              U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                
                  Office of Air and Radiation
                                
          Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                                
         Research Triangle Park, North Carolina  27711
                                

                          October 1990

                           DISCLAIMER

     This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards Division, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air and Radiation,
Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication.  Mention of
company or product names does not constitute endorsement by EPA.  Copies of
this report are available free of charge to Federal employees, current
contractors and grantees, and non-profit organizations -- as supplies 
permit -- from the Library Services Office, MD-35, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.  27711; or may be obtained,
for a fee, from the National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal
Road, Springfield, Virginia  22161.

                            CONTENTS

CHAPTER                                                                Page

Abbreviations .......................................................  x 

 1.0  Summary .......................................................   1-1

      1.1   Summary of Changes Since Proposal .......................   1-1

      1.2   Summary of Impacts of Promulgated Action ................   1-2

            1.2.1   Environmental Impacts of Promulgated Action .....   1-2
            1.2.2   Energy and Economic Impacts of Promulgated          1-2
                    Action ..........................................

 2.0  List of Commenters and Organization of Comments and 
      Response ......................................................   2-1

 3.0  General Comments ..............................................   3-1

      3.1   Basis for Revisions .....................................   3-1
      
      3.2   Compliance/Enforcement ..................................   3-1

      3.3   Industry Burden .........................................   3-2

      3.4   Stringency ..............................................   3-3

      3.5   Revisions to Facilitate Enforcement .....................   3-4

      3.6   Agency Burden ...........................................   3-4

      3.7   Support Clarifying Changes ..............................   3-4

      3.8   Clearer Language ........................................   3-4

      3.9   Interpretation of NESHAP ................................   3-5

      3.10  Type of Asbestos ........................................   3-5

      3.11  Health Effects ..........................................   3-6

      3.12  Cross-Referencing .......................................   3-7

      3.13  Inspections by the Administrator ........................   3-7

      3.14  Effective Date ..........................................   3-8

      3.15  Storage and Transfer ....................................   3-9

                               i
                      CONTENTS (continued)

CHAPTER                                                                Page

      3.16  Alternate Methods .......................................   3-9

      3.17  Responsibility for Compliance ...........................   3-9

      3.18  Noncommercial Asbestos ..................................   3-9

 4.0  Definitions ...................................................   4-1

      4.1   General .................................................   4-1

      4.2   Asbestos-Containing Waste Material ......................   4-1

      4.3   Commercial Asbestos .....................................   4-2

      4.4   Demolition ..............................................   4-2

      4.5   Emergency Renovation Operation ..........................   4-3

      4.6   EPA ID Number ...........................................   4-4

      4.7   Fabricating .............................................   4-4

      4.8   Facility ................................................   4-4

      4.9   Facility Component ......................................   4-5

      4.10  Friable Asbestos Material-Material Covered ..............   4-6

      4.11  Friable Asbestos Material-Analytical Method .............   4-8

      4.12  Fugitive Sources ........................................   4-10

      4.13  Generator ...............................................   4-11

      4.14  Glove Bags ..............................................   4-11

      4.15  Inactive Waste Disposal Site ............................   4-11

      4.16  Inspection Ports ........................................   4-11

      4.17  Installation ............................................   4-12

      4.18  Location and Address ....................................   4-12

      4.19  Malfunction .............................................   4-12

      4.20  Natural Barrier .........................................   4-13

                               ii

                      CONTENTS (continued)

CHAPTER                                                                Page

      4.21  Nonfriable ..............................................   4-13

      4.22  Nonscheduled Renovation Operation .......................   4-13

      4.23  Outside Air .............................................   4-14

      4.24  Owner or operator of a Demolition or Renovation 
            Activity ................................................   4-14

      4.25  Particulate Asbestos Material ...........................   4-16

      4.26  Remove ..................................................   4-16

      4.27  Renovation ..............................................   4-16

      4.28  Roadway .................................................   4-16

      4.29  Transport ...............................................   4-17

      4.30  Visible Emissions .......................................   4-17

      4.31  Waste Generator .........................................   4-19

      4.32  Waste Oil ...............................................   4-19

 5.0  Milling, Manufacturing, and Fabricating .......................   5-1

      5.1   Compliance ..............................................   5-1

      5.2   Applicability ...........................................   5-1

      5.3   Visible Emission Monitoring .............................   5-1

      5.4   Weekly Inspections ......................................   5-4

      5.5   Compliance Options ......................................   5-4

      5.6   Monitoring Reports ......................................   5-5

      5.7   Reference ...............................................   5-5

 6.0  Roadways ......................................................   6-1

      6.1   Use of Tailings .........................................   6-1

      6.2   Use of All Asbestos-Containing Material .................   6-1

      

                              iii
                      CONTENTS (continued)

CHAPTER                                                                Page

      6.3   Contaminated Stone ......................................   6-3

 7.0  Demolition and Renovation .....................................   7-1

      7.1   Applicability ...........................................   7-1

            7.1.1   Asbestos-Containing Material ....................   7-1
            7.1.2   Coverage Expanded to "Disturbed" Material .......   7-5
            7.1.3   No Asbestos .....................................   7-7
            7.1.4   Applicability Threshold--Volume Equivalent ......   7-8
            7.1.5   Applicability Threshold--Exempted Operations ....   7-10
            7.1.6   Affected Facilities .............................   7-11
            7.1.7   Offsite Stripping ...............................   7-11 
            7.1.8   Roadways ........................................   7-12
            7.1.9   Individual Nonscheduled Operations--Section
                    61.145(a)(4)(i) .................................   7-12
            7.1.10  Emergency Renovations--Section 61.145(a)(4)(ii)..   7-14
            7.1.11  Format ..........................................   7-15
            7.1.12  Building Survey .................................   7-15

      7.2   Notification ............................................   7-16

            7.2.1   General .........................................   7-16
            7.2.2   Reason for Updating Notices .....................   7-17
            7.2.3   Identifying Updated Notices .....................   7-17
            7.2.4   Where to Send ...................................   7-17
            7.2.5   Waiting Period Between Notification and
                    Beginning Work--Section 61.145(b)(3)(i) .........   7-17
            7.2.6   Individual Nonscheduled Renovations--Section
                    61.145(b)(3)(ii) ................................   7-18
            7.2.7   Emergency Renovation--Section 61.145(b)(3)(iii)..   7-19
            7.2.8   Ordered Demolitions .............................   7-20
            7.2.9   Notification Period .............................   7-20
            7.2.10  Distinction Between Removal as Part of
                    Demolition or Renovation ........................   7-23
            7.2.11  Renotification ..................................   7-24
            7.2.12  Notification Prior to Stripping .................   7-27
            7.2.13  Renotification/Updating .........................   7-27
            7.2.14  Method of Notifying EPA--section 61.145(b)(2) ...   7-27
            7.2.15  Method of Notifying-Section 61.145(b)(3) ........   7-28
            7.2.16  Information Required--General ...................   7-29
            7.2.17  Information Required--responsibility for
                    Notification ....................................   7-30
            7.2.18  Information Required--Identification of Owner/
                    Operator ........................................   7-30
            7.2.19  Information Required--Description of Facility ...   7-31
            7.2.20  Information Required--Asbestos Detection ........   7-31   
       

                               iv

                      CONTENTS (continued)

CHAPTER                                                                Page

            7.2.21  Information Required--Quantity of Asbestos ......   7-32
            7.2.22  Information Required--Address--Section
                    61.145(b)(4)(vi) ................................   7-35
            7.2.23  Information Required--Dates--Section
                    61.145(b)(4)(vii) ...............................   7-35
            7.2.24  Information Required--Dates for Individual
                    Nonscheduled Renovations--Section   
                    61.145(b)(4)(vii) ...............................   7-36
            7.2.25  Information Required--Methods--Section
                    61.145(b)(4)(ix) ................................   7-36
            7.2.26  Information Required--Trained Supervisor--
                    Section 61.145(b)(4)(xii) .......................   7-36
            7.2.27  Information Required--Ordered Demolitions--
                    Section 61.145(b)(4)(xiii) ......................   7-37
            7.2.28  Information Required--Emergency Renovations--
                    Section 61.145(b)(4)(xiv) .......................   7-38
            7.2.29  Information Required--Discovery of Unexpected
                    Asbestos--Section 61.145(b)(4)(xv) ..............   7-38
            7.2.30  Notification Form ...............................   7-41
            7.2.31  Lack of Notifications as Basis for Estimate of
                    Noncompliance ...................................   7-43
            7.2.32  Periodic Reports ................................   7-43
            7.2.33  Notification for Individual Nonscheduled 
                    Operations ......................................   7-43
   
      7.3   Controls ................................................   7-44

            7.3.1   Exemption from Removal ..........................   7-44
            7.3.2   Work Practices--Clearance Inspection/Cleanup ....   7-45
            7.3.3   Work Practices--Waste Storage ...................   7-46
            7.3.4   Work Practices--General .........................   7-46
            7.3.5   Work Practices--Section 61.145(c)(3) ............   7-47
            7.3.6   Work Practices--Sections 61.145(c)(2), (c)(3)
                    (c)(4), and (c)(6) ..............................   7-47
            7.3.7   Work Practices--Section 61.145(c)(5) ............   7-48
            7.3.8   Work Practices--Section 61.145(c)(6) ............   7-49
            7.3.9   Work Practices--Chutes--Section
                    61.145(c)(6)(iii) ...............................   7-50
            7.3.10  Work Practices--Section 61.145(c)(7) ............   7-51
            7.3.11  Work Practices--Exterior Nonfriable Products ....   7-51
            7.3.12  Work Practices--Wastewater ......................   7-51
            7.3.13  Exemption from Removal--Section 61.145(c)(1) ....   7-52
            7.3.14  Wetting Exemption for Renovation--Section
                    61.145(c)(3) ....................................   7-53
            7.3.15  Wetting Exemptions in Freezing Weather--Section
                    61.145(c)(7) ....................................   7-56
            7.3.16  Adequately Wet ..................................   7-57

                               v

                      CONTENTS (continued)

CHAPTER                                                                Page

            7.3.17  Glove Bags ......................................   7-58
            7.3.18  Technology vs. Paperwork ........................   7-59
            7.3.19  HEPA Filters ....................................   7-60
            7.3.20  Negative Pressure Systems .......................   7-60
            7.3.21  Restrict Access to Work Areas ...................   7-61
            7.3.22  Control Options--No Visible Emissions vs.
                    Equipment Specifications ........................   7-61
            7.3.33  Training ........................................   7-61
            7.3.24  Work Permit .....................................   7-65
            7.3.25  General .........................................   7-66
            7.3.26  Stringency/Compliance ...........................   7-66 
            7.3.27  Unnecessary Burden ..............................   7-67
            7.3.28  Overall Regulation of Asbestos Abatement ........   7-68
            7.3.29  Objective Measures of Compliance ................   7-69
            7.3.30  Uncertainty in Level of Compliance ..............   7-69
            7.3.31  NADC Claims .....................................   7-69
            7.3.32  Emission Sources ................................   7-70
            7.3.33  Level of Compliance and Emissions ...............   7-70
            7.3.34  Emission Estimates ..............................   7-70
            7.3.35  Violations ......................................   7-71
            7.3.36  Fees ............................................   7-71
            7.3.37  Format ..........................................   7-71
            7.3.38  Occupant Protection--Schools ....................   7-72 
            7.3.39  Risk-Based Review ...............................   7-72
            7.3.40  NARS ............................................   7-72

 8.0  Spraying ......................................................   8-1

 9.0  Insulating Materials ..........................................   9-1

10.0  Waste Disposal for Asbestos Mills .............................   10-1

      10.1   Emission Standard ......................................   10-1

      10.2   Waste Transport ........................................   10-1
 
      10.3   Exemption from Wetting .................................   10-1

      10.4   Alternative Treatment Method ...........................   10-1

11.0  Waste Disposal for Manufacturing, Fabricating, Demolition,
      Renovation, and Spraying ......................................   11-1

      11.1   Applicability ..........................................   11-1
   
      11.2   Placards ...............................................   11-1

                               vi

                      CONTENTS (continued)

CHAPTER                                                                Page

      11.3   Labeling ...............................................   11-3

      11.4   Waste Tracking Form ....................................   11-4

             11.4.1   Uniformity of Existing Systems ................   11-4
             11.4.2   Information Required ..........................   11-4

      11.5   Reporting, Recordkeeping ...............................   11-5

             11.5.1   General .......................................   11-5
             11.5.2   Semiannual Reports ............................   11-6

      11.6   EPA Identification Numbers .............................   11-7

      11.7   Broken Nonfriable Material--Section 61.150(a)(3) .......   11-7

      11.8   Asbestos-Containing Waste Material .....................   11-9

      11.9   Work Practice ..........................................   11-10

             11.9.1  Asbestos Not Removed Prior to Demolition .......   11-10
             11.9.2  Waste Containers ...............................   11-11
             11.9.3  Wetting Practices ..............................   11-11
             11.9.4  Transport of Waste .............................   11-11
             11.9.5  Processing Waste ...............................   11-12
             11.9.6  Control Options ................................   11-12
             11.9.7  Alternative Methods ............................   11-13
             11.9.8  General ........................................   11-13

      11.10  On-Site Disposal .......................................   11-13

      11.11  Off-Site Disposal ......................................   11-14

      11.12  Holding Time ...........................................   11-14

      11.13  Format .................................................   11-15

      11.14  Responsibility for Compliance ..........................   11-15

      11.15  Enforcement ............................................   11-15

      11.16  General ................................................   11-15

12.0  Inactive Waste Disposal Sites .................................   12-1

      12.1   Applicability ..........................................   12-1

                              vii

                      CONTENTS (continued)

CHAPTER                                                                Page

      12.2   Work Practices .........................................   12-1

      12.3   Recordkeeping, Reporting ...............................   12-1

      12.4   Natural Barriers .......................................   12-2

      12.5   Excavation of Asbestos Waste ...........................   12-2

13.0  Air Cleaning ..................................................   13-1

14.0  Reporting .....................................................   14-1

15.0  Active Disposal Sites .........................................   15-1

      15.1   Costs ..................................................   15-1

      15.2   Work Practices .........................................   15-1

      15.3   Responsibility for Compliance ..........................   15-3

      15.4   Verifying discrepancies on Manifest ....................   15-3

      15.5   Inspection of Waste ....................................   15-4

      15.6   Inspection and Receipt .................................   15-5

      15.7   General ................................................   15-5

      15.8   Recordkeeping, Reporting ...............................   15-6

             15.8.1   Asbestos Waste Tracking System-Form ...........   15-6
             15.8.2   Volume ........................................   15-6
             15.8.3   Retention of Forms ............................   15-6
             15.8.4   Reporting Improperly Contained Waste ..........   15-6
             15.8.5   Recording Improperly Contained Waste ..........   15-7
             15.8.6   Semiannual Report-Submittal Dates .............   15-8
             15.8.7   Generator .....................................   15-8
             15.8.8   Maintenance of Records ........................   15-9
             15.8.9   Opposition to Semiannual Reports ..............   15-9
             15.8.10  Waste Shipment Record--Information Required ...   15-9
             15.8.11  Location of Waste .............................   15-10
             15.8.12  On-Site Disposal ..............................   15-10
             15.8.13  Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting ...........   15-11

      15.9   Regulatory Authority ...................................   15-11

                              viii

                      CONTENTS (continued)

CHAPTER                                                                Page

      15.10  EPA ID Number ..........................................   15-12

      15.11  Asbestos in Ground Water ...............................   15-12

      15.12  Reference ..............................................   15-13

16.0  Waste Conversion Processes ....................................   16-1

      16.1  General .................................................   16-1

      16.2  Application to Construct ................................   16-1

      16.3  Performance Test ........................................   16-1

      16.4  Operating Parameter Monitoring ..........................   16-1

      16.5  Analysis of Feed and Output .............................   16-1

      16.6  Test for Leachable Chemicals ............................   16-3

      16.7  Monitoring ..............................................   16-3

      16.8  Safety of Output Materials ..............................   16-3

      16.9  Other Treatment Processes ...............................   16-3

                               ix

                                
                        ABBREVIATIONS   

A/C       asbestos/cement

ACM       asbestos-containing material

AHERA     Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of 1986

ANSI      American National Standards Institute

ASTM      American Society for Testing and Materials

BID       background information document

CAA       Clean Air Act

CPSC      Consumer Products Safety Commission

DOT       Department of Transportation

EPA       Environmental Protection Agency

ID        identification

LEV       local exhaust ventilation

NADC      National Association of Demolition Contractors

NARS      National Asbestos Registry System

NESHAP    National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NIOSH     National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OAQPS     Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

OSHA      Occupational Safety and Health Administration

OSW       Office of Solid Waste

PEL       permissible exposure limit

PLM       polarized light microscopy

RCRA      Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

SARA      Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986

TEM       transmission electron microscopy

TSCA      Toxic Substances Control Act

                               x

                           1.0  SUMMARY

     On January 10, 1989, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed
revisions to the asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) (54 FR 912) under authority of Section 112 of the Clean
Air Act (CAA).  Public comments were requested on the proposal in the Federal
Register.  There were 100 commenters composed mainly of industry groups; also
commenting were regulatory agencies and Federal agencies.  The comments that
were submitted, along with responses to these comments, are summarized in this
background information document (BID).  The summary of comments and responses
serves as the basis for the revisions made to the standard between proposal
and promulgation.

1.1   SUMMARY OF CHANGES SINCE PROPOSAL

     Several modifications have been made to the requirements for demolition
and renovation since proposal.  The applicability provisions were revised to
explicitly require the thorough inspection of a facility for the presence of
asbestos before demolition or renovation.  Previously, the requirement for an
inspection was inferred from the requirements to report to EPA all demolitions
and any renovation where the amount of asbestos exceeds the threshold amount. 
The provision that would have required that all notices be sent by certified
mail has been deleted allowing, instead, the use of the U.S. Postal Service,
commercial delivery, or hand delivery of notices.  In situations when the date
on which asbestos stripping or removal changes from the date contained in the
original notice, the 5-day waiting period has been modified.  Instead, the
owner or operator must notify EPA by telephone followed by a written
notification of the new start date.  The notice by telephone, must be received
before the original start date, and the written followup notice must be
received no later than the original start date.  The final rule also contains
a new provision that requires that the trained on-site supervisors receive
additional refresher training in the provisions of the NESHAP every 2 years. 
The definition of "emergency renovation" and the provisions pertaining to
emergency renovations have been modified to include a renovation caused by the
disruption of normal industrial operations, in addition to a renovation caused
by unsafe conditions (which was contained in the proposed amendments).  The
NESHAP has also been revised to clarify which nonfriable materials do not have
to be removed from a facility prior to demolition.

     The recordkeeping and reporting provisions for asbestos waste disposal
have also been changed since proposal.  Specifically, the requirement that
waste generators and waste disposal site owners and operators submit
semiannual reports to EPA detailing waste disposal activities for the past 6
months has been eliminated.  Also, the proposed requirement for waste
generators and disposal sites to obtain an EPA identification (ID) number, to
be included on all waste shipment records, was deleted.  Two new provisions
have been added to the waste disposal requirements since proposal.  Disposal
site owners and operators must now notify EPA whenever they receive an
improperly contained shipment of asbestos waste, and waste generators must
notify EPA if, after a specified amount of time, they are unable to confirm
delivery of a waste shipment.

                              1-1

     In addition to the above changes, several minor clarifying and editorial
changes were made.  These and the other changes are discussed in more detail,
along with the rationale for the changes, in Chapters 3.0 through 16.0

1.2  SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF PROMULGATED ACTION

     1.2.1   Environmental Impacts of Promulgated Action

     The estimated environmental impacts have not changed since proposal.  If
there were full compliance with the NESHAP, emissions from asbestos removal
activities associated with demolition and renovation would be about 700 kg/yr. 
However, it is estimated from EPA's enforcement experience that approximately
50 percent of all demolitions and renovation operations are performed without
EPA's being notified, indicating that a significant amount of asbestos
material (including asbestos waste) is handled out of compliance with the
provisions of the NESHAP.  Based on the current level of compliance, estimated
emissions from demolition and renovation for both removal and waste disposal
are approximately 228,000 kg/yr, with emissions from illegal waste dumping
accounting for nearly all of this amount.  The recommended amendments would
improve compliance with the NESHAP, thereby reducing emissions and health
risks, although the degree to which compliance would be improved and emissions
would be reduced is uncertain.

     Estimated process emissions under the current NESHAP at full compliance
for milling, manufacturing, and fabricating are approximately 7,400 kg/yr.  To
the extent possible, EPA considered the effects that the final ban and
phasedown rule would have on the impacts of the recommended asbestos NESHAP
standard.  Depending on the extent to which the ban and phasedown rule reduce
asbestos consumption, the amount of asbestos processed and the amount of
asbestos emitted to the atmosphere are likely to be reduced, although the
precise impact is unclear.

     Estimated emissions from waste disposal, if there were full compliance
with the NESHAP by all sources, would be about 600 kg/yr.  However, as noted
above, enforcement  experience indicates that a significant amount of asbestos
waste from noncomplying demolitions and renovations is handled out of
compliance with the NESHAP.  Based on current practice, estimated waste
disposal emissions from all waste, but primarily from the illegal dumping of
demolition and renovation waste, are 227,000 kg/yr.  The recommended
amendments are focused on improving compliance with the NESHAP.  Although the
degree to which emissions would actually be reduced cannot be quantified
precisely, the emission reduction would approach 227,000 kg/yr as compliance
approaches 100 percent.

1.2.2  Energy and Economic Impacts of Promulgated Action

    Since proposal, changes have been made that affect the industry burden
associated with recordkeeping and reporting.  The requirement for waste
generators and disposal sites to make semiannual reports summarizing their
waste disposal activities has been omitted.  However, a provision was added 

                              1-2

requiring waste generators to report to EPA after a specified time if they are
unable to confirm delivery of any waste shipments.  In addition, a provision
was added that requires waste disposal sites to notify EPA in the event that
they receive a waste shipment that is improperly contained.  Also, on-site
supervisors of demolitions and renovations, in addition to their initial
training, must receive refresher training every 2 years.

     The total costs of the recommended amendments are expected to be small
relative to normal operating costs for these industries.  Amendments are
intended to promote compliance and codify existing good practices.  An
additional cost of approximately $9.9 million/yr would be associated with the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the amendments.  This is an
increase over the $9.3 million recordkeeping and reporting costs estimated for
the proposed amendments.  The increase in costs results from the changes in
the final amendments described above.  No significant adverse impacts on
energy are anticipated.

                              1-3
2.0  LIST OF COMMENTERS AND ORGANIZATION OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

     A total of 100 letters commenting on the proposed standard were received. 
Comments from the public hearing on the proposed standard were recorded, and a
transcript of the hearing was placed in the project docket.  The docket number
for this project is A-88-28.  Dockets are on file at EPA Headquarters in
Washington, DC, and at the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS) in Durham, NC.  A list of commenters, their affiliations, and the EPA
docket number assigned to their correspondence is given in Table 2-1.

     For the purpose of orderly presentation, the comments have been
categorized by the part of the regulation they address.  Each category of
comments and corresponding chapter are as follows:

     3.0  General Comments
    
     4.0  Definitions

     5.0  Milling, Manufacturing, and Fabricating

     6.0  Roadways

     7.0  Demolition and Renovation

     8.0  Spraying

     9.0  Insulating Materials

    10.0  Waste Disposal for Asbestos Mills

    11.0  Waste Disposal for Manufacturing, Fabricating, Demolition,
          Renovation, and Spraying

    12.0  Inactive Waste Disposal Sites

    13.0  Air Cleaning

    14.0  Reporting

    15.0  Active Disposal Sites

    16.0  Waste Conversion Processes

                              2-1
      TABLE 2-1  LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
                       TO ASBESTOS NESHAP

  
                                                                             
Docket item number                  Commenter and affiliation                  
                                                          
  
                                                                             
IV-D-01                       John F. Welch                                  
                              SBA Safe Building Alliance                     
                              Suite 1200, Metropolitan Sq.                   
                              655 Fifteenth St. N.W.                         
                              Washington, D.C.  20005                        
                                                                             
IV-D-02                       Joey Toney                                     
                              Calaveras Asbestos Ltd.                        
                              P.O. Box 127                                   
                              Copperopolis, CA  95228                        
                                                                             
IV-D-03                       Hal Barrett                                    
                              University of Alabama                          
                              12 Thomas Circle                               
                              P.O. Box 6095                                  
                              Tuscaloosa, AL  35487-6095                     
                                                                             
IV-D-04                       William L. Baker                               
                              National Association of                        
                               Demolition Contractors                        
                              4415 W. Harrison St.                           
                              Hillside, IL  60162                            
                                                                             
IV-D-05                       Dennis R. Moran                                
                              C.M. Towers, Inc.                              
                              P.O. Box 1166                                  
                              W. Caldwell, NJ  07007                          
                                                                             
IV-D-06                       John F. Welch                                  
                              Safe Buildings Alliance                        
                              Suite 1200, Metropolitan Square                
                              655 Fifteenth St. N.W.                         
                              Washington, DC  20005                          
                                                                             
IV-D-07                       Kenneth Nyquist                                
                              Asbestos Information Association               
                              1745 Jefferson Davis Hwy.                      
                              Crystal Square 4, Suite 509                    
                              Arlington, VA  22202                           
                                                                             
  
                                                                               
                                                                               

                              2-2

                     TABLE 2-1  (continued)

  
                                                                             
Docket item number                  Commenter and affiliation                  
                                                          
  
                                                                             
IV-D-08                       Robert Stockton                                
                              N.O.A. Associates                              
                              300 Technology Dr.                             
                              Malvern, PA  19355                             
                                                                             
IV-D-09                       J. Martin Thrasher                             
                              City of Colorado Springs                       
                               Dept. of Utilities                            
                              P.O. Box 1103                                  
                              Colorado Springs, CO  80947                    
                                                                             
IV-D-10                       Joey Toney                                     
                              Calaveras Asbestos Ltd.                        
                              P.O. Box 127                                   
                              Copperopolis, CA  95228                        
                                                                             
IV-D-11                       Timmie D. McBride                              
                              323 Brookside Blvd.                            
                              Pittsburgh, PA  15241                          
                                                                             
IV-D-12                       Harold E. Hodges                               
                              Tennessee Dept. of                             
                               Health and Environment                        
                              701 Broadway                                   
                              Nashville, TN  37219-5403                      
                                                                             
IV-D-13                       John C. Baguzia                                
                              Wayne County Air Pollution Control             
                              2211 E. Jefferson                              
                              Detroit, MI  48207                             
                                                                             
IV-D-14                       J. Michael Valentine                           
                              Minnesota Pollution Control Agency             
                              520 Lafayette Rd.                              
                              Saint Paul, MN  55155                          
                                                                             
IV-D-15                       Robert P. Miller                               
                              Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources            
                              Stevens T. Mason Bldg., Box 30028              
                              Lansing, MI  48909                             
  
                                                            (continued)        
                                                                               

                              2-3

                     TABLE 2-1  (continued)

  
                                                                             
Docket item number                  Commenter and affiliation                  
                                                          
  
                                                                             
IV-D-16                       Ralph Self                                     
                              N.C. Dept. of Public Instruction               
                              116 W Edenton St.                              
                              Education Bldg.                                
                              Raleigh, NC  27603-1712                        
                                                                             
IV-D-17                       J. A. Paul                                     
                              Regional Air Pollution Control Agency          
                              451 W. Third St.                               
                              P.O. Box 972                                   
                              Dayton, OH  45422                              
                                                                             
IV-D-18                       Robert L. Foster                               
                              Tennessee Dept. of Health and Environment      
                              701 Broadway                                   
                              Nashville, TN  37219-5403                      
                                                                             
IV-D-19                       Charles K. Weiss                               
                              Baltimore County Office                        
                               Bldg., Rm. 223                                
                              111 W. Chesapeake Ave.                         
                              Towson, MD  21204                              
                                                                             
IV-D-20                       Darrel Graziani                                
                              Hillsborough County Environmental              
                               Protection Commission                         
                              1900 - 9th Ave.                                
                              Tampa, FL  33605                               
                                                                             
IV-D-21                       Paul Heffernan                                 
                              Kaselaan & D'Angelo Associates, Inc.           
                              28 State St.                                   
                              Boston, MA  02109                              
                                                                             
IV-D-22                       John L. Myers                                  
                              Calidria Asbestos                              
                              P.O. Box K                                     
                              King City, CA  93930                           
                                                                             
                                                                             
  
                                                            (continued)        
                                                                               

                              2-4

                     TABLE 2-1  (continued)

  
                                                                             
Docket item number                  Commenter and affiliation                  
                                                          
  
                                                                             
IV-D-23                       Joanne Wright                                  
                              Ad Hoc Coalition of Asbestos Abatement         
                               Contractors                                   
                              (no address)                                   
                                                                             
IV-D-24                       B. A. Steiner                                  
                              ARMCO Corporate Offices                        
                              Box 600                                        
                              Middletown, OH  45043                          
                                                                             
IV-D-25                       Robert L. Pearson                              
                              Environmental Affairs                          
                              Public Service Co. of Colorado                 
                              P.O. Box 840                                   
                              Denver, CO  80201-0840                         
                                                                             
IV-D-26                       Joseph G. Brehm                                
                              Wisconsin Dept. of Natural                     
                               Resources                                     
                              P.O. Box 7921                                  
                              Madison, WI  53707                             
                                                                             
IV-D-27                       Jack W. Fisch                                  
                              Westinghouse Electric Corp.                    
                              Gateway Center                                 
                              Pittsburgh, PA  15222                          
                                                                             
IV-D-28                       Garry Kuberski                                 
                              Florida Dept. of Environmental                 
                               Regulation                                    
                              3319 Maguire Blvd., Suite 232                  
                              Orlando, FL  32803-3767                        
                                                                             
IV-D-29                       David R. Jordan                                
                              City of Indianapolis, Dept. of Public Works    
                              2700 S. Belmont                                
                              Indianapolis, IN  46221                        
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
  
                                                            (continued)        
                                                                               

                              2-5

                     TABLE 2-1  (continued)

  
                                                                             
Docket item number                  Commenter and affiliation                  
                                                          
  
                                                                             
IV-D-30                       Peter A. Hessling                              
                              Pinellas County (Fla) Board of Commissioners   
                              16100 Fairchild Dr., Suite V-102               
                              Clearwater, FL  34622                          
                                                                             
IV-D-31                       Karen A. Baker                                 
                              SASI Superior Abatement Services, Inc.         
                              113 E. Baraga, P.O. Box 7101                   
                              Marquette, MI  49855                           
                                                                             
IV-D-32                       Dwight Wylie                                   
                              Mississippi Dept. of Natural Resources         
                              P.O. Box 10385                                 
                              Jackson, Mississippi  39289-0385               
                                                                             
IV-D-33                       Edward D. Makruski                             
                              Gandee & Associates, Inc.                      
                              4488 Mobile Dr.                                
                              Columbus, OH  43220                            
                                                                             
IV-D-34                       H. Lanier Hickman, Jr.                         
                              Governmental Refuse Collection                 
                               and Disposal Association, Inc.                
                              P.O. Box 7219                                  
                              Silver Springs, MD  20910                      
                                                                             
IV-D-35                       William Ewing                                  
                              The Environmental Management Group, Inc.       
                              Cobb Corporate Center/300                      
                              350 Franklin Rd.                               
                              Marietta, GA  30067                            
                                                                             
IV-D-36                       John L. Wittenborn and William M. Guerry       
                              (Collier Shannon Rill & Scott, Counsel for)    
                              SSIUS Specialty Steel Industry of the U.S.     
                              1055 Thomas Jefferson St., NW                  
                              Washington, DC  20007                          
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
  
                                                            (continued)        
                                                                               

                              2-6

                     TABLE 2-1  (continued)

  
                                                                             
Docket item number                  Commenter and affiliation                  
                                                          
  
                                                                             
IV-D-37                       John L. Wittenborn and William M. Guerry       
                              (Collier Shannon Rill & Scott, Counsel for)    
                              SCA Shipbuilders Council of America            
                              1055 Thomas Jefferson St., NW                  
                              Washington, DC  20007                          
                                                                             
IV-D-38                       Ron Rappard & Louis Knieper                    
                              Solid Tech Inc.                                
                              4800 Lamar                                     
                              Mission, KS  66202                             
                                                                             
IV-D-39                       L. N. Bell                                     
                              ARCO Oil and Gas Company                       
                              P.O. Box 2819                                  
                              Dallas, TX  75221                              
                                                                             
IV-D-40                       J. W. Barbee                                   
                              Mobil Oil Corporation                         
                              3225 Gallows Rd.                               
                              Fairfax, VA  22037-0001                        
                                                                             
IV-D-41                       Carol P. Hoffstein                             
                              E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company             
                              Wilmington, DE  19898                          
                                                                             
IV-D-42                       Peter C. Cunningham (Hopping Boyd Green & 
                               Sams, Counsel for)                            
                              Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group Inc. 
                              123 S. Calhoun St.                             
                              P.O. Box 6526                                  
                              Tallahassee, FL  32314                         
                                                                             
IV-D-43                       J. R. Smith                                    
                              The Light Company (Houston)                    
                              P.O. Box 1700                                  
                              Houston, TX  77001                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
  
                                                            (continued)        
                                                                               

                              2-7

                     TABLE 2-1  (continued)

  
                                                                             
Docket item number                  Commenter and affiliation                  
                                                          
  
                                                                             
IV-D-44                       Kenneth P. Woodington                          
                              South Carolina Attorney General's Office       
                              Rembert C. Dennis Bldg.                        
                              P.O. Box 11549                                 
                              Columbia, SC  29211                            
                                                                             
IV-D-45                       Gregory J. Odegard
                              ElPaso Natural Gas Company
                              P.O. Box 1492                                  
                              El Paso, TX  79978                             
                                                                             
IV-D-46                       Richard L. White                               
                              Texas Utilities Electric Company               
                              Skyway Tower                                   
                              400 N. Olive St.                               
                              Dallas, TX  75201                              
                                                                             
IV-D-47                       Walter D. Anderson                             
                              Resilient Floor Covering Institute             
                              966 Hungerford Dr., Suite 12-B                 
                              Rockville, MD  20850                           
                                                                             
IV-D-48                       Michael A. Wiegard (Paul, Hastings, Janofsky  
                               & Walker, Counsel for)                        
                              GAF Corporation                                
                              Twelfth Floor                                  
                              1050 Connecticut Ave., NW                      
                              Washington, DC  20036                          
                                                                             
IV-D-49                       F. William Brownell (Hunton & Williams,
                               Counsel for)
                              Utility Air Regulatory Group                   
                              2000 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.                   
                              P.O. Box 19230                                 
                              Washington, DC  20036                          
                                                                             

                                                                               
            
                                                   (continued)     
                                                                               
                                                                 2-8

                     TABLE 2-1  (continued)

  
                                                                             
Docket item number                  Commenter and affiliation                  
                                                          
  

IV-D-50                       (Kirland & Ellis, Counsel for)                 
                              Safe Buildings Alliance                        
                              655 Fifteenth St., N.W.                        
                              Washington, DC  20005                            
                                                                             
IV-D-51                       G. A. Kilpatrick                               
                              Phillips Petroleum Company                     
                              Bartlesville, OK  74004                        
                                                                             
IV-D-52                       H. T. Gibson                                   
                              Exxon Company U.S.A.                           
                              P.O. Box 2180                                  
                              Houston, TX  77252-2180                        
                                                                             
IV-D-53                       Richard W. Niemeier                            
                              Dept. of Health & Human Services               
                              4676 Columbia Parkway                          
                              Cincinnati, OH  45226-1998                     
                                                                             
IV-D-54                       Lee Lockie                                     
                              South Coast Air Quality Management District    
                              9150 Flair Dr.                                 
                              El Monte, CA  91731                            
                                                                             
IV-D-55                       Jack Houghton                                  
                              Montgomery County Government                   
                              110 N. Washington St., 3rd Floor               
                              Rockville, MD  20850                           
                                                                             
IV-D-56                       Robert C. Wyatt                                
                              Dynamac Corporation                            
                              11140 Rockville Pike                           
                              Rockville, MD  20852                           
                                                                             
IV-D-57                       Scott Schneider and Matthew Gillen             
                              Workers' Institute for Safety and Health       
                              1126 Sixteenth St., N.W.                       
                              Washington, DC  20036                          
                                                                               
            
                                                   (continued)
                                                                              
                                                                               
                                                           
                              2-9

                     TABLE 2-1  (continued)

  
                                                                             
Docket item number                  Commenter and affiliation                  
                                                          
  

IV-D-58                       R. S. Rose                                     
                              Dow Chemical Company                           
                              2030 Building, Willard H. DOW Center           
                              Midland, MI  48674                             
                                                                             
IV-D-59                       R. T. Simril                                   
                              Duke Power Company                             
                              Nuclear Production Dept.                       
                              P.O. Box 33189                                 
                              422 South Church St.                           
                              Charlotte, NC  28242                           
                                                                             
IV-D-60                       Victoria Farran                                
                              Texas Instruments, Inc.                        
                              P.O. Box 655303                                
                              Dallas, TX  75265                              
                                                                             
IV-D-61                       Rhonda L. Ross                                 
                              General Motors Corporation                     
                              30400 Mound Rd.                                
                              Warren, MI  48090-9015                         
                                                                             
IV-D-62                       A. J. Ahern                                    
                              American Electric Power Service Corporation    
                              One Riverside Plaza                            
                              Columbus, OH  43215                            
                                                                             
IV-D-63                       Gerald L. Raley                                
                              Public Service Indiana                         
                              1000 E. Main St.                               
                              Plainfield, IN  46168                          
                                                                             
IV-D-64                       V. M. McIntire                                 
                              Eastman Kodak Company                          
                              Eastman Chemicals Division                     
                              Kingsport, TN  37662                           

                                                                             
  
                                                            (continued)        
                                                                               
                                                            
                              2-10
                     TABLE 2-1  (continued)

  
                                                                             
Docket item number                  Commenter and affiliation                  
                                                          
  

IV-D-65                       Jerome S. Amber                                
                              Ford Motor Company                             
                              Suite 608                                      
                              15201 Century Dr.                              
                              Dearborn, MI  48120                            
                                                                             
IV-D-66                       Walter R. Mook                                 
                              Air Pollution Control District                 
                              (Victorville, CA)                              
                              15428 Civic Dr., Suite 200                     
                              Victorville, CA  92392                         
                                                                             
IV-D-67                       Gary D. Vest                                   
                              U.S. Dept of the Air Force                     
                              Washington, DC  20330-1000                     
                                                                             
IV-D-68                       Thomas W. Rarick                                 
                              Indiana Dept. of Environmental Management        
                              105 S. Meridian St.
                              P.O. Box 6015                                    
                              Indianapolis, IN  46206-6015   
                                                                             
IV-D-69                       David M. Anderson                                
                              Bethlehem Steel Corporation              
                              Bethlehem, PA  18016                             
                 
IV-D-70                       D.G. Doughty                                     
                              Oklahoma Dept. of Health          
                              P.O. Box 53551, 1000 NE Tenth                    
                              Oklahoma City, OK  73152 
                                                                             
IV-D-71                       Skiles W. Boyd                                   
                              Detroit Edison Company           
                              2000 Second Ave.                                 
                              Detroit, MI  48226
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                               
                                                                
                                                                           
 
                                                            (continued)        
                                                                               
                                                            
                              2-11
                     TABLE 2-1  (continued)

  
                                                                             
Docket item number                  Commenter and affiliation                  
                                                          
  

IV-D-72                       Marilyn F. Mueller                               
                              Supradur Manufacturing Corp.               
                              P.O. Box 908                                     
                              Rye, NY  10580 
                                                                             
IV-D-73                       Charles D. Malloch                               
                              Monsanto Company               
                              800 N. Lindbergh Blvd.                           
                              St. Louis, MO  63167 
                                                                             
IV-D-74                       Joseph A. Fields                                 
                              U.S. Dept. of the Army             
                              Holston Army Ammunition Plant                    
                              Kingsport, TN  37660-9982
                                                                             
IV-D-75                       Deborah Turner-Fox                               
                              Atlantic Electric               
                              P.O. Box 1500                                    
                              Pleasantville, NJ  08232 
                                                                             
IV-D-76                       J.D. Patterson                                   
                              MSU System Services Inc.           
                              P.O. 61000                                       
                              New Orleans, LA  70161 
                                                                             
IV-D-77                       William C. Eddins                                
                              Commonwealth of Kentucky, Natural Resources      
                               and Environmental Protection Cabinet
                              18 Reilly Rd.                                    
                              Frankfort, KY  40601
                                                                             
IV-D-78                       Nick Nikkila                                     
                              Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality         
                              811 SW Sixth Ave.                                
                              Portland, OR  97204-1390 
                                                                             
IV-D-79                       J. L. Sullivan, Jr.                              
                              GPU Nuclear Corp.                
                              One Upper Pond Rd.                               
                              Parsippany, NJ  07054
 
                                                            (continued)        
                                                                               
                                                            
                              2-12
                     TABLE 2-1  (continued)

  
                                                                             
Docket item number                  Commenter and affiliation                  
                                                          
  

IV-D-80                       Sue M. Briggum                                   
                              Waste Management Inc.           
                              1155 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 800             
                              Washington, DC  20036   
                                                                             
IV-D-81                       Joe Francis                                      
                              Nebraska Dept. of Environmental Control        
                              P.O. Box 98922
                              Lincoln, NE  68509-8922                          
                    
IV-D-82                       Judith A. Whelan                                 
                              P.O. Box 87             
                              Brookeville, MD                                  
            
IV-D-83                       Richard D. Sharpe                                
                              South Carolina Dept. of Health and              
                               Environmental Control                           
                              2600 Bull St.
                              Columbia, SC  29201                              
                
IV-D-84                       Thomas S. Hadden                               
                              Ohio Environmental Protection Agency           
                              P.O. Box 1049                                  
                              1800 Water Mark Dr.                            
                              Columbus, OH  43266-0149                       
                                                                             
IV-D-85                       Paula J. Keyes                                 
                              Environmental Sciences, Inc.                   
                              105 E. Speedway Blvd.                          
                              Tucson, AZ  85705                              
                                                                             
IV-D-86                       Paul C. Fiduccia, Winston & Strawn             
                               (Counsel for)                                 
                              Building Owners and Managers Association       
                              2550 M St., NW, Suite 500                      
                              Washington, DC  20037                          
                                                                       
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                        
 
                                                            (continued)        
                                                                               
                                                            
                              2-13
                     TABLE 2-1  (continued)

  
                                                                             
Docket item number                  Commenter and affiliation                  
                                                          
  

IV-D-87                       Raymond Pelletier                              
                              U.S. Dept. of Energy                           
                              Washington, DC  20585                          
                                                                             
IV-D-88                       Robert G. Smerko                               
                              The Chlorine Institute Inc.                    
                              2001 L St., NW                                 
                              Washington, DC  20036                          
                                                                             
IV-D-89                       Alex R. Cunningham                             
                              California Dept. of Health Services            
                              714/744 P St., P.O. Box 942732                
                              Sacramento, CA  94234-7320                     
                                                                             
IV-D-90                       James R. Frederick                             
                              OPT Omega Phase Transformations Inc.           
                              P.O. Box 960                                   
                              Narberth, PA  19072                            
                                                                             
IV-D-91                       Charles D. Malloch                             
                              Monsanto Company                               
                              800 N. Lindbergh Blvd.                         
                              St. Louis, MO  63167                           
                                                                             
IV-D-92                       Harvey W. Schultz                              
                              New York Dept. of Environmental Protection     
                              2358 Municipal Bldg.                           
                              New York, NY  10007                            
                                                                             
IV-D-93                       Kenneth Nyquist                                
                              Asbestos Information Association               
                              1745 Jefferson Davis Hwy.                      
                              Crystal Square 4, Suite 509                    
                              Arlington, VA  22202                           
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
  
                                                            (continued)        
                                                                               
                                                            
                              2-14
                     TABLE 2-1  (continued)

  
                                                                             
Docket item number                  Commenter and affiliation                  
                                                          
  

IV-D-94                       Richard E. Grusnick                            
                              ADEM Alabama Dept. of Environmental            
                               Management                                    
                              1751 Cong, W.L., Dickinson Dr.                 
                              Montgomery, AL  36130                          
                                                                             
IV-D-95                       William B. King                                
                              Armstrong World Industries Inc.                
                              1025 Connecticut Ave., NW                      
                              Suite 1007                                     
                              Washington, DC  20036                          
                                                                             
IV-D-96                       Dennis T. Johnston                             
                              Austin Rover Cars of North America             
                              U.S. Liaison Office                            
                              8953 N.W. 23 St.                               
                              Miami, FL  33172                               
                                                                             
IV-D-97                       Michael McElwrath                              
                              U.S. Dept. of Interior        
                              Office of the Secretary                        
                              Washington, DC  20240                          
                                                                             
IV-D-98                       Alan I. Roberts                                
                              U.S. Dept. of Transportation                    
                              400 Seventh Street, SW                         
                              Washington, DC  20590                          
                                                                             
IV-D-99                       Sabino Gomex                                   
                              Texas Air Control Board                        
                              6330 Hwy. 290 E                                
                              Austin, TX  78723                              
                                                                             
IV-D-100                      Kenneth E. Nyquist                             
                              Asbestos Information Association               
                              1745 Jefferson Davis Hwy.                      
                              Crystal Square 4, Suite 509                    
                              Arlington, VA  22202                           
                                                                             
                                                                             
  
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                       
                              2-15
                     3.0  GENERAL COMMENTS

3.1   BASIS FOR REVISIONS

     Comment:  Two commenters question the basis for the proposed revisions. 
Pertaining to the entire proposal, commenter 72 states that there is a lack of
evidence to substantiate the proposed changes.  Commenter 93 states that EPA
is expanding the scope and stringency of the NESHAP without the necessary
factual evidence and without adherence to the two-step process required as a
result of the vinyl chloride case (NRDC v. EPA, 824 F. 2d 1146 [D.C. Cir.
1987]).

     Response:  Regarding the claim that the proposed revisions lack
substantiating evidence, there is an overwhelming consensus among enforcement
officials and industry groups that there is a significant level of
noncompliance and confusion with the NESHAP.  While there may be differences
of opinion regarding what the actual degree of noncompliance is, there is
agreement that it could be improved.  To this end, the revisions contain
recordkeeping and reporting requirements and changes that codify previous 
policy determinations that were made to clarify the regulation and will help
EPA achieve its goal of improving enforcement. 

     Regarding the comment that EPA is making substantive changes without
adherence to the procedure required as a result of the vinyl chloride case
Natural Resource Defense Council [NRDC] v. EPA, 824 F. 2d 1146 [D.C. Cir.
1987], the vinyl chloride case pertains to the requirements EPA must comply
with when setting standards under Section 112.  The intent of the revisions is
to improve the enforceability and clarity of the existing asbestos NESHAP, 
not to set a new standard.  At such time as EPA decides that a comprehensive
review of the asbestos NESHAP is needed and, if further revision is
appropriate, the requirements of the vinyl chloride case (NRDC v. EPA, 824 F.
2d 1146 [D.C. Cir. 1987]) will be taken into consideration unless Congress has
amended the Clean Air Act so as to change EPA's approach to regulating toxic
air pollutants.

3.2   COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT

     Comment:  The following general comments were received on compliance with
and enforcement.

     1.  Commenter 30 states that the revisions proposed on January 10, 1989,
are comprehensive and bring the regulation more in line with industry
performance standards; in addition, they should aid enforcement.  Commenter 46
states that they generally support the revisions proposed on January 10, 1989,
including the use of leak-tight wrapping and glove bags, and that they concur
that the standards in effect prior to the January 10, 1989, proposal are
effective.  Also, commenters 80 and 77 generally support EPA's proposed
revisions to enhance enforcement and compliance for demolition and renovation
operators and other generators of asbestos waste, and generally support EPA's 

                              3-1

proposed revisions for asbestos waste disposal sites.  With minor
reservations, commenter 81 supports the revisions proposed on January 10,
1989.

     2.  Commenters 57 and 49 believe that, although intended to control and
prevent appreciable emissions of asbestos, certain revisions proposed on
January 10, 1989, do not achieve this goal.  Commenters 66 and 67 explain
that, overall, revisions are needed, although reducing procedural and
administrative requirements would allow them to concentrate on the problem. 
Commenter 30 points out that it remains to be seen who will perform the
proposed new activities and whether additional funding will be needed.

     Response:  1.  No response is necessary.

                2.  The EPA has considered these comments carefully and has
concluded that the revisions will enhance enforcement and improve compliance
with the NESHAP.  Although the objections to procedural and administrative
requirements are understandable, EPA considers such requirements essential to
enhancing enforcement and improving compliance.  The EPA anticipates that the
new activities will be performed as in the past--by States, localities, and
EPA working in cooperation.  The EPA expects that, initially, a modest
increase in or a redirection of resources may be necessary in order to carry
out the new activities included in the revised rule.  However, in the long
run, it is anticipated that, as a result of improvements on enforcement and
compliance, the burden required to enforce the revised rule will decrease.

3.3   INDUSTRY BURDEN

     Comment:  Commenters 9, 25, 28, 62, and 73 express their concern that
imposing an additional regulatory burden does little to promote compliance and
may inhibit compliance.  Two commenters, 9 and 58, believe that it penalizes
those trying to comply, while commenters 24 and 58 state that the revisions
proposed on January 10, 1989, appear to respond to a situation caused by lack
of adequate enforcement.  Serious environmental hazards should be focused on,
and commenters 24 and 65 emphasize that the proposed revisions will allow EPA
to bring many more enforcement actions for procedural deficiencies without
reducing health risks.  Commenters 58 and 75 assert that EPA should consider
strict enforcement of the rule existing prior to January 10, 1989, for
noncompliers to promote compliance, instead of stricter regulation of those
entities that are in compliance.  Commenters 69 and 70 argue that EPA should
focus on those who completely ignore the regulations rather than on those who
incorrectly record their activities.  These commenters also believe that the
result will be a paperwork-intensive program that will be detrimental to their
programs.  Another approach to improve compliance recommended by commenters 70
and 76 is through education rather than more paperwork.  Commenter 65 states
that regulatory agency flexibility, instead of additional strict, procedural
requirements that will result in numerous minor violations, is an incentive
that will encourage overall compliance.

     Response:  The EPA agrees that the revisions proposed on January 10,
1989, impose some additional regulatory burden in the form of reporting and 

                              3-2

recordkeeping requirements, but these new provisions will promote compliance
with those parts of the NESHAP that directly regulate asbestos emissions.  In
response to comments received, EPA has eliminated the proposed semiannual
waste reports.  The EPA considers the revisions essential to improving
compliance with the NESHAP.  It is not EPA's intention that the new provisions
in the NESHAP penalize those attempting to comply, and EPA believes that those
who are currently complying with the existing rule will continue to comply
with this rule.  The EPA disagrees with the suggestion that additional
enforcement resources alone would solve the problem.  The EPA notes that it
has been increasing asbestos NESHAP enforcement activities.  Although there
will be increased potential for procedural violations under the final rule,
EPA considers the new provisions to be important tools to increase compliance
and, thereby, reduce the potential for substantive violations involving the
emission of asbestos.  The EPA believes the new provisions essential to bring
noncompliers into compliance and considers the additional paperwork a
necessary part of those provisions.  The EPA agrees with the commenters who
suggested education as another approach to improve compliance and will widely
disseminate information on its Final Asbestos Demolition and Renovation Civil
Penalty Policy.  The EPA agrees that regulatory agency flexibility is
important and observes that these revisions provide options for compliance, as
well as the means to seek Administrator approval for innovative control
approaches.

3.4   STRINGENCY

     Comment:  Commenter 22 argues that there are several areas of increased
stringency of controls (e.g., definitions for "visible emissions" and
"friable," and the use of HEPA filters) although the preamble states that
there is no effect on control stringency.  Commenters 47 and 48 point out the
potential for confusion in regard to the NESHAP's applicability to nonfriable
flooring and roofing materials, and without clearly exempting resilient floor
covering and other nonfriable material, NESHAP coverage would be extended,
thus calling into affect the requirements of the vinyl chloride case (NRDC v.
EPA, 824 F. 2d 1146 [D.C. Cir. 1987]).

     Response:  The intent of the proposed revisions is not to alter the
stringency of the asbestos NESHAP, but to clarify it as it existed prior to
the January 10, 1989, proposal, and to improve enforceability and compliance. 
The wording changes in the definitions are intended to meet the goal.  The
amended definition of "visible emissions" better describes what EPA considers
to be visible emissions.  It does not add or subtract from coverage.  The
proposed revisions do not require the use of HEPA filters, although they do
permit their use.  "Friable asbestos material" is clarified to explicitly
allow for measurement in a way that was already generally accepted.  It is not
EPA's policy to regulate materials, such as vinyl floor tile, that are
nonfriable and are unlikely to release significant levels of asbestos fibers
even when damaged.  The proposed revisions have been modified to clarify that
resilient floor covering, asphalt roofing products, gaskets, and packing do
not have to be removed from a building prior to demolition and under what
circumstances other nonfriable materials would be covered.  Additional 

                              3-3

information on nonfriable materials will be distributed at a later date to all
affected parties to assist them in applying these regulations.

3.5   REVISIONS TO FACILITATE ENFORCEMENT

     Comment:  Commenters 12, 23, and 29 support the concept of a regulation
to facilitate enforcement.  Commenter 12 urges a risk-based proposal as
quickly as possible.  Commenter 70 supports making only essential changes at
this time and deferring the rest until risk-based revisions are published. 
Commenter 86 supports EPA's stated position not to make substantive changes
until it has completed an analysis of health and risk factors, although some
of the revisions are substantive and should be deleted.  Commenter 57 explains
that it is unclear if EPA intends to issue revised regulations at some time
that affect stringency of controls, but believes they are needed.

     Response:  The EPA believes the revisions to the asbestos NESHAP will
promote compliance and enhance enforcement without affecting stringency, but
EPA does intend at a later date to consider the need for revisions that affect
stringency of controls.

3.6   AGENCY BURDEN

     Comment:  Commenter 14 agrees that the proposed changes will help
enforcement, but asserts that they will result in an increased workload
requiring additional resources.  Commenter 99 believes that the additional
forms for notification, etc., will be helpful, but that additional resources
are required to enter the information into a data base.

     Response:  The EPA agrees that, at least initially, additional resources
will be required.  However, EPA believes that the additional resources needed
initially are reasonable and consonant with the improvements expected in
enforcement of the NESHAP and that, in the long run, improvements in
compliance will ease the Government's enforcement burden.

3.7   SUPPORT CLARIFYING CHANGES

     Comment:  Commenters 16, 48, 49, 75, and 63 concur with most of the
proposed rule changes, which add to clarity, and support EPA's attempt to
clarify the NEHSAP.

     Response:  No response is necessary.

3.8   CLEARER LANGUAGE

     Comment:  Commenter 18 suggests that EPA rewrite the proposed and final
NESHAP rule in direct language.

     Response:  As a result of this and other comments dealing with specific
provisions of the rule, such as the provisions concerning the treatment of
nonfriable materials, several parts of the regulation have been revised to
make them easier to understand.  In addition, concurrent with promulgation of 

                              3-4

the final rule, EPA is carrying out an extensive campaign to educate all
parties affected by this rule as to its requirements.

3.9   INTERPRETATION OF NESHAP

     Comment:  Commenter 21 argues that EPA should compel States with
delegated authority to conform to EPA interpretations in enforcement, or cease
citing Federal regulations if the State is functioning under its own
authority.  Commenter 21 states further that EPA should exercise its oversight
authority to ensure that regulations developed by States are consistent with
the NESHAP.

     Response:  All States with delegated authority for NESHAP enforcement
should make the same interpretation of the regulation when they are enforcing
the asbestos NESHAP.  The EPA recognizes that this may not always appear to be
the case and, therefore, understands the concern raised by the commenter. 
Because this rule clarifies parts of the NESHAP, it will promote more uniform
interpretations.  In addition, EPA plans to issue additional information to
assist regulatory agencies and the regulated community in NESHAP
interpretation.

3.10  TYPE OF ASBESTOS   

     Comment:  Commenter 69 urges EPA to consider regulations that
differentiate between the less hazardous chrysotile and the more hazardous
amosite and crocidolite.

     Response:  The commenter states that EPA should consider different
regulations to differentiate between the less hazardous chrysotile and the
more hazardous amphibile and crocidolite.  The EPA disagrees with this
assessment.

     For lung cancer, EPA finds the evidence supporting this argument to be
inconclusive and inconsistent.  Some of the lowest unit risk factors observed
for lung cancer are among cohorts exposed to predominantly chrysotile
asbestos.  However, some of the highest unit values are also from exposures to
primarily chrysotile.  This suggests the chrysotile exposures can confer an
extremely high risk of lung cancer.  The cause of the observed variability in
lung cancer unit risk for chrysotile in different studies is unknown, but some
of the variabilities can be attributed to differences in the fiber
characteristics associated with different processes, uncertainties due to
small numbers in epidemiological studies, and incorrect estimates of the
exposures of earlier years.

     For mesothelioma, EPA recognizes that peritoneal mesotheliomas have
largely been associated with crocidolite exposure and that there is some
epidemiological evidence suggesting that crocidolilte is more potent than
chrysotile in inducing pleural mesothelioma.  However, definitive conclusions
concerning the relative potency of various fiber types in inducing
mesothelioma cannot be made on the basis of available epidemiological
information.  This is because:  (1) mesotheliomas are difficult to diagnose; 

                              3-5
(2) dose-response information for mesothelioma for individual fiber types is
unavailable; (3) exposure data are inadequate; and (4) exposure to crocidolite
fibers could be higher because they become airborne more easily than other
fiber types.  Further, numerous animal studies have demonstrated that
chrysotile is at least as potent as amphiboles in inducing both mesothelioma
and lung cancer by inhalation, as well as by injection or implantation.

     Available information indicates that the combined epidemiological and
animal evidence fails to establish conclusively differences in mesothelioma
hazard for the various types of asbestos fibers.  In view of the
inconsistencies and uncertainty regarding this issue, EPA believes that it is
prudent and in the public interest to consider all fiber types as having
comparable carcinogenic potency in its quantitative assessment of mesothelioma
risk.  The EPA does recognize that some evidence exists indicating that
amphiboles may be more potent in inducing mesothelioma than chrysotile. 
However, the need for further study to resolve this issue, and the resulting
delay in EPA's risk assessment for asbestos, cannot be justified given the
volume of data showing the carcinogenic potency of all fiber types.  Similar
conclusions were reached previously by other scientific bodies and agencies
(54 FR 132, July 12, 1989).

3.11  HEALTH EFFECTS

     Comment:  Commenter 22 asserts that the low prevalence of asbestos-related gastrointestinal cancer does not justify listing it in the preamble
along with asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma.

     Response:  A number of epidemiological studies have documented
significant increases in the incidence of gastrointestinal cancer due to
occupational exposure to asbestos.  Gastrointestinal cancers consist largely
of cancers of the esophagus, stomach, colon, and rectum.  However, the
magnitude of gastrointestinal cancer risk is lower than that of lung cancer or
mesothelioma, and no dose-response data are available.

     The commenter states that the evidence indicating a positive association
between gastrointestinal cancer and asbestos exposure is weak and inconclusive
and does not justify listing along with asbestosis, lung cancer, and
mesothelioma.  Other comments have indicated that unidentified factors may
cause the excess gastrointestinal cancers.  Some commenters have suggested
that many of the excess cancers attributed to gastointestinal sites may be due
to misdiagnosis of peritoneal mesotheliomas.  Other commenters have contended
that, in the absence of any positive experimental evidence, the epidemiology
data alone do not support the conclusion that exposure to asbestos can cause
gastrointestinal cancer.

     The EPA recognizes that the evidence supporting an association between
gastrointestinal cancer and asbestos exposure is not as strong as that which
is available to support an association between asbestos exposure and lung
cancer and mesothelioma.  However, after weighing the available information,
EPA believes that there is evidence of a strong casual relationship between
asbestos exposure and gastrointestinal cancer excess.  This evidence includes 

                              3-6
the following:  (1)  A statistically significant increase in gastrointestinal
cancer was found in 10 of 23 epidemiological studies; (2) a consistent
relationship exists between increased gastrointestinal cancer risk and
increased lung cancer risk (approximately 10 to 30 percent of the lung cancer
excess); (3) it is biologically plausible that asbestos could be associated
with these tumor sites because it is conceivable that the majority of fibers
inhaled are cleared from the respiratory tract and subsequently swallowed,
allowing the fibers to enter the gastrointestinal tract (additionally, fibers
may be swallowed directly); and (4) one study demonstrated some evidence of
carcinogenicity in male rats fed diets containing intermediate range size
chrysotile asbestos (65 percent 10 microns in length).

     Further, EPA does not accept the argument that all gastrointestinal
cancers identified in the epidemiology studies described above are the result
of misdiagnosis.  Cancers of some gastrointestinal cancer sites (e.g., stomach
and pancreas) could be the result of misdiagnosis of peritoneal mesotheliomas. 
However, this does not account for all of the excess cancers seen at sites
such as the colon or rectum.  The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) in its final rule lowering the permissible exposure
limit (PEL) for asbestos (51 FR 22612, June 20, 1986) concluded that the
studies conducted to date "constitute substantial evidence of an association
between asbestos exposure and a risk of incurring gastrointestinal cancer." 
The EPA agrees with this conclusion.

3.12  CROSS-REFERENCING

     Comment:  Commenter 28 requests that EPA delete the cross-referencing
section because it does not enhance compliance with the NESHAP.

     Response:  Cross-referencing to other asbestos regulations is for
informational purposes.  The EPA believes a heightened awareness of other
standards that apply to asbestos will help improve understanding of and
compliance with the asbestos NESHAP and help reduce overall exposure to
asbestos.

3.13  INSPECTIONS BY THE ADMINISTRATOR

     Comment:  Commenter 41 suggests that a designated representative of the
Administrator should conduct inspections to reduce the Administrator's burden.

     Response:  It appears that the commenter was assuming that the
Administrator of EPA, personally, would have to perform all of the activities
specified in the NESHAP as being the responsibility of the "Administrator." 
However, this is not the case.  Section 61.02 of 40 CFR defines
"Administrator" as the Administrator of EPA or "his authorized
representative."  Inspections and other enforcement-related activities
required of the Administrator are typically performed by local, State, or
regional enforcement agencies and not directly by the Administrator of EPA.

                              3-7
3.14  EFFECTIVE DATE

     Comment:  Because the revisions are extensive, commenters 49, 58, and 63
argue that the final revisions should become effective no earlier than 6
months after promulgation, and commenter 73 recommends that they not become
effective for at least 1 year.

     Response:  Section 112 of the Clean Air Act contains specific
requirements concerning when NESHAP regulations shall to into effect.  Section
112(b)(1)(c) provides that "any emission standard established pursuant to this
section shall become effective upon promulgation."  There are two exceptions
to this requirement.  First, with respect to existing sources, Section
112(c)(1)(B)(i) states that standards "shall not apply until 90 days after
[the standard's] effective date."  Second, Section 112(c)(1)(B)(ii) allows a
waiver of up to 2 years for an existing source if the Administrator finds that
such a period is necessary for the installation of controls and that steps
will be taken during the period of waiver to ensure that the health of persons
will be protected from imminent endangerment.

     Thus, the statute requires NESHAPs to become effective immediately for
new sources and within 90 days for existing sources, unless the Administrator
has grounds to grant a waiver for longer than 90 days.

     Requirements relating to recordkeeping and monitoring are authorized by
Section 114 of the Clean Air Act and, thus, are not subject to specific
restrictions regarding when they go into affect.

     The EPA agrees with the commenters' concern and has decided to allow 30
days from the date of promulgation before the new waste tracking requirements
go into effect.  The revisions proposed on January 10, 1989, already contained
a provision giving 1 year before the demolition and renovation training
requirements become effective.  For the other proposed revisions, EPA believes
that additional time is not necessary, and they become effective upon
promulgation.

3.15  STORAGE AND TRANSFER

     Comment:  Commenter 84 recommends that specific regulations for waste
storage and transfer be added to the NESHAP.

     Response:  The storage of waste at the site of generation and at the
disposal site is clearly covered by the NESHAP.  The waste generator is
responsible for ensuring that waste is taken to an acceptable landfill
including the time from when the waste leaves the generator's site until it
reaches the landfill.

3.16  ALTERNATE METHODS

     Comment:  Commenter 78 opposes the proposed revision of delegable
authorities.  Commenter 59 argues that the regulation should state that, if

                              3-8
the NESHAP is adopted by a State and if it has primacy, EPA should relinquish
their approval procedures and turn them over to the State.

     Response:  The provisions of the asbestos NESHAP that are nondelegable
relate to alternate methods of treatment, control, and disposal.  The intent
of this requirement of Federal approval is to provide national consistency in
an area that would have no such consistency without Federal control.  The
basic enforcement authority of the underlying NESHAP remains delegable to the
individual States.  Therefore, EPA is exercising Federal control only in the
area that is most in need of consistency across the country.  Many commenters
stated that one of the problems with the NESHAP had been a lack of consistency
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  The limitations on delegation help to
address such concerns.

3.17  RESPONSIBILITY FOR COMPLIANCE

     Comment:  Commenters 76 and 80 support the concept that each party,
generator and disposal site owner, be responsible for only those aspects that
are reasonably under their control.

     Response:  Prior to these revisions, the waste generator was responsible
for selecting a disposal site that met the requirements of the asbestos
NESHAP; the disposal site was not directly regulated.  Under these revisions,
the disposal site owner or operator is responsible for complying with the
asbestos NESHAP provisions for waste disposal, but the waste generator
continues to be responsible for ensuring that the asbestos waste is delivered
to a disposal site operated in compliance with the NESHAP.

3.18  NONCOMMERCIAL ASBESTOS

     Comment:  Commenter 56 requests that EPA consider addressing naturally
occurring, noncommercial asbestos in the current revisions to the NESHAP.

     Response:  The EPA is currently studying contaminant asbestos and the
possibility of regulating it under the NESHAP at a later date.  A previous
study of the use of asbestos-contaminated crushed stone in unpaved roads
concluded that such uses were infrequent and restricted to a few geographic
areas; therefore, such uses were better suited to regulation by local
authorities rather than by national regulations.  It should also be noted that
under the demolition and renovation and spraying provisions, EPA does not
distinguish between commercial (deliberately added) and noncommercial
(including contaminant) asbestos.  The EPA may also consider revisions in a
later rulemaking that would regulate the use of insulating materials
containing asbestos regardless of whether or not the asbestos is commercial
asbestos.

                              3-9
                                
                        4.0  DEFINITIONS

4.1   GENERAL

     Comment:  Commenter 57 agrees that the proposed revisions to the
definitions are an improvement over the existing language.

     Response:  No response is necessary.

4.2   ASBESTOS-CONTAINING WASTE MATERIAL

     Comment:  1.  Commenter 22 asserts that "containers that previously
contained commercial asbestos" could include trucks, railcars, etc., and
suggests that EPA replace it with "or other similar packaging used in direct
contact with commercial asbestos."

     2.  Commenter 26 states that the definition should include "asbestos-contaminated debris"; such waste material is often not addressed in an
abatement project because it is not part of a facility component.

     3.  Commenters 35, 49, and 63 request a clarification of the definition
and ask if the laundering of asbestos-contaminated clothing is prohibited;
they note that OSHA allows laundering of contaminated clothing.

     4.  For demolition and renovation, commenter 93 suggests that the wording
be revised to apply to friable waste material, waste from control devices, and
contaminated equipment and clothing.

     Response:  1.  As suggested by the comment, EPA did not intend for trucks
or railcars used to transport commercial asbestos to be considered asbestos-containing waste material.  Commercial asbestos is typically packaged in paper
or plastic bags for delivery to asbestos manufacturing plants.  It is these
bags and similar packaging that are likely to be contaminated with asbestos
after being emptied and that EPA intends to cover as asbestos-containing waste
material.  The EPA will modify the definition to make this clear.

     2.  The EPA agrees with the commenter and intends for the definition to
cover asbestos-contaminated debris, which is present prior to the demolition
or renovation operation.

     3.  Asbestos-contaminated clothing is used as an example of the types of
materials that might be considered to be asbestos-containing waste material. 
The EPA did not intend to contradict OSHA rules that allow the laundering of
asbestos contaminated clothing.  Only asbestos-contaminated clothing that is
to be disposed of, whether disposable or not, would be covered by this
definition.  The EPA will revise the definition to make this clear.

     4.  It is still EPA's position that, as applied to demolition and
renovation, this term applies to friable asbestos waste and not to nonfriable
asbestos waste that has not been crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder.  

                              4-1
The definition has been revised to clarify the waste materials subject to the
standard.

4.3   COMMERCIAL ASBESTOS

     Comment:  Commenter 20 recommends revising the definition of "commercial
asbestos."  They assert that the term "value" in the definition is
argumentative and not consistent with the intent of Section 112 of the Clean
Air Act.

     Response:  This term is used in the requirements that apply to asbestos
mills, manufacturers, and fabricators as well as asbestos insulation.  It is
EPA's intent to regulate sources where asbestos is deliberately added,
although in the case of demolition, renovation, and spraying, contaminant
asbestos may also be covered because it is not possible for these sources to
determine the origins of the asbestos content.

     The definition is revised to make it consistent with EPA's policy
determination, which stated that materials to which asbestos is added and that
are increased in value due to the added asbestos are commercial asbestos and
are, therefore, subject to the NESHAP, no matter what they are called.  The
EPA does not consider the term "value" to be either argumentive or
inconsistent with the intent of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.

4.4   DEMOLITION

     Comment:  1.  Commenter 4 suggests that the definition of "demolition"
should be revised to prohibit the burning of demolition debris because the
heat can cause asbestos to be released from nonfriable material.  

     2.  Moreover, Commenter 4 suggests that the definition should also
prohibit the abandonment of buildings, a major source of asbestos emissions.

     3.  Commenter 70 believes that the inclusion of intentional burning in
the definition of "demolition" is premature.

     4.  Commenter 84 recommends adding salvage operations to the definition
of "demolition."

     5.  Commenter 18 asks for a clarification of load-supporting structural
member and whether or not it includes equipment.

     6.  Commenter 84 recommends adding "including the stripping or removal of
asbestos-containing material from facility components" to the definition.

     Response:  1.  Because the current standard does not prohibit the burning
of demolition debris, any change to prohibit this activity would be considered
an increase in the stringency of the regulation.  The EPA will consider the
need for revisions that alter the stringency of the NESHAP at a later date.    

                              4-2
     2.  While EPA agrees that abandoned and vacant buildings may become
emission sources, particularly where the asbestos has been disturbed by
illegal scavenging operations, EPA believes that emissions from such buildings
are low and has no information to the contrary.  Therefore, EPA believes that
including abandoned and vacant buildings in the definition of "demolition" is
unwarranted at this time.

     3.  Concerning the comment that the inclusion of intentional burning is
premature, enforcement officials requested this change based on their
enforcement experiences.  Although EPA believes that the intentional burning
of facilities, which would be subject to the NESHAP if demolished, will not
occur very often, it is important to control such sources to avoid inadvertent
exposures that would result from the burning, waste collection, and disposal
of the asbestos-contaminated material.

     4.  The EPA realizes that the unauthorized removal of equipment for its
salvage value may be a problem.  Such operations are, however, regulated under
the NESHAP provisions for renovation when the threshold quantities of asbestos
are exceeded.  Equipment is considered to be a facility component, and any
alteration of a facility component, including removal or stripping, is covered
as part of a renovation.  Operations that involve wrecking or taking out
structural members are demolitions.

     5.  The meaning of the term "load-supporting structural member" has not
been changed from its meaning in the standard in effect prior to the 
January 10, 1989, proposal, and refers to structural components such as beams
and load-supporting walls.  Equipment, however, does not typically serve as a
load-supporting structural member; it is considered part of a facility (i.e.,
a facility component).

     6.  Demolition refers to a specific activity, "...the wrecking or taking
out of any load-supporting structural member..."  The stripping or removal of
asbestos, which is already covered by the NESHAP, is an activity that must
precede the wrecking or taking our of load-supporting structural members and,
technically, cannot be considered demolition, although it may occur as part of
an overall project to demolish a structure.  The EPA believes it is preferable
to retain this distinction.

4.5   EMERGENCY RENOVATION OPERATION

     Comment:  Commenters 9, 14, 41, 42, and 49 state that the scope of the
term "emergency renovation operation" should not be limited to events
resulting in "unsafe conditions," but should include events such as fires,
ruptured pipes, boiler failures, and other situations that could present
potential public health or safety hazards if not immediately attended to. 
Commenter 18 asks if the definition would include the release of asbestos into
the air.  Commenter 63 recommends that the definition include operations
necessary to protect equipment from significant damage.

     Response:  Events that would necessitate an emergency renovation include
those that may produce immediately unsafe conditions as well as those that, if 

                              4-3
not quickly remedied, could reasonably be foreseen to result in an unsafe or
detrimental effect on health.  For example, a boiler in an apartment building
that suddenly malfunctions during the winter would need to be repaired
immediately.  To protect equipment from significant damage and to avoid
imposing an unreasonable financial burden by requiring sources that experience
a sudden unexpected equipment failure to wait 10 days, the final rule includes
equipment damage and financial burden as additional reasons for emergency
renovations.  However, the exemption from wetting is not automatic whenever
equipment would have to be shutdown to perform repairs or maintenance. 
Industry should not routinely request an exemption from the wetting
requirements in order to avoid shutting down equipment.

4.6   EPA ID NUMBER

     Comment:  Commenters 61 and 63 argue that the definition of EPA ID number
is unclear.  Commenter 61 notes that EPA assigns ID numbers to hazardous waste
generators under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) and that, because asbestos is not a RCRA hazardous waste, not all
asbestos waste generators will have EPA ID numbers.  Commenter 63 observes
that the proposed rule does not indicate how an ID number is to be obtained. 
Commenter 84 recommends use of the contractor's license number under the
Asbestos Contractors Tracking system for EPA ID number.

     Response:  The EPA has reconsidered the matter of an EPA ID number and
has determined that the name of the owner/operator and address will suffice to
identify and locate violators.  The requirement to obtain and report an EPA ID
number will be deleted from the NESHAP.

4.7   FABRICATING

     Comment:  Commenter 28 suggests revising the definition to specify that
bonding and debonding operations are covered only when there is grinding or
sizing involved.  The asbestos waste generated from bonding and debonding is
small and the significance to human health of the air emission is
questionable.

     Response:  The EPA agrees that facilities that only debond worn brake
linings from brake shoes and bond new linings to the old brake shoes are not
significant emission sources.  It is only when grinding, sawing, drilling or
other similar operations are performed on the asbestos lining that significant 
asbestos emissions occur.  Because these operations are currently covered by
the NESHAP, inclusion of the reference to bonding and debonding was intended
to clarify what kind of friction product fabricators are covered.  The EPA
will modify the definition to be more specific as to which bonding and
debonding operations are covered.

4.8  FACILITY

     Comment:  1.  Commenter 4 requests that the definition of "facility"
include the accidental accumulation of asbestos debris resulting from
weathering or other deterioration, and exclude certain structures known to
contain no asbestos, e.g., bridges, dams, foundations, and motors.

                               4-4     2.  Commenter 70 believes that the definition of "facility" would
include private residences having more than four dwelling units.  Because
"dwelling units" is not defined, it does not clearly limit the application to
apartments.  Commenter 70 states that the definition should be changed to
clearly exclude private residents, outbuildings, garages, barns, and other
farm buildings.  Commenter 83 endorses the addition of "any ship" to the
definition of "facility."

     3.  Several commenters argue that the exclusion of residential
facilities having four or fewer dwelling units should be eliminated. 
Commenter 89 argues that residential demolition/renovation and waste disposal
involve significant quantities of asbestos and should be regulated.  Commenter
54 asserts that residential buildings having four or fewer units should not be
exempt from the work practices' provisions even if they are exempt from the
notification requirements.  Commenter 94 recommends that only facilities with
one dwelling unit be excluded because renters of apartments are frequently
exposed as a result of asbestos work performed by untrained workers.

     Response:  1.  Facilities containing asbestos that has fallen off
facility components or accumulated otherwise are covered by the standard.  The
owners/operators of such facilities are subject to the NESHAP any time that
they remove any friable asbestos, in amounts above the threshold, from the
facility.  Regarding the commenter's recommendation to exclude certain
structures known to contain no asbestos, it is not clear that in some
instances such structures, or associated structures, would not contain
asbestos.  The EPA believes that it is prudent not to exclude such structures.

     2.  Private residences and associated outbuildings are currently excluded
from coverage.  Outbuildings associated with commercial or other types of
facilities covered by the standard would also be covered.

     3.  The recommendation to remove the exemption for residential facilities
having four or fewer dwelling units would expand the scope of the rule. 
Revisions that alter stringency may be considered during a later rulemaking. 
However, EPA does not consider residential structures that are demolished or
renovated as part of commercial or public projects to be exempt from this
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.  The owner of a home that renovates his house or
demolishes it to construct another house would not be subject to the NESHAP.

4.9   FACILITY COMPONENT

     Comment:  The definition of "facility component" in effect prior to the
January 10, 1989, proposal should be retained according to commenters 42 and
49.  Commenters 42 and 49 explain that the proposed definition is less
precise, especially in light of the absence of a definition for "equipment."
If the definition is revised, exclude "portable equipment" from the
definition.

                               4-5
     Response:  The EPA intends that any part of a facility containing,
covered with, or coated by asbestos be subject to the NESHAP.  The list of
facility components contained in the definition was an attempt to characterize
all of the components that potentially could be found in a facility. 
Occasionally, however, questions arise about the applicability to components
not specifically listed in the current definition.  The more general
definition addresses those types of questions.  Regarding the request to
exclude portable equipment, EPA wants to regulate portable equipment at a
facility if the piece of portable equipment contains, is covered with, or is
coated by asbestos.

4.10  FRIABLE ASBESTOS MATERIAL-MATERIAL COVERED

     Comment:  1.  Commenter 22 asserts that this term is being expanded to
include asbestos-cement (A/C) and other nonfriable material that may be
"broken" and should not be included unless evidence is presented that
excessive amounts of fibers would be released.  Commenters 47, 48, 93, and 95 

request that the term "broken" be defined or deleted to show that the addition
of this term to the definition of "friable asbestos material" does not affect
the nonfriable nature of resilient floor covering or other similar nonfriable
materials.  Commenter 21 suggests that EPA clarify whether or not material
that can be broken is considered friable, or is it necessary that the material
be broken to produce dust before it is considered friable.

     2.  Commenter 77 states that the use of "hand pressure" to determine
friability or ability to release fibers is vague, and feels that a
standardized method is needed to determine friability.

     3.  Commenter 89 expresses the need to clarify the definition of "friable
asbestos material" to explain that crumbled, pulverized, etc., means to be
crumbled, etc., to a powder, and not crumbled as a piece of paper without
reducing it to powder.

     4.  Commenter 29 requests that EPA publish a list of "friable" materials,
and commenter 47 suggests that EPA specifically exclude resilient floor
covering unless it is sanded.

     5.  Commenter 95 supports EPA's resistance to revising the definition
because it is well established and widely accepted.

     6.  Commenter 29 believes that EPA should define "friability" in any way
that suits its needs and feels that the hand friability test is not
appropriate for demolition and renovation activities because the concern
should be whether or not asbestos is emitted when the material is subjected to
the forces of demolition and renovation.  They assert that the definition
should incorporate the aspect of mechanical forces that are likely to act on
the asbestos material.  Commenter 14 suggests that the current interpretation
of friable asbestos, explained in the preamble, should be included in the
regulation to clarify what is regulated.

                               4-6
     Commenter 93 recommends deleting the word "broken" from the definition,
asserting that it misses the point of EPA's 1974 policy determination, which
exempts nonfriable material from the NESHAP, because many types of nonfriable
material can be broken by hand but cannot be crumbled by hand pressure. 
Similarly, commenter 95 argues that the addition of "broken" expands  coverage
because many nonfriable materials can be broken, although the potential for
fiber release is low.  Commenter 95 further argues that vinyl floor tile
broken during demolition or renovation does not become friable and that this
point should be made clear.

     Commenter 83 suggests modifying this definition to include previously
nonfriable material rendered friable, rather than attempting to condition
numerous individual definitions where this may apply.  They argue that the
proposed approach leads to inconsistency in the use of terms "asbestos-containing material," "asbestos-containing waste material," and "friable 
asbestos material."  Commenter 83 suggests use of the term "asbestos-containing material," with definitions for "friable," "nonfriable," and
"rendered friable."

     Response:  1.  Addition of the word "broken" to this definition was not
intended to expand applicability to nonfriable materials, but was intended to
complement and be consistent with the current meaning of "...crumbled,
pulverized, or reduced to powder..."  This phrase refers to characteristics
that are likely to result in asbestos fibers becoming airborne.  Upon
reconsideration, EPA has decided that the term "broken" is likely to create
confusion and possibly lead to misapplication of this definition, and, EPA
therefore, has decided to eliminate "broken" from the definition.

     2.  The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has
investigated objective methods for determining friability, but because of
several difficulties encountered in trying to develop a method, the
investigation was not completed.  The EPA agrees that the use of hand pressure
to determine friability may be somewhat subjective in some instances.  The EPA
believes that for most materials, however, use of hand pressure is adequate to
determine friability.

     3.  In this definition, crumbled is not analogous to crumpling a piece of
paper.  The EPA interprets "crumbled" to mean easily crumbled into a large
number of places.  To assist in the appropriate application and interpretation
of the NESHAP as it applies to nonfriable materials, EPA will issue additional
information to all relevant parties that will address the commenter's concern
on the treatment and handling of nonfriable asbestos material.

     4.  In the revisions proposed on January 10, 1989, EPA listed the
nonfriable materials that normally would be exempt from the requirements for
demolition.  The EPA is also providing additional clarification on the
handling and treatment of nonfriable materials including A/C materials.  The
EPA feels that by listing the nonfriable materials and through the process of
elimination, the commenter's request for a list of friable materials is 

                               4-7
satisfied.  Resilient floor covering will be one of the nonfriable materials
normally exempted from the demolition provisions.  The revised NESHAP will
explicitly require controls on the sanding of floor covering.

     5.  The EPA has resisted making major changes to this definition because
it is well established and widely accepted.  However, the change requiring the
use of a specific method of determining asbestos content is long overdue and
will reduce confusion over what activities are subject to the regulation.

     6.  The EPA considered, but rejected, a revision to this definition to
include materials that can be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by
the mechanical forces expected to act on the material.  The EPA believes,
however, it is useful to distinguish between material that can be easily
crumbled, etc. to a powder, i.e., friable material, and material that is
normally nonfriable that as a result of the forces associated with demolition
and renovation, may become crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to a powder and is
therefore, capable of releasing asbestos fibers in amounts similar to friable
material.  Also, although nonfriable material may be broken or crumbled and
capable of releasing asbestos, it does not necessarily become friable.  Rather
than modifying the definition of "friable asbestos material," the definition
of "asbestos-containing material" has been replaced with "regulated asbestos-containing material" and defined to include, in addition to friable materials,
nonfriable materials that are likely to be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to
powder in the course of demolition or renovation operations; nonfriable
materials that are in poor condition as indicated by peeling, cracking, or
crumbling of the material; and nonfriable materials that are subjected to
sanding, grinding, cutting, or abrading.  Additional discussion of the issue
is presented in Section 7.1.1 of this BID.

4.11  FRIABLE ASBESTOS MATERIAL - ANALYTICAL METHOD

     Comment:  1.  Commenters 17, 35, and 70 support the proposed changes to
the definition of "friable asbestos material," specifically the change to
percent by area.  Commenter 69 argues that to go from percent weight to
percent area may have major impact on coverage because there may be wide
discrepancies in the results reported by the two methods.  Commenter 69
provides an example of this stating that a cement-based fireproofing that
contained 30 percent asbestos by area contained less than 1 percent by weight. 
Commenter 70 feels the definition of "friable asbestos material" is
appropriate; however, the method referenced should not be limited to point
counting, in view of 47 FR 1982, p. 38535, which clarifies the acceptability
of "an equivalent estimation method."  Commenter 78 states that the definition
would require asbestos content to be determined by transmission electron
microscopy (TEM) analysis, and that the high cost of TEM should be considered. 
Commenter 78 recommends that the current method continue to be accepted with
TEM specified over other methods.

     2.  Commenter 22 prefers that the method for percent by area not be
referenced but be included in final rule, while commenters 28 and 29 prefer
that the method be incorporated by reference.

                               4-8
     3.  Commenter 21 suggests clarifying the definition to avoid
misinterpretation of area as the method of expressing analytical results;
e.g., some persons may interpret "area" to mean the area of the building
surface that contains asbestos.

     Response:  1.  The revisions to the asbestos NEHSAP proposed on 
January 10, 1989, would have changed the definition of "friable asbestos
material" from "greater than 1 percent weight" to "greater than 1 percent
area" and referenced a method for the analysis.  Because the method referenced
actually contains two analytical methods--polarized light microscopy (PLM)
which currently measures area, and x-ray diffraction (XRD) which measures
weight--EPA has modified the definition to specify the use of PLM to avoid
possible confusion as to which method is referenced.  Because the PLM method
measures percent area, the phrase "by area" is not necessary and has been
taken out of the definition.  The difference between percent area and percent
weight depends on the density and volume of materials in the sample.  These
relationships are described in Asbestos Content in Bulk Insulation Samples:    
Visual Estimates and Weight Composition (EPA-560/5-88-011, September 1988). 
However, the fact remains that the PLM procedure used to determine the amount
of asbestos in building materials (Interim Method for the Determination of
Asbestos in Bulk Insulation Samples) EPA-600/M4-82-020, December 1982)
measures percent area and not percent weight.  PLM laboratories polled at
meetings of the National Asbestos Council admitted that percent area is what
they measure and report.  Accordingly, there should be little or no impact on
the standard by the proposed change.

     Point counting is not required for the PLM procedure.  An equivalent
visual estimation technique may be used.  Visual estimation may be made during
macroscopic examination by using a stereobinocular microscope, resulting in a
volume estimation of components.  For most samples, quantitation by
macroscopic examination is preferred.  Visual estimation may also be made
during polarized light microscopy (PLM) examination, resulting in a projected
area estimation of components.  However, if point counting is not used and the
reported asbestos content is less than 10 percent, EPA has revised the
definition to require the point counting technique using PLM.  Point counting,
a systematic technique for estimating concentration, may be useful in quality
assurance activities, especially in establishing a relationship between point
counts and visual estimation procedures.

     The accuracy of quantitation data from either technique of estimation is
dependent upon several factors, including:  sample homogeneity, asbestos
content, asbestos fiber size, the presence of interfering  matrix/binder
material, and the skill of the microscopist.  It is suggested that the
quanatitation skill of the microscopist may be improved and concurrently
verified through the use of calibration standards.  These standards may
include well-characterized bulk materials or in-house calibration standards
formulated by mixing known weights of commonly available fibrous (asbestos,
cellulose, glass, etc.) and nonfibrous (plaster, clay, vermiculite, calcium
carbonate, etc.) materials.

                               4-9
     For some materials, experience has shown that gravimetry (gravimetric
sample reduction) is a viable technique to aid in the determination of
asbestos content.  The technique involves the systematic removal (and
determination of the resulting weight loss) of interfering components, and the
concentration of asbestos in a residue, the components of which are identified
by PLM.  EPA is currently conducting research to develop procedures that will
help determine the appropriate analytical procedure to use based on the type
of material, the level of asbestos present in the material, as well as other
factors.

     TEM is not recommended for routine analysis of bulk samples.  TEM may be
useful in the analysis of special materials containing finely divided asbestos
particles.  The EPA is currently reviewing procedures for analyzing and
identifying categories of such materials to determine if additional guidance
should be issued to provide for these materials.
                                
     2.  One advantage to including the analytical method for the
identification and quantitation of asbestos directly in the NESHAP is that the
method is then readily available to those who have an interest in the asbestos
NESHAP.  A disadvantage of this approach is that, when the analytical method
is revised as a result of improvements in methodology, the analytical method
contained in the NESHAP cannot be changed without going through lengthy and
time-consuming procedures to amend the regulation.  in this situation,
referencing the method, rather than putting the method into the regulation,
would allow any revisions in analytical methodology to be immediately
incorporated into the NESHAP.  The EPA considers this aspect to be extremely
important and for this reason has decided to incorporate the analytical method
by reference.  Furthermore, EPA believes that most of the individuals that are
affected by this aspect of the rule, i.e., abatement contractors and
laboratories, are familiar with the method and its location in 40 CFR Part
763, Subpart F.

     3.  The EPA believes that, by including the analytical method used to
determine asbestos content in the definition, future misinterpretation of the
definition is unlikely.

4.12  FUGITIVE SOURCES

     Comment:  Commenter 28 recommends revising the definition of "fugitive
sources" to apply to mills, manufacturing, and fabricating sources not
controlled by an air pollution control device.

     Response:  Fugitive emissions are those emissions that are not controlled
by an air pollution control device, e.g., emissions from windows, doors,
waste-piles, roof vents, and conveyors.  Fugitive emissions at milling,
manufacturing, and fabricating sources are controlled by Sections 61.142(a),
61.144(b)(1), and 61.147(b)(1), respectively.  Therefore, EPA does not believe
it necessary to revise the definition as suggested.

                               4-10
4.13  GENERATOR

     Comment:  Commenter 83 notes that "generator" is not defined in the
proposed rule and asked if the building owner or the contractor is the
generator.

     Response:  As the commenter correctly notes, "generator" is not defined,
although "waste generator" is.  The revised rule will use the term "waste
generator" where only "generator" was used before.

     The waste generator at a demolition or renovation can be either the
building owner or the contractor, or both based on the definitions of "waste
generator," which refers to any owner or operator covered by the NESHAP that
produces asbestos waste, and the definition of "owner or operator of a
demolition or renovation activity," which applies to either the building owner
or the contractor, or both.

4.14  GLOVE BAGS

     Comment:  Commenter 84 suggests that EPA not endorse glove bags to the
exclusion of other, more effective technological solutions.

     Response:  The EPA intends to allow the use of glove bags, an effective,
commonly used technology that is consistent with EPA's wetting requirements. 
The EPA also allows alternative methods that have been approved by the
Administrator.

4.15  INACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL SITE

     Comment:  Commenter 45 asks if the definition of "inactive waste disposal
site" includes sites that were inactive 1 year or more prior to the effective
date of this proposal.

     Response:  The revised definition does not alter the sources that are
covered (sites that were operated by mills and manufacturing and fabricating
operations) and applies to the affected, existing inactive sites.  Sites that
were inactive 1 year or more prior to the effective date are still covered.

4.16  INSPECTION PORTS

     Comment:  Commenter 84 explains the importance of adopting a definition
for "inspection ports" and requiring their use by inspectors for the
observation of asbestos removal operations without having to enter the work
area.

     Response:  The EPA must be afforded the opportunity to inspect or observe
a removal operation.  To the extent feasible, owners/operators should provide
for compliance monitoring without the inspector having to enter the workplace. 
Inspection ports or some other means of observing a removal operation are
especially useful in areas where inspectors are not allowed to enter the work 

                               4-11

site for liability or other reasons.  Because the opportunity for inspection
is already required, EPA does not believe that a separate requirement for
inspection ports is necessary.

4.17  INSTALLATION

     Comment:  Commenter 83 argues that the definition of "installation" needs
clarification and asks whether a group of residential buildings would be
excluded.  They argue that a group of residential buildings at one location
being demolished or renovated by one developer should be covered.

     Response:  A group of residential buildings under the control of the same
owner or operator is considered an installation according to the definition of
"installation" and is, therefore, covered by the rule.  As an example, several
houses located on highway right-of-way that are all demolished as part of the
same highway project would be considered an "installation," even when the
houses are not proximate to each other.  In this example, the houses are all
under the control of the same owner or operator, the highway agency
responsible for the highway project.

4.18  LOCATION AND ADDRESS

     Comment:  Commenter 15 requests that "location and address" as used in
Section 61.145(b)(4)(vi) be defined to require the street number or the street
the facility is on or the distance from the nearest crossroad if no street
number exists.  The commenter explains that some notifications only give a
post office box number.

     Response:  The EPA agrees that location and address may not always be
sufficient.  Rather than defining these terms, EPA has revised Section
61.145(b)(4)(vi) to require more specific information.

4.19  MALFUNCTION

     Comment:  Commenter 93 requests revision of the definition of
"malfunction" to reference American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
specifications for operating local exhaust systems.

     Response:  The EPA is concerned with malfunctions of air pollution
control equipment and process equipment and the failure of a process to
operate in a normal manner such that increased asbestos emissions result. 
Poor maintenance and careless operation of equipment or process leading to
failure are not considered malfunctions.  The recommendation that the
definition of malfunction reference the ANSI specifications for local exhaust
systems could be construed as narrowing the definition to apply only to local
exhaust systems and, for that reason, is not acceptable to EPA.

                               4-12
4.20  NATURAL BARRIER

     Comment:  Commenter 18 notes that, in the revisions proposed on           
January 10, 1989, "natural barrier" is identified as a revised term in
instruction number 4 to Section 61.141, "Definitions," while it is actually a
new term.  

     Response:  As this commenter correctly points out, "natural barrier" is a
new term.

4.21  NONFRIABLE

     Comment:  Commenters 15 and 69 assert that the meaning of "nonfriable" is
unclear because it was not defined in the revisions proposed on January 10,
1989.  A problem may result if it is considered the opposite of friable. 
Commenter 39 also argues for a definition of "nonfriable" and asserts that,
like "friable," the threshold of at least 1 percent by area should apply.

     Response:  The EPA agrees that the meaning of "nonfriable" is unclear. 
The EPA considers nonfriable asbestos material to be material containing more
than 1 percent asbestos by area that cannot be broken, crumbled, pulverized,
or reduced to powder by hand pressure, and has added a definition to that
effect.

4.22  NONSCHEDULED RENOVATION OPERATION

     Comment:  1.  Commenters 9, 40, and 61 assert that the term "nonscheduled
renovation operation" should be deleted or substantially modified to clarify
its meaning within the context of the regulation.  Commenter 9 believes, for
example, that it is contradictory to state that "planned renovation
operations" can involve individual nonscheduled operations when the definition
of "nonscheduled renovation operation" means a renovation that is not planned. 
Commenter 61 states that it is not logical to require a prediction of a
nonscheduled event.  Commenter 73 points out that EPA does not discuss the
meaning of "routine," which is used in the definition of "nonscheduled
renovation operation."

     2.  Commenter 40 recommends that EPA revise the definition to include
maintenance and preventive maintenance activities as well as actual failure of
equipment.

     Response:  1.  Although the usage of the term "nonscheduled renovation
operation" in the context of planned renovations may appear contradictory, the
term applies to individual events that cannot be precisely predicted as to
their specific nature and time of occurrence but, based on experience, will
occur.  For example, a petroleum refinery or chemical plant must routinely
deal with faulty valves, pumps, and pipes and other failures that occur
occasionally.  Because such equipment failures have occurred in the past,
plant operators know that similar problems will occur in the future, although
the exact date and the exact location are unknown.  But the plant operators 

                               4-13
can be certain that they will occur and can plan accordingly.  Similarly, the
use of the word "routine" in the definition applies to equipment failures
that, based on experience, can be predicted to occur; that is, they occur as a
matter of routine, although the exact date and location cannot be predicted. 
Activities that do not occur routinely are not covered by this definition.

     2.  If the amount of asbestos that will be disturbed as part of a
maintenance activity will exceed the threshold amounts and the activity can be
planned (that is, the date and nature of the work to be done are known in
advance), then the activity is a planned renovation subject to the
requirements of Section 61.145(a)(4).  Maintenance activities that occur as a
result of the routine failure of equipment cannot be precisely predicted and
would be included in the annual notification requirement for planned
renovation operations involving individual nonscheduled operations.  A
maintenance activity performed in connection with a sudden unexpected event,
where the amount of asbestos affected exceeds the thresholds, is considered an
emergency renovation.

4.23  OUTSIDE AIR

     Comment:  1.  Commenter 49 states that EPA is expanding the definition of
"outside air."

     2.  Commenters 66, 77, and 84 suggest that the definition of "outside
air" should cover air external to the removal area, as well as outside glove
boxes and containment areas, including air inside buildings.

     Response:  1.  The EPA is clarifying the definition and not expanding it,
as suggested by the commenter.  The revised language is not intended to alter
the meaning of the definition, but rather to clear up any ambiguity regarding
what EPA considers "outside air" to encompass.

    2.  The EPA does not consider the suggested change necessary because dusty
conditions are an indication of work practice violations, and the
owner/operator could be cited for these.  The EPA does not want to be in the
position of having to prove that any emissions outside a work area actually
contain asbestos; it is adequate to rely on the enforcement of work practices
to ensure that asbestos emissions are kept to a minimum.  Furthermore, the
suggested revision would alter the stringency of the regulation.  Today's
rulemaking is intended to promote compliance and aid enforcement.  The need
for revisions that affect stringency may be considered at a later date.

4.24  OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A DEMOLITION OR RENOVATION ACTIVITY

    Comment:  1.  Commenter 13 argues that, once an abatement contractor
leaves the site, he/she is no longer liable because he/she is no longer
"operating."  Commenter 13 suggests rewording the definition to read as
follows:  "...in the case of multiple operators both the contractor and the
asbestos abatement contractor are considered as 'the operator' throughout the
duration of activity at the site.

                               4-14
     2.  Commenter 33 states that the definition appears to extend
responsibility beyond owners and operators.  Given the people with various
responsibilities at a project (such as industrial hygienists, engineers,
architects), it would help to further define "operate," "control," and
"supervise."

     3.  Several commenters think the definition is confusing.  Commenter 61
argues that the definition seems to indicate that "owner" and "operator" are
interchangeable, while the waste tracking form in figure 4 implies that
operator refers to the removal contractor.  Commenter 94 feels that separate
definitions are needed for the facility owner ("owner") and abatement
contractor ("operator") to ensure that they both are held accountable. 
Commenter 55 states that the definition of "owner or operator of a demolition
or renovation activity" is confusing and that the "owner" should be the
building owner and the "contractor" should be defined as the one responsible
for the asbestos abatement.

     4.  Commenter 83 endorses the addition of the words "or both" to the
definition of "owner or operator."

     5.  Commenter 17 supports broadening the definition of "owner or operator
of a demolition or renovation activity" to cover both the owner of the
facility and the property owner.

     Response:  1.  The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the
contractor cannot be held responsible after he/she has left the work site or
after he/she had completed his/her work.  Both the owner and operator can be
held responsible.  The EPA does not, therefore, believe it is necessary to
revise the definition.

     2.  The definition was added to help clarify responsibility for
compliance and includes the owner of the facility as well as the current owner
of the property on which the facility is located.  It also includes the person
in charge of a demolition or renovation operation.  The EPA believes that the
definition is adequate and does not warrant being revised, but will provide
additional information to be issued later to assist affected parties in
implementing the revisions.

     3.  In response to the commenters who feel that the definition needs to
be clarified, EPA has decided that the definition is adequate.  Additional
information will be provided to all affected parties at a later date to assist
in the implementation of the revision.

     4.  No response is necessary.

     5.  The definition does not actually broaden the coverage of the rule,
but helps to clarify the rule as it is currently interpreted.

                               4-15
4.25  PARTICULATE ASBESTOS MATERIAL

     Comment:  Commenter 93 recommends deleting the definition of "particulate
asbestos material."

     Response:  This term is used several time in the regulation, for example,
in Section 61.142(a), 61.144(b)(2), 61.147, and elsewhere.  Because this term
is not defined in the General Provisions, 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart A, EPA
believes it is useful to define the term in this rule.

4.26  REMOVE

     Comment:  Commenter 70 argues that the definition of "remove" should be
revised and suggests that it should be changed to include facility components
that "contain" asbestos.

     Response:  Because it is EPA's intention to regulate any asbestos that is
removed, the definition of "remove" has been modified to make it clear that
asbestos-containing facility components are included.

4.27  RENOVATION

     Comment:  Commenter 63 feels that the definition of "renovation" should
be revised to apply to nondemolition asbestos removal because many procedures
involve asbestos removal but do not alter components.  Commenter 89 is
concerned that the definition of "renovation" is overly broad and could be 
interpreted to apply to the transfer of stored shingles from one end of a
warehouse to another.

     Response:  The EPA believes that the revised definition of "renovation"
is clear in that any stripping or removal of asbestos-containing material is
covered (unless it is a demolition).  As written in the revised definition,
stripping or removal of asbestos is a form of alteration of facility
components.  Therefore, the commenters' concerns are covered by the definition
of "renovation."  The EPA disagrees that the definition is so broad that the
movement of stored transit would be interpreted as a renovation; this has not
been a problem with the definition previously, and with the reference to "the
stripping or removal of ACM," the intended meaning of "renovation" should be
obvious.

4.28  ROADWAY

     Comment:  Commenter 89 asserts that the definition of "roadway" is not
consistent with the discussion in the preamble to the proposed revisions.

     Response:  After examining the full text of this comment and the affected
parts of the regulation and preamble, it appears that the commenter has
confused two separate aspects of the regulation by matching the proposed
definition of "roadway" with the preamble discussion of the provisions that
restrict the use of asbestos material in roadway construction.

                               4-16
4.29  TRANSPORT

     Comment:  Commenter 15 asks that "transport" be defined.

     Response:  The EPA believes that this is a commonly understood term that
does not require defining.

4.30  VISIBLE EMISSIONS

     Comment:  1.  Commenters 12, 93, and 54 support the addition of "coming
from asbestos-containing material" to the definition of "visible emissions."

     2.  Commenter 12 supports the exclusion of condensed, uncombined water
vapor, although no mention is made of training to make such a determination. 
They feel persons certified for Method 9 are taught to make this distinction;
therefore, observations should be made by a certified observer.

     3.  Commenters 22 and 23 suggests that expanding the definition to
include emissions that do not contain asbestos does not seem appropriate. 
Commenter 93 argues that deleting "containing particulate asbestos materials"
from the definition expands coverage beyond just asbestos emissions. 
Commenter 20 recommends that the term "generated from operations involving" be
substituted for "coming from" in the definition.  Commenter 84 objects to the
term "coming from asbestos-containing material" and recommends that the
definition in effect prior to the proposed revisions be retained.  Commenters 
28 and 58 argue that EPA should retain the definition in effect prior to the
proposed revisions, and they point out that the assumption that visible
emissions from asbestos-containing material contain asbestos does not apply to
nonfriable material.

     4.  Commenter 70 asserts that the definition should also include "from
asbestos-containing waste materials," and should include emissions "having
come" from asbestos material, such as asbestos in amounts clearly visible on
the ground.

     5.  Commenter 54 suggests that an additional procedure be added to ensure
proper removal techniques.

     6.  Commenter 80 believes that the definition is subjective and does not
provide landfill operators with the necessary guidance to comply; commenter 80
suggests that compliance be determined by air monitoring for asbestos.

     7.  Commenter 21 requests that EPA amend the definition to include
visible airborne dust, i.e., dust suspended in the atmosphere, which is being
emitted to the outside air.

     Response:  1.  No response is necessary.

                               4-17
     2.  In EPA's experience with the asbestos NESHAP, observers not certified
for Method 9 are, nevertheless, able to distinguish condensed, uncombined
water vapor from other visible emissions.  The EPA sees no need to add a
certification requirement to the rule.

     3.  In the proposed revisions, the definition was changed so that EPA
would not have to prove the presence of particulate asbestos material in each
plume observed, only that the visible emission came from asbestos-containing
material.  In milling, manufacturing, and fabricating operations, where
preventing a visible emission is one compliance option, emissions from the
processing of asbestos and asbestos-containing material are highly likely to
contain asbestos.  In this situation, there is little need to sample and
analyze emissions for asbestos.  In demolition and renovation activities, work
practices are required, specifically, the adequate wetting of asbestos prior
to stripping.  In the definition of "adequately wet," the presence of visible
emissions is used as an indicator of whether or not the asbestos has been
adequately wetted.  The presence of asbestos in the visible emission is not a
issue; rather, the mere presence of a visible emission from a stripping
operation is an indication that a required work practice, i.e., wetting
adequately, is not being performed properly.  As a result, EPA does not
consider this revision to be an expansion of the rule's coverage beyond
asbestos.  The suggested change in the wording of the definition does not
appear to be substantively different than the language it would replace.  If
nonfriable asbestos-containing materials are crumbled, pulverized, or reduced
to powder in the course of demolition/renovation operations, visible emissions
could under some circumstances result.  However, in demolition and renovation,
visible emissions are used only as an indication of whether the material has
been adequately wetted.

     4.  "Visible emissions" means and has always meant emissions that are
observed in the air by the naked eye.  It has never meant asbestos laying on
the ground.  Asbestos-containing material observed on the ground may under
certain circumstances constitute a violation of those parts of the rule that
deal with containment of waste, but would not be a violation of the no visible
emissions requirements.

     5.  The NESHAP already requires that certain work practices be followed
during asbestos removal operations.  A requirement of no visible emissions for
demolition and renovation operations does not exist.  Only where the standard
allows the use of alternate controls procedures (e.g., local exhaust
ventilation) in lieu of wetting and during the collection and processing of
waste at the site of generation is a visible emission limit an option.

     6.  Under the rule, landfill operators have the option of complying with
either the no visible emission or the work practice requirements.  The EPA
considers determining whether an emission to the air is visible or not to be
well within the capability of landfill operators, whereas air monitoring would
be more difficult and more costly.  Furthermore, standard procedures for
monitoring asbestos concentrations in the air at landfills have not been
established.

                               4-18

     7.  The emission limits contained in the NESHAP already apply to visible
emissions to the outside air.  The EPA also believes that it is understood
that visible emissions refer to airborne emissions.

4.31  WASTE GENERATOR

     Comment:  Commenter 55 states that the definition of "waste generator" is
confusing in that it is not clear whether the owner or the contractor is
responsible for the asbestos waste.

     Response:  The EPA does not think that the definition is confusing.  The
waste generator is the person or organization whose actions produce the
asbestos-containing waste material.

4.32  WASTE OIL

     Comment:  To clarify the term "waste oil," commenter 41 recommends that
it be defined.

     Response:  The EPA agrees in principle with the suggestion to define
"waste oil," but prefers to clarify its meaning where it appears in the
regulation rather than adding a definition.

                               4-19

                  5.0  MILLING, MANUFACTURING,
                        AND FABRICATING

5.1   COMPLIANCE

     Comment:  Two commenters question the need for additional regulation of
these industries.  Commenter 10 states that asbestos mining and manufacturing
industries adhere to stringent work practices and regulations and are not in
need of additional regulation.  Commenter 28 argues that, given the high
degree of compliance, the additional inspections and recordkeeping
requirements do not appear warranted.

     Response:  Although most of these sources do monitor at least once a day
for visible emissions and inspect baghouses frequently, EPA's enforcement
experience has shown that some do not operate and maintain their equipment
(including monitoring and inspections) to ensure the high degree of collection
efficiency that is possible.  Therefore, these requirements are necessary for
those sources.  Where these practices are already in place, any incurred costs
will be minimal.  For the few sources that do not already monitor and inspect
and keep records for their collection devices, there will be an estimated
annual cost per control device of $489 for daily visible emission monitoring
and $2,283 for weekly inspections.  Total recordkeeping and reporting costs
including costs associated with waste tracking will be an estimated $1.4
million/yr.

5.2   APPLICABILITY

     Comment:  Commenter 54 wants the provision deleted that currently exempts
from the fabricating requirements "operations that primarily install asbestos
friction materials on motor vehicles."
     
     Response:  The EPA based its exemption of operations that primarily
install asbestos-friction materials (i.e., brakes) on motor vehicles on
findings that indicate that these operations do not cause an atmospheric
emission problem.1  In addition, OSHA no longer permits brakes to be blown out
(unless enclosed), but requires the use of wet rags or vacuum cleaners
equipped with HEPA filters.  These requirements will further reduce emissions.

     Most brake replacements are done using brakes that are prefabricated so
that any machining is kept to a minimum.  Small garages and service stations
that install brakes typically do not fabricate brakes, due in part to the high
capital and labor cost involved in brake fabrication, and are not considered a
problem.  

5.3   VISIBLE EMISSION MONITORING

     Comment:  The following comments were received on the subject of visible
emissions monitoring.

                              5-1
     1.  Three commenters 17, 18, and 54, were critical of the 15-second
monitoring requirement, claiming that 15 seconds is inadequate.  They suggest
that visible emissions should be monitored more frequently, e.g., on an hourly
basis or 1 percent of the operating time.  The lack of visible emissions,
according to commenter 54, is no guarantee of a properly operating control
system.

     2.  Commenter 53 claims that the use of visible emissions monitoring is a
subjective, nonspecific, and insensitive method to evaluate exposures to
submicron asbestos fibers, and states that the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) suggests that direct-reading
instruments are objective and quantifiable methods for monitoring emissions. 
Commenter 93 suggests that EPA should consider permitting use of 'broken bag
detectors" in conjunction with the operation of baghouses.

     3.  According to commenter 88, daily monitoring and recordkeeping for
visible emissions is burdensome without any significant environmental benefit.

     4.  Commenter 12 claims that additional information is required to
facilitate enforcement of the visible emission standard for milling,
manufacturing, and fabricating.  They ask what method is to be used, Method 22
or 9?  They explain that Method 22 permits the use of an uncertified reader
without using opacity, but would allow a high bias in observation, while
Method 9 used opacity, requires a certified reader, and eliminates bias by
specifying reader location.

     5.  Commenter 22 notes that Section 61.144(b)(3) and elsewhere refers to
"asbestos emissions," a term that is not defined.  Should it be visible
emissions?

     6.  Commenter 18 argues that ambient air monitoring should be required
because visible emissions cannot be monitored at night.

     Response:  1.  The EPA believes that daily, 15-second monitoring of each
control device for visible emissions and weekly inspection of each control
device is sufficient to detect malfunctions.  In addition, longer monitoring
times would be costly and result in a small, undetermined benefit.  For
example, visible emission monitoring for 6 minutes is estimated to cost an
additional $840,000/yr.  A source can choose to monitor for longer than the 15
seconds if their control system warrants a longer observation period.  For
baghouses where a visible emission might only occur when the malfunctioning
section of the baghouse goes through a cleaning cycle, it would be in the
owner/operator's best interest to monitor for more than 15 seconds in order to
avoid being found in violation during an inspection.  In addition, the weekly
control device inspection would discover any malfunctions so that, in most
cases, a control device is unlikely to be malfunctioning for more than 1 week.

     The EPA has measured emissions from a baghouse at a plant manufacturing
asbestos-concrete products (RTI/432U-2874-5).  The study measured the 
micrograms of asbestos per cubic meter of gas exiting the baghouse.  Normal
ambient levels of asbestos are in the nanogram per cubic meter range.  

                              5-2

Although various means of monitoring these emissions may be more effective
than visible emission monitoring, they need to be tested and their utility
determined.

     2.  Visible emissions are usually an indication of a problem.  Even when
visible emissions are not observed, asbestos is still being emitted.  This
type of monitoring is easily accomplished and serves to detect significant
emissions.  Weekly inspection of control devices will identify many problems
before visible emissions occur or when, due to low inlet gram loadings,
visible emissions are unlikely.

     A number of the comments suggested that the Auburn Triboflow particulate
detector or the GCA fibrous aerosol monitor should be required in order to
alert owners/operators of fabric filter leaks sooner and/or more effectively
than reliance on visible emission observations.  The Auburn Triboflow
particulate detector does seem to have some potential for particulate
monitoring applications in which the particle size distribution and mass
emission rate do not fluctuate significantly.  Similarly, the GCA fibrous
aerosol monitor does seem to have some potential for applications in which the
nonfibrous materials are not a significant portion of the emission stream and
the rates do not overwhelm the monitor.  Thus, both of these devices may be
useful.  However, neither of these devices has been evaluated for asbestos
emission monitoring applications, and no performance specifications have been
developed.  Thus, EPA does not recommend that either be required by the
asbestos NESHAP at this time.  These and similar devices will have to be
evaluated as part of a research and development and quality assurance project
before they can be recommended for inclusion in the NESHAP.

     3.  Most milling, manufacturing, and fabricating operations already
monitor daily for visible emissions and many maintain records of this
activity.  For those that will, for the first time, begin keeping records of
these activities, cost will be small, about $2,000/yr per plant for developing
a record system ($13,100/430 plants) and recording the information
($838,000/430 plants), based on an asbestos industry average of 2.5 control
devices per plant.  The EPA agrees that the benefit of these measures may not
be great overall given that many plants already perform monitoring and
recordkeeping.  However, for plants that do not already perform daily visible
emissions monitoring, these requirements will help to ensure operation of
control devices at their highest efficiency with reduction in emissions
proportional to the improvement in control device efficiency.

     4.  The EPA believes that a no visible emission requirement is more
stringent than either an opacity requirement or a requirement that limits the
duration of a visible emission.  With the asbestos NESHAP requirement, there
is, or there is not a visible emission.  There is no requirement for, nor is
there a need for, a certification requirement to determine if a visible
emission is occurring.

     5.  "Asbestos emissions" is the current term.  The EPA believes that this
term, which refers to an emission containing asbestos, is commonly understood
and does not need to be defined.

                              5-3
     6.  Most plants that operate at night also operate during daylight hours. 
Because the rule requires visible emission monitoring during daylight hours,
visible emissions that occur at night are likely to also occur during the day
when they would be discovered.  In addition, the required weekly inspection is
likely to identify any problem with the control device.

5.4   WEEKLY INSPECTIONS

     Comment:  1.  Commenters 17 and 29 support the weekly inspection of
control equipment and the submittal of associated records, stating that self-monitoring is inexpensive and will help ensure continued compliance.

     2.  Commenter 28 argues that EPA should consider the cost of enforcing
these requirements; specifically, EPA should withhold these requirements until
they determine the cost-to-benefit ratio.

     Response:  1.  No response is necessary.

     2.  Examination of records to be maintained by the affected sources will
occur incidentally as part of periodic inspections of sources, which are a
part of an enforcement agency's overall compliance and enforcement program. 
The EPA believes that the time required to determine that a source is
maintaining records and to examine the records will not be overly burdensome.

5.5   COMPLIANCE OPTIONS

     Comment:  The following comments were received on the compliance options
available to milling, manufacturing, and fabricating.

     1.  Commenter 12 queries that, where a source elects to use methods
specified in Section 61.152 to clean emissions rather than comply with the no
visible emission standard, what visible emission standard applies?  Would
general, State visible emission standards be applicable when the source
complies with the equipment specifications?

     2.  Commenter 84 supports Section 61.147(b)(1) which regulates emissions
even though they may be emitted to the air inside structures or buildings.

     3.  Two commenters, 70 and 84, state that sources processing asbestos
should have no visible emissions and comply with control equipment
specifications.

     Response:  1.  When a source complies with the equipment specifications
of Section 61.152, the visible emission limit does not apply.  Any State
limits on visible emissions would still be applicable.

     2.  Section 61.147(b)(1) restricts visible emissions to the outside air
from operations inside buildings or from the building.  If the emission is
visible inside the building, but not visible in the outside air, it is not a
violation.

                              5-4
     3.  To require compliance with the visible emission provision and the
equipment specifications of Section 61.152 would be an increase in the
stringency of the regulation and therefore subject to the rulings in the
"vinyl chloride case" (NRDC v. EPA, 824 F. 2d 1146 [D.C. Cir. 1987]), which
requires a two-step process in regulating hazardous air pollutants.  These
revisions make changes that do not affect stringency but clarify the rule,
promote compliance, and aid in its enforcement.  These revisions were
determined by EPA not to be subject to the requirements of the vinyl chloride
case.  The need for revisions that affect stringency may be addressed at a
later date.

5.6   MONITORING REPORTS

     Comment:  One comment on reporting and recordkeeping was received. 
Commenter 17 favors monthly instead of quarterly reports.

     Response:  Because these reports are all received after the fact, their
purpose is to alert EPA to potential problem sources that can be corrected. 
Because visible emissions from milling, manufacturing, and fabricating occur
infrequently, monthly reports would offer no real advantage over quarterly
reports.

5.7   REFERENCE

1.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Background Information on National
    Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants--Proposed Amendments to
    Standards for Asbestos and Mercury.  Office of Air Quality Planning and
    Standards.  Research Triangle Park, NC.  Publication No. 
    EPA 450/2-74-009a.  October 1974.  140 p.

                              5-5

                         6.0  ROADWAYS

6.1   USE OF TAILINGS

     Comment:  1.  According to commenter 2, the discussion on p. 921 of the
Federal Register on the use of tailings on roadways is not clear.

     2.  Commenter 2 also believes that the standard for roadways should
explicitly permit the use of asbestos tailings encapsulated in asphalt, as
well as in other uses.  Commenter 54 states that Section 61.143 should include
a provision ensuring that tailings are encapsulated before they are used in
roadway construction.

     Response:  1.  The discussion of tailings on p. 921 of the proposal
preamble was an explanation of the requirements of Section 61.143, Standard
for Roadways.  This section allows unbound (not encapsulated) asbestos tailing
to be used to construct or maintain a temporary roadway at an asbestos mine. 
If encapsulated in a resinous or bituminous binder, asbestos tailings can be
used to construct or maintain a temporary road at the site of an asbestos
mill, usually located in close proximity to the asbestos mine.  Asbestos
tailings can also be used in any road construction, as long as they are
encapsulated in asphalt concrete meeting Federal Highway Administration
construction specifications.

     2.  The EPA believes that Section 61.143 is clear in its requirement
that, when asbestos tailings are used in roadways, other than those at 
asbestos mine sites, the tailings must be encapsulated prior to being placed
in the roadway.  Although EPA is confident that the limited uses specified in
Section 61.143 for tailings are possible without significant emissions, it is
not as confident that other uses, suggested by commenter 2, are advisable
without more information on their fiber release potential.

6.2   USE OF ALL ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIAL

     Comment:  Commenter 20 argues that, because commercial asbestos is
allowed in asphalt concrete (Section 61.144(a)(11)) as are asbestos tailings,
any asbestos-containing material should be allowed to be used in the
manufacturing of asphalt concrete.

     Response:  In general, EPA prefers that no asbestos waste be used in road
construction.  However, asbestos tailings have special characteristics that
make them suitable for road construction, including their aggregate
characteristics and low asbestos content after milling.  Furthermore, their
use is permitted only in asphalt concrete meeting Federal Highway
Administration specifications.  It is unlikely that asphalt concrete to which
asbestos-containing material, other than tailings or commercial asbestos, has
been added would meet these specifications.

                              6-1
6.3   CONTAMINATED STONE

     Comment:  Commenter 55 asks that stone contaminated with asbestos be
addressed in Section 61.143.

     Response:  The EPA has investigated the problem of using asbestos-contaminated crushed stone on unpaved roads.  Due to its limited geographic
distribution, EPA concluded that the use of asbestos-contaminated crushed
stone on roads could best be dealt with by local authorities rather than
through national regulations.

                              6-2
                 7.0  DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION

7.1   APPLICABILITY

7.1.1   Asbestos-Containing Material

     Comment:  Numerous comments were received on the definition of "asbestos-containing material" (ACM), especially as it affected applicability of the
rules on demolition and renovation to nonfriable asbestos-containing
materials.  By far, most of the commenters (42, 47, 69, 72, 86, 89, 93, 95,
and 100) are concerned that EPA is expanding the coverage of the NESHAP to
include materials that, previously, EPA had expressly omitted from regulation
under the NESHAP.  Commenter 95, for example, states that, without guidance or
exemptions stated in the rule, the extension of the regulation to nonfriable
materials represents a risk-based decision.  According to commenter 72, such
an extension would be contrary to the Administrator's 1974 determination that
nonfriable materials did not represent a threat to the public health. 
Commenter 69 points out that an increased number of facilities would be
covered, including those where no friable asbestos is present.  Commenters 42
and 62 state that the term "potentially" in the definition of ACM expanded
coverage to nonfriable materials and should be deleted.  Commenter 30 states
that, although this may be a positive change in some cases, covering
potentially friable materials could be overly restrictive and increase costs
significantly where material such as A/C siding had to be removed prior to
demolition.  Commenters 47, 89, 93, and 95 explain that use of the term
"broken" to describe materials that are subject to the rule is inconsistent
with the current NESHAP and expands coverage of the NESHAP.  These commenters
state that merely breaking nonfriable material does not equate to fiber
release.  One commenter, 89, notes that noncompliance may increase where
nonfriable material is broken during demolition or renovation, but is not
controlled or reported according to the NESHAP.

     Several comments were received that support the regulation of nonfriable
materials.  Commenters 2, 26, 57, 83, and 85 argue that all nonfriable
material could be broken or crumbled and friable and should be regulated. 
Commenter 84 explains that certain nonfriable materials, e.g., asbestos
flooring, packings, and gaskets, should be regulated to protect building
occupants.  Commenter 53 cites a study that showed that emissions from the
removal of roof shingles exceeded the NIOSH-recommended exposure level and
OSHA's PEL.  Citing the need to be notified of all demolitions, commenter 55
states that the exemption of nonfriable materials from the notification
requirements should be deleted.  While supporting the expansion of coverage to
nonfriable material, commenter 55 notes that building owners would need to be
made aware of this new requirement.

     Several commenters argue that the rule should be modified to clarify that
certain products are nonfriable and, therefore, not regulated.  A/C products,
including transite and exterior shingles, should be included among nonfriable
products according to commenters 49, 72, and 93.  Asbestos-containing flooring
products, such as tile and sheet vinyl flooring, are considered by several
commenters (15, 47, 48, 55, 84, and 95) to always be nonfriable and exempt 

                              7-1
from the rule, with the exception of flooring that was being sanded (47, 48). 
Commenters 47 and 95 also note that the phrase "resilient floor covering"
should be used throughout the rule because it includes both tile and sheet
vinyl flooring.  Another commenter, 48, in reference to asbestos roofing
products, argues that there is no basis in the record for saying that severely
weathered asphaltic material could become brittle.  Also, commenter 28
suggests that EPA change "asphalt roofing" to "bituminous resinous roofing
systems."  One commenter, 16, states that the proposed inclusion of nonfriable
asbestos in the regulation might create economic and practical problems as it
relates to the demolition of buildings containing hard placate, ceiling and
wall material; they suggest allowing demolition of the building provided that
these materials are thoroughly wetted during the demolition.  Commenters 21,
31, 48, 49, and 93 recommend that the rule be clarified to exempt all
nonfriable materials as the rule is currently understood.  Commenter 93 argues
that in present day ACM the asbestos fibers are locked in cement or bituminous
or resinous binders and that the materials can be removed and disposed of
without any significant release to the environment.  According to commenter
93, the proposed conditional language makes determining applicability to ACM
more difficult.

     The EPA proposed to exclude from the rules certain nonfriable materials
"in good condition."  Commenters 28, 48, 59, 81, and 92 express a need for EPA
to clarify the meaning of "in good condition."  Commenter 93 notes that the
qualifier "in good condition" was not in the EPA's 1974 determination on the
nonfriable issue.  Commenter 95 argues that the exclusion from reporting floor
covering in notifications for renovations, Section 61.145(a)(5), should also
apply to demolitions.  Commenter 21 expresses support for establishing three
categories of ACM, i.e., friable, nonfriable but having the potential to
release asbestos, and nonfriable material that cannot become friable or
release fibers.  According to commenters 26 and 88, the definition should
specify an asbestos content limit.

     Two comments were received on this definition that are editorial in
nature.  Commenter 29 suggests deleting this definition and covering the
"potentially friable" aspect in the definition of "friable asbestos material. 
Commenter 26 suggests modifying the definition of ACM by deleting the part
describing nonfriable material that potentially can be broken, etc., and
adding it to the definition of "friable asbestos material" with revisions that
would make nonfriable material subject to the rules only if the nonfriable
material became friable, i.e., crumbled, etc., by hand pressure.  In addition,
commenter 26 would add an asbestos content limit to the definition of ACM. 
Without these modifications, the term "potential" makes the rule more
restrictive because nonfriable material with the potential to become friable
is covered regardless of whether the material will become friable or not.

     Response:  In 1973 when the asbestos NESHAP rules were first promulgated
for the demolition of buildings, EPA wanted to distinguish between materials
that would readily release asbestos fibers when damaged or disturbed and those
materials that were unlikely to result in the release of significant amounts
of asbestos fibers.  To accomplish this, EPA labeled as "friable" those
materials that were likely to readily release fibers.  Friable materials, when 

                              7-2

dry, could easily be crushed using hand pressure.  Later, EPA realized that,
in some instances, nonfriable materials that were subjected to intense force
such as the intense mechanical forces encountered during demolition, could be
crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder.  In these instances, certain
nonfriable materials appeared capable of releasing to the atmosphere
significant amounts of asbestos fibers.  Examples of practices that were
observed by EPA to reduce nonfriable asbestos material to dust capable of
becoming airborne included the breaking of nonfriable asbestos/cement (A/C)
panels with a demolition ball and removal of nonfriable insulation from steel
beams by repeatedly running over the beams with a crawler tractor.  In view of
the damage done to these otherwise nonfriable materials and the resulting
increased potential for fiber release, these and other similar practices
involving nonfriable asbestos material were considered to render nonfriable
ACM into dust capable of becoming airborne.

     As a result, EPA issued a policy determination in 1985 regarding the
removal of nonfriable asbestos material that was consistent with EPA's intent
to distinguish between material that could release significant amounts of
asbestos fibers during demolition and renovation operations.  This policy
determination stated in essence that friable material and nonfriable material
that become (or are likely to become) crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to
powder are covered.  Specifically, the determination states that

     "...even though the regulations address only material that is
     presently friable, it does not limit itself to material that is
     friable at the time of notification.  Rather, if at any point during
     the renovation or demolition, additional friable asbestos material
     is...created from nonfriable forms, then this additional friable 
     material becomes subject to the regulations from the time of
     creation..."

The issuance of this determination did not alter the intent of the NESHAP, but
was consistent with the intent of the standard that was written to prevent
significant emissions of asbestos fibers.  The intent of the policy
determination was to apply narrowly to specific instances where otherwise
nonfriable materials would be damaged during demolition or renovation to the
extent that significant amounts of asbestos fibers would be released to the
atmosphere.  A statement in the determination to the effect that some
nonfriable materials may remain nonfriable throughout demolition and
renovation is evidence that this determination was intended to be narrowly
interpreted and not used to require removal of all nonfriable materials.  For
example, materials such as resilient floor covering, asphalt roofing products 
packings, and gaskets would rarely, if ever, need to be removed because, even
when broken or damaged, they would not release significant amounts of asbestos
fibers.  But, just as it is important to recognize that some nonfriable
materials do not have to be removed prior to demolition, it is also important
to recognize that some nonfriable materials should be removed prior to
demolition if, as a result of the forces of demolition, nonfriable material is
likely to become crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder.  For example, the
A/C siding on a building that is to be demolished using a wrecking ball is 

                              7-3

very likely to be crumbled or pulverized with increased potential for the
release of significant levels of asbestos fibers.  Such material in this
instance should be removed prior to demolition.

     Since this policy determination was made, there has been confusion in its
application.  As a result, contractors operating in more than one enforcement
jurisdiction have encountered different interpretations for similar demolition
operations.  For example, there have been instances in which contractors are
required, prior to demolition, to remove floor tile in one enforcement
jurisdiction but not in another.  Contractors and/or building owners and
operators are unsure as to what materials must be removed and what materials
can be left in and are often hesitant to proceed without a ruling from EPA,
which can involve significant delays.

     As a consequence, EPA received a number of requests from State and
regional enforcement agencies to clarify what is required under the NESHAP in
dealing with nonfriable materials since the 1985 policy determination was
issued.  In response to these requests, a clarification of the nonfriable
issue was included in the revisions proposed on January 10, 1989.  These
revisions are intended to clarify the intent of the original rule.  Basically,
EPA stated in the January 10, 1989, Federal Register notice, that certain
nonfriable materials, such as floor tile, roofing products, and packings and
gaskets that are in good condition, can be left in buildings being demolished
because fiber release from these materials, even if the materials are damaged,
is relatively small compared to the fiber release from friable materials. 
Other nonfriable products such as A/C products have a greater potential to
release asbestos fibers when heavily damaged and may have to be removed prior
to demolition.

     In response to the revisions proposed on January 10, 1989, numerous
comments were submitted to EPA.  Most of the commenters argue that EPA was
attempting to regulate nonfriable materials, which were explicitly exempted in
previous asbestos NESHAP rulemakings.  Many comments stated that the proposed
revisions did not help to clarify EPA's position on nonfriable material and
may have made matters worse.

     In responding to the comments, a literature survey was conducted to
determine if it was possible to quantify the fiber release potential of
nonfriable materials when the materials are damaged during demolition.  A
limited amount of data was found for certain nonfriable materials, including
floor tile, roofing products, gaskets, packings, and A/C products.  In some
instances, the fiber release data were measured during actual removal
operations, while other data were from simulated removal activities in
laboratory settings.  For the materials evaluated, the potential for fiber
release appeared minimal and substantially lower than for friable materials. 
These findings in fact support EPA's original argument that there is a basis
for making a distinction between materials that readily release fibers and
those that do not.

     As a result of the comments received on this issue and the additional
information gathered in response to comments, EPA has listed nonfriable ACM 

                              7-4
that does not have to be removed prior to demolition operations if the
nonfriable ACM are not in poor condition.  These nonfriable asbestos material
have been classified as "Category I nonfriable ACM" for which a definition was
added and are defined as resilient floor covering, asphalt roofing materials, 
packings, and gaskets.  Resilient floor covering and asphalt roofing material
are further defined to specify the products that are covered.  The remaining
nonfriable materials have been classified as "Category II nonfriable ACM," for
which a definition was added.  The need to remove Category II nonfriable ACM
such as A/C materials, will continue to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 
For nonfriable materials such as A/C materials, which are likely to result in
significant fiber release if not removed prior to demolition, alternate
removal techniques will be permitted, as long as the material does not become
crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder.  For example, if A/C siding can be
removed without seriously damaging the material, wetting the material would
not be required.  If at anytime any of the Category II nonfriable ACM is so
severely damaged that it is likely to result in significant asbestos
emissions, it must be treated as friable asbestos-containing material.  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.  Normally, these are activities that are associated with renovation as
opposed to demolition.  The EPA considers this revision to be consistent with
its original policy regarding nonfriable asbestos material and its 1985
determination regarding nonfriable materials that become so extensively
damaged that significant amounts of asbestos fibers may be released.

     The EPA has made two additional changes to clarify the rule's intent
regarding nonfriable materials.  The EPA has revised the rule to make it clear
that, when a building is burned intentionally, all asbestos-containing
material must be removed prior to the burning.  This covers those situations
where, for example, a fire department plans to burn a building or allow it to
be burned.  Also, in the definitions of "asbestos-containing material,"
"asbestos-containing waste material," "friable asbestos material," and
elsewhere, the word "broken" was deleted.  Most nonfriable materials can be
broken without releasing significant quantities of airborne asbestos fibers. 
It is only when the material is extensively damaged, that is, crumbled,
pulverized, or reduced to powder, that the potential for significant fiber
release is greatly increased.  After considering this issue further, EPA
agrees with commenters that retaining the word "broken" could be interpreted
as substantially increasing the scope of the standard and, therefore, has
omitted it.  The EPA is planning to issue additional information in the future
on this and other aspects of the NESHAP to both enforcement officials and the
regulated community to help in the consistent interpretation and application
of the NESHAP provisions.

7.1.2   Coverage Expanded to "Disturbed" Material

     Comment:  Several comments were concerned with revisions to Section
61.145(a)(4) and (c)(1) where the rule refers to asbestos material that is or
would be disturbed by demolition or renovation.  Commenter 84 asks if the 

                              7-5

phrase "or otherwise disturb" in Section 61.145(a)(4) expanded the
applicability of this standard.  Commenter 86 states that use of the undefined
term "disturb" and the broad definition of "renovation" raises the concern
that many typical activities in the normal operation of a building that have
not been subject to the NESHAP would now fall under the NESHAP.  Commenters 49
and 50 argue that the revision make substantive changes, particularly the
requirement to remove asbestos anytime it will be disturbed, and that these
are subject to the vinyl chloride case.  The EPA should define "otherwise
disturbed" in Section 61.145(a)(4) in order to avoid jurisdictional
difficulties in applying such a broad standard, and clarify "disturb" or
replace with "break up" in Section 61.145(c)(1).

     Commenter 60 asks if EPA is advocating removal of ACM upon any
disturbance of the material, contradicting EPA's previous position regarding
the potential for increased exposure due to unnecessary or nonessential
removals.  Commenter 85 asks for clarification on how "disturbed" is to be
interpreted.  For example, would installing anchors for a new suspended
ceiling in a 1,000 square foot roof deck covered with ACM constitute
disturbing all 1,000 square feet, or should the actual amount scrubbed off
under each anchor be added up to see if it totals at least 160 square feet?

     Commenter 57 supports the proposed requirement that asbestos be removed
before it is disturbed by demolition or renovation.

     Response:  As used in Section 61.145(a)(4), the phrase "or otherwise
disturb" was not intended to expand the applicability of the rule; rather, EPA
intended it as a clarification only, believing it to more closely describe the
original intent of the rule.  Upon further consideration, EPA agrees with the
commenter's concerns over misinterpreting the term "disturbed" and has
modified the regulation to clarify the degree of disturbance that would result
in significant fiber release and, therefore, be covered by the NESHAP
provisions.  In the example cited, if the actual area scrubbed off (disturbed)
to install anchors for a ceiling is 160 square feet or more, then the activity
is subject to the notification and work practice requirements.  In the process
of installing the anchors, if other parts of the ceiling are damaged such that
asbestos would be released, then the area of the damaged ceiling would have to
be included in determining if the NESHAP applies.

     One additional change was made to paragraph (a)(4) to clarify at what
point in a renovation the regulation applies.  The Agency has always intended
the asbestos NESHAP to apply from the beginning of the operation, to all
renovations which involve at least the jurisdictional amount, and consequently
to impose on the regulated community an obligation to determine the amount of
asbestos which will be stripped or removed and whether the NESHAP applies,
before commencing a renovation operation.  The regulations are being revised
to clarify their intent in order to address a recent court case decision which
interpreted the former Section 61.145(d).  U.S. v. Fiber Free Co., et al., No.
A:89-0642 (S.D.W.V. July 31, 1990).  The revision states that the NESHAP
applies to renovations if the amount of asbestos "to be" stripped or removed
exceeds the jurisdictional amount, thereby clarifying that the determination 

                              7-6
of NESHAP applicability is to be made before the renovation operation begins. 
This change makes it clear, for example, that the first 159 square feet of
asbestos stripped or removed in a renovation is subject to the NESHAP where
the amount of asbestos ultimately affected exceeds the threshold.

7.1.3   No Asbestos

     Comment:  Most of the comments (15, 24, 27, 36, 37, 41, 43, 49, 51, 58,
63, 64, 69, 73, 74, 81, 88, 92, and 99) on the revision of Section
61.145(a)(2), whereby the applicability of the demolition and renovation rules
to demolitions where no asbestos is present is clarified, were unaware that
this is already required.  They consider it a new provision and express their
reservations about this provision.  While agreeing with the rationale to
require notification for demolitions even when no asbestos is present, many of
the commenters express concern that this rule will dilute the effectiveness of
the NESHAP program.  Most of the commenters argue the the provision is
unnecessary, unworkable, and beyond the intent of Section 112.  They note
that, because EPA is already concerned that demolition projects involving
asbestos are occurring without notification, adding reporting requirements for
projects having no asbestos will add to EPA's burden and detract from
enforcement of known asbestos activities.  This will unnecessarily delay many
demolitions.  These commenters state the EPA should require notification for
demolition only if the amount of asbestos is above a certain threshold, and
not when no asbestos is present.  Commenter 52 believes that this requirement
makes the 308,000 person-hours burden for recordkeeping and reporting an
underestimate.  One commenter, 70, suggests that owners/operators keep records
for 5 years of structures demolished where no asbestos is present.  According
to commenter 73, EPA is exceeding its statutory authority to regulate
operations that are not a stationary source according 40 CFR 61.02.  This
commenter also cites case law, U.S. v. Ben's Truck and Equipment Inc., (DC E.
Cal, 1986) 25 ERC 1295, which holds that a demolition must involve asbestos
for a threshold requirement to apply.

     Commenter 84 supports adding explicit wording to Section 61.145(a)(2)
that this requirement applies even if no asbestos is known to be present; a 
specific provision for a negative declaration is recommended.  Commenter 92
also suggests that, instead of notification when no asbestos is present,
notification be required when asbestos is discovered in the course of
demolition.

     Several commenters (17, 29, and 30) support retention of the notification
where no asbestos is involved because it helps to monitor demolition activity
and allows confirmation that no asbestos is present.

     Commenter 28 states that this was a rule change requested by enforcing
agencies.

     Response:  Demolitions are final events, and buildings are usually
demolished quickly.  The EPA and delegated States do not have the resources
necessary to inspect every building to be demolished prior to demolition; 

                              7-7
therefore, the implementing agency prioritizes its inspections, concentrating 
its enforcement resources on the sites that are likely to result in
significant emissions to the air if improperly demolished, as well as on those
contractors who have not demonstrated a continuous compliance program.

     In order to ensure that the building owner or demolition contractor has
accurately evaluated and analyzed the site for the presence of asbestos, it is
necessary that the implementing agency be notified prior to the onset of the
demolition.  The EPA has repeatedly discovered, after the demolition, that
asbestos was present in spite of building owners' and contractors' claims to
the contrary.

     There is a strong economic incentive for building owners and also for
contractors to claim less than the quantity cutoff levels.  Therefore, if
there is more than the quantity size cutoff level of friable asbestos material
in the building, there is likely to be significant emission of asbestos from
the demolition.  The EPA wants to be able to inspect these buildings to the
extent possible to prevent this from becoming a significant loophole in the
rule.

     A similar incentive to underreport (and to not inspect) would also exist
if there were no reporting requirements for facilities with no asbestos.  As
such, the purpose of the requirement to report even when no asbestos is found
is not to identify the facilities with no asbestos; rather, it is to ensure
that facilities are inspected for asbestos and that removal is performed
consistent with the standard.

     A failure to notify, as required by the rule, is a violation, and EPA
will vigorously enforce these requirements.  The asbestos NESHAP requires that
each building be inspected prior to demolition.  The notification that is
required if a building contains less than the quantity cutoff level is not
extensive, and the cost is low compared to the cost of inspecting the building
for asbestos; therefore, we believe that this notification requirement is
reasonable.

7.1.4   Applicability Threshold--Volume Equivalent

     Comment:  1.  Commenter 13 asks how 1 cubic meter can be measured when it
is off a facility component; an estimate of bagged asbestos is inappropriate,
and a landfill receipt might not work either.

     2.  Commenter 30 observed that the 35 cubic feet is based on 160 square
feet and a 3 inch thickness; however, asbestos material is often thinner, so
the volume should be lowered to 0.25 or 0.5 cubic meter.  Commenters 17 and
57, while supporting the volume equivalent, expressed concern that the current
160 square feet and 260 feet should be decreased (similar to the Asbestos
Hazard Emergency Response Act [AHERA] trigger levels) in order to reduce
public health threats caused by improper removal of these amounts or less.

     3.  Commenters 15, 17, 26, and 29 believe that the volume equivalent
should be helpful.

                              7-8
     4.  Commenters 42, 49, 59, and 62 note that, in some instances, the 35
cubic feet is a much smaller quantity than either of the present criteria and
appears to increase stringency.  Commenter 42 gives the example of a 260 foot
long pipe with a 6 inch diameter and 2.5 inches of asbestos insulation that
would just meet the current linear threshold, although with a volume of 120
cubic feet it would far exceed the volume threshold.  While meeting the
current criteria, under the new, more stringent threshold, this amount would
be subject to the regulation.  As a result of asbestos-contaminated clothing
and equipment and variations in the amount of wetting, commenters 42, 43, 49,
and 62 explain that the in-place volume and the volume of stripped and bagged
material will be different.  These commenters argue that, if a volume is
specified, it should be increased.  Commenters 50 and 58 feel the volume
requirement is confusing and unnecessary.  Commenter 49 explains that the
volume of in-place material may be difficult to determine accurately without
damaging the asbestos.

     If the reason for the volume measurement is for use in enforcement cases
(54 FR 915), commenter 73 suggests increased enforcement efforts rather than
additional reporting burdens for complying facilities.  Commenter 73 also
recommends that, if EPA does add a volume amount, a facility should have a
choice of estimating either length, area, or volume.

     5.  Commenter 83 expresses a need for a threshold limit that would
accumulate the current linear and area thresholds in order to cover projects
where, for example, 150 square feet and 250 linear feet of asbestos are
involved; as currently written, such a project would be exempt.

     6.  Commenter 94 suggests that EPA consider using "units"; one unit,
which is 260 feet, or 160 square feet, or 35 cubic feet, would trigger the
NESHAP.

     Response:  The volume equivalent was added at the request of enforcement
officials because they often arrive at an asbestos removal operation for which
no notification was received and find that the asbestos has already been
stripped or removed and placed in containers.  At this point, it is often
difficult to determine if the 160 square feet or 260 linear foot thresholds
were exceeded.  The volume of material can be determined by estimating the
dimensions of or actually measuring the container.  For bags, the amount of
material will usually be less than the capacity of the bags because of the
weight of wetted asbestos and the potential for tearing an overfilled bag.  
If the waste has been placed in rigid containers, the volume may also be less
than the capacity of the container because a rigid container filled to
capacity will probably be difficult to handle manually.  If the asbestos
material has fallen to the floor or has been stripped and left on the floor,
it will probably be necessary to have the material collected and put in a
container to determine volume, although in this situation it may be possible
to determine the area of the surface or the length of the pipe that the
asbestos came from.  The EPA believes that the volume of material in
containers can be closely estimated.

                              7-9

     2.  The intent of the revisions proposed on January 10, 1989, was to
clarify the NESHAP and to promote compliance, not to bring additional sources
under NESHAP control by lowering the threshold for coverage.  The EPA may
consider changing the threshold for coverage by the NESHAP in future
rulemakings.

     3.  No response is necessary.

     4.  It is EPA's intention that the volume measurement be applied to
material after it has been placed in containers for disposal.  In
conversations with representatives of asbestos removal and demolition firms,
the volume of material that has been stripped and bagged is usually about
three times the volume of the in-place material as a result of voids in the
material as well as other items such as clothing and rags.  In arriving at the
volume equivalent in the proposed rule, EPA estimated the volume of in-place
pipe insulation on 260 feet of pipe and then allowed for the increase in
volume after the material is disturbed and placed in containers along with
other waste items.

     5.  The recommended change would constitute an increase in the stringency
of the standard.  The purpose of the revisions proposed on January 10, 1989,
is to clarify the rule and to promote compliance.  The EPA may consider the
need for changes that affect the stringency of the NESHAP at a later date.

     6.  The EPA does not see any advantage to the suggested use of "units" to
trigger the provisions of the NESHAP; therefore, EPA will retain the existing
threshold amounts.

7.1.5   Applicability Threshold--Exempted Operations

     Comment:  1.  Commenters 2 and 18 argue that all demolitions and
renovations involving any amount of asbestos should be regulated.  Commenter
18 also argues that, even if it is not possible to inspect all jobs, if the
activity is regulated, the owners and operators are more likely to follow the
work practices due to the threat of being cited for violation of the NESHAP. 
Commenters 54 and 70 argue that demolitions involving less than the threshold
amounts of asbestos should at least be required to follow the work practices
of Section 61.145(c) although notification may not be necessary.  Commenters
29, 54, and 70 state that Section 61.145(a)(2) should be revised to require
the proper removal of all asbestos, regardless of the amount, prior to
demolition.  Because of the public health threat from improper removals,
commenter 17 urges EPA to eventually reduce the applicability thresholds.

     2.  Commenter 87 believes that Section 61.145(a)(2) contains
contradictory requirements.  In particular, they feel that (b)(3)(i) should be
replaced by (b)(3)(iii), the provision requiring advance notice for
government-ordered demolitions.

     3.  Commenter 30 agrees with 61.145(a)(1),(2) and (4) that material that
has fallen off facility components be treated the same as stripped material.

                              7-10
     Response:  1.  The commenters' recommendations to require removal of all
asbestos from all demolitions and renovations regardless of the amount would
increase the stringency of the standard.  The purpose of the revisions
proposed on January 10, 1989, is to clarify the rule and promote compliance. 
The need for revisions that affect stringency may be considered at a later
date.

     2.  The EPA reviewed Section 61.145(a)(2) and the references to
paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (iii).  Commenter 87 believes that the reference to
(b)(3)(i) should be replaced with (b)(3)(iii).  After reviewing these
paragraphs, EPA believes that they are correctly used in Section 61.145(a)(2). 
Paragraph (3)(b)(i) requires a 10-day notice prior to demolition for
demolitions involving no asbestos, whereas paragraph (b)(3)(iii) is concerned
with emergency renovations and government-ordered demolitions.

     3.  No response is necessary.

7.1.6   Affected Facilities

     Comment:  Three comments were received regarding types of facilities that
are subject to the demolition and renovation provisions.  Commenters 13 and 18
feel that single family dwellings should be included in the definition of a
"facility" and, therefore, subject to the NESHAP.

     Commenter 22 believes that asbestos mills should be excluded from
regulation under the renovation rules because they have adequate experience in
the safe handling of asbestos.

     Response:  Inclusion of single family dwellings in the definition of
"facility" would expand the scope of the asbestos NESHAP.  The purpose of the
revisions proposed on January 10, 1989, is to clarify and promote compliance
with the rule.  The need for revisions that affect stringency, including
expanding coverage of the rule, may be considered at a later date.

     In response to comment 22, EPA sees no reason for asbestos mills involved
in renovating asbestos-containing buildings or equipment to not comply with
the rules on renovation.  From the standpoint of demolition and renovation,
EPA makes no distinction between an asbestos mill and any other industrial
complex.

7.1.7   Offsite Stripping

     Comment:  Commenter 57 expressed concern over operations where facility
components are removed in units and stripped offsite.  They argued that
offsite stripping operations should be discussed explicitly in the rule to
ensure that they do not escape coverage.

     Response:  The EPA agrees with the importance of controlling offsite
stripping.  However, offsite stripping is covered by the current rule;
therefore, it is not necessary to revise the rule.

                              7-11

7.1.8   Roadways

     Comment:  Commenter 89 expresses concern over asbestos-containing
roadways.  They explain that notifications are not required when roadways
constructed with asbestos tailings are demolished or rehabilitated
(renovated), which may involve grinding of the road surface. 

     Response:  Because of their aggregate nature, the use of asbestos
tailings encapsulated in asphalt concrete is allowed in road construction. 
These tailings, because of the milling process, typically have a low asbestos
content.  The EPA has long allowed the use of commercial asbestos in the
manufacture of asphalt concrete, although this practice is no longer common if
it is used at all.  Such materials were occasionally used for special
applications including overlays on bridge and airport runway pavement. 
Because the asbestos fibers are encapsulated in an asphalt concrete mixture,
there is little opportunity for fiber release even when the material is broken
up.

7.1.9   Individual Nonscheduled Operations--Section 61.145(a)(4)(i)

     Comment:  1.  Commenter 3 states that clarification is needed as to how
the amount of asbestos to be removed over a year is to be predicted. 
According to commenters 36, 37, and 75, it is impossible to accurately predict
this amount.  Commenter 76 explains that at very large facilities, such as a
major steam-electric power plant, the amounts of asbestos removed during
unscheduled maintenance can vary greatly from one year to the next.  They
state that the annual estimates of asbestos to be removed should be given wide
latitude with respect to accuracy.  Also, because there is no practical way to
predict the part of the plant that will require unscheduled maintenance, EPA
should clarify that estimates are facility-wide estimates.  Because of the
difficulties in predicting accurately the amounts, commenter 63 recommends
making the notification any time during the year, but before the threshold
quantities are exceeded for that year.

     2.  Commenters 27, 39, 49, and 61 prefer the current NESHAP wording, as
the new wording would require information on facilities in other locations;
"one or more facilities" is confusing and should be eliminated.

     3.  Commenter 28 states that Section 61.145(a)(4)(i) should be clarified
to indicate that an individual renovation project involving amounts of
asbestos greater than the threshold amounts in Section 61.145(a)(4) is not a
planned renovation operation that would trigger the notification requirements
of Section 61.145(b).  Commenter 73 expresses concern over the treatment in
the preamble concerning Section 61.145(a)(4)(i) that, "when individual
renovations exceed the cutoff, a separate notification is required."  They
wonder if "cutoff" referred to the threshold amounts in Section 61.145(a) or
to the amount predicted to be removed over the calendar year.  A similar
comment from commenter 63 states that this section should be clarified by
explaining that renovations that are to have submitted an individual
notification are not included among the individual nonscheduled operations.

                              7-12
     4.  Commenter 17 views the proposed time period change for nonscheduled
removals to be a relaxation and opposes it.  Under the proposed revision, an
owner/operator, e.g., 250 feet on three different occasions between July 1989
and December 1989; another 250 feet between January 1990 and May 1990.  The
current "1-year period" would apply as soon as the additive amount exceeded
260 feet.  They would support the proposal if the current process were
burdensome, but have not found the current process to be so.

     5.  Commenters 30 and 73 agree with the change to a calendar year.

     6.  Commenter 83 argues that these predictive notifications serve no
useful purpose for the regulator because it is not known when such projects
will actually occur.  A regular accounting of amounts removed, e.g., on a
quarterly basis, would provide more useful data.

     Response:  1.  The revisions to Section 61.146(a)(4)(i) proposed on
January 10, 1989, did not substantially alter the provision that allows
certain facilities that perform renovations frequently, such as twice a week,
to avoid excessive notification requirements.  The EPA does not expect
predictions of the quantity of asbestos to be removed to be accurate.  Such
predictions are usually based on an owner/operator's experience with asbestos
removal in previous years.  If available, information on asbestos removals
from other facilities can be used.  In any case, the owner/operator should
provide their best estimate of the amount of asbestos to be removed.  The EPA
understands the difficulty in predicting accurately the quantities that would
be involved and does not expect a high degree of accuracy.

     2.  The EPA does not intend for a company that has facilities in
different locations, e.g., in different cities or states, to include estimates
of the amount of asbestos to be removed from the facilities in different
locations in their notification for individual nonscheduled renovations.  The
phrase "one or more facilities" in Section 61.145(a)(4)(i) means one or more
buildings or structures at a single location.  The definition of "facility"
refers to "...institutional, commercial, public, industrial, or residential
structure, installation, or building...," whereas the term "installation" is
defined to mean "...any building structure or any group of buildings or
structures at a single demolition or renovation site that are under the
control of a single entity..."  The EPA does intend, for example, that a large
industrial facility (e.g., a power plant) include in its prediction of the
amount of asbestos to be removed as part of individual nonscheduled operations
the quantities of asbestos likely to be removed from the entire facility,
where a number of different buildings and structures will be involved. 
Because the definitions of "facility" and "installation" make it clear that
Section 61.145(a)(4)(i) applies to buildings and structures at a single
location, the phrase "one or more facilities" is unnecessary and has been
deleted.

     3.  The EPA does not intend for scheduled renovations, such as those that
are part of a scheduled maintenance activity, to be included in the
predictions made for nonscheduled operations.  A separate notification is
required for a planned, scheduled renovation that will exceed the threshold 

                              7-13
amounts for asbestos.  Events that are to be included in the prediction made
according to Section 61.145(a)(4)(i) include nonscheduled renovations,
regardless of asbestos quantities, that are likely to occur, based on past
experience, but for which the exact date of occurrence cannot be predicted.  A
nonscheduled renovation differs from an emergency renovation in that, while
nonscheduled renovations can be anticipated based on experience, emergency
renovations cannot be predicted.  Commenter 73 correctly identifies the
statement in the preamble calling for a separate notification whenever an
individual renovation exceeds the cutoff as inconsistent with EPA's intent. 
This statement would apply to be planned, scheduled renovation exceeding the
cutoff, but not to a nonscheduled renovation, regardless of the amount of
asbestos involved.

     4.  Section 61.19 of the General Provisions was added previously to
prevent this type of potential circumvention and to apply in general to
circumvention of all standards promulgated under this subpart.  In addition,
even if exempted from the notification requirements because of the quantities
involved, all renovations must comply with the OSHA work practices and
engineering controls for asbestos removal.

     5.  No response is necessary.

     6.  The EPA does not believe that the advantage, if any, gained by a more
frequent accounting of the quantities of asbestos removed is sufficient to
warrant a change in the rule.  Only by requiring separate, advance
notifications would enforcement personnel know ahead of time of removals. 
However, by their very nature, nonscheduled renovations often preclude advance
notice of specific dates of removal and a requirement to submit an individual
notice for each renovation would be excessive for facilities where renovations
occur very frequently.  

7.1.10  Emergency Renovations--Section 61.145(a)(4)(ii)

     Comment:  According to commenter 20, Section 61.145(a)(4)(ii), as
proposed, creates a loophole for emergency renovations that allows
owner/operators to ignore the notification, control procedures, and disposal
requirements even though they may be regulated under the planned renovation
provision of (a)(4)(i).  They recommend adding to (a)(4)(ii) "plus the
additive amount estimated in paragraph (a)(4)i)."

     Response:  The commenter's statements are addressing an existing
provision of the rule and not a revision proposed on January 10, 1989.  The
EPA stated previously (40 FR 48292, October 14, 1975) that the basic
characteristic that distinguishes a planned renovation from an emergency
renovation is the degree of predictability of their occurrence.  In planned
renovations, the amount of asbestos to be stripped or removed within a given
period of time can be predicted, whereas no such prediction can be made for
emergency renovations.  Therefore, by their unexpected occurrence, emergency
renovations cannot be included in notifications given for planned, individual,
nonscheduled renovations.

                              7-14
7.1.11  Format

     Comment:  In light of the other applicability provisions of Section
61.145(a) and the requirements of Section 61.145(c)(1) to remove asbestos
prior to demolition, commenter 28 questions the necessity of Section
61.145(a)(1).  

     Response:  Although EPA agrees that Section 61.145(a)(1) may be somewhat
redundant in light of the other applicability provisions and 61.145(c)(1), EPA
has retained Section 61.145(a)(1) to avoid any confusion that might result
from its absence and also to make clear the coverage of the rule.

7.1.12  Building Survey

     Comment:  Three commenters argue that EPA should include in the rule
mandatory asbestos surveys.  Commenter 4 states that EPA should require
surveys for all buildings prior to and separate from any demolition or
renovation activity for these buildings.  Commenter 4 states that such
building surveys could become part of a public record and the absence of a
survey would be a violation.  They also comment that, if the survey indicated
that a structure was asbestos free, all notification and enforcement costs
would be eliminated.  Also, commenter 4 explains that a demolition without
proper notification could be easily established later.

     Commenters 57 and 84 state that EPA's requirement to survey buildings
prior to demolition and renovation is implicit and should be explicitly
required to be performed by an accredited asbestos inspector.  Commenter 57
also notes that OSHA requires a building survey by a competent person and EPA
should similarly require a site-specific survey before demolition, with
details on how the building will be demolished and how the asbestos will be
controlled.

     Response:  The EPA currently requires that a facility be inspected for
asbestos prior to demolition or renovation.  As a result of the survey,
information on the asbestos material present, the nature of the demolition or
renovation, and measures that will be taken to control emissions of asbestos
must be reported to EPA.  Commenters 57 and 84 are correct in that it is an
implicit requirement and not stated explicitly in the rule.  The final rule
expressly requires a facility survey for asbestos prior to demolition or
renovation.  Although previously implied, this revision clarifies EPA's
position on the requirement to perform building surveys.  The EPA also
considered the suggestion to require that surveys be performed by an
"accredited" inspector or by a "competent" person as required by OSHA.  OSHA's
requirement to have a competent person perform an engineering survey prior to
demolition (29 CFR 1926.850) is to ensure that the structural integrity of a
structure is sufficient to prevent worker injury caused by the unplanned
collapse of any portion of the structure; a search for asbestos is not
required.  The EPA believes that it would be inappropriate in this rulemaking
to require that an accredited inspector or competent person perform the survey
although the use of an accredited inspector would help to ensure a proper
inspection as would following AHERA inspection procedures.

                              7-15
     Commenter 4's suggestion to require in advance of demolition or
renovation the survey of all buildings would increase the stringency of
regulation by requiring all owners and operators to survey their facilities
for asbestos even when no demolition or renovation operations were planned. 
The revisions proposed on January 10, 1989, are intended to clarify the rule
and promote compliance.  The need for revisions that affect stringency may be
considered at a later date.  Nor is it clear that, at a later time when a
building was to be demolished or renovated, an additional survey might not be
required to confirm the earlier survey or gather additional information
necessary for the demolition or renovation.  This resurveying and retesting
might be an unnecessary additional cost.

7.2  NOTIFICATION

7.2.1   General

     Comment:  Several commenters consider the notification procedures to be
burdensome.  Commenter 26 argues that the notification requirements are too
complex and only establish a paper program.  Commenter 63 is troubled by the 
increased and more stringent notification requirements and believes that the
lack of flexibility in notification requirements will inhibit the ability to
schedule outages for maintenance.  They argue that the more stringent the
requirements, the more likely it is that sources will not notify.  Commenter
67 believes that the notification requirements are not flexible; emphasis
should be on keeping EPA apprised, not on paperwork.

     Commenter 23 states that the notification procedures should not be
relaxed to encourage compliance, although a simpler notification process is
needed.  Commenters 28 and 63 claim that EPA failed to recognize the cost of
project delays resulting from notification requirements.  The cost of
purchased replacement power during project delays, and the ramifications if
replacement power is not available, have not been evaluated.

     Response:  The EPA does not intend that the notification requirements for
renovation result in disruption of important industrial processes such as
power production, although EPA believes that in some instances, it is
appropriate to stop certain activities to comply with the notification waiting
period.  When the removal is part of a planned and scheduled
repair/maintenance activity, there should be no additional burden associated
with notifying in advance because the operation was planned in advance.  If a
removal operation is necessitated by an unscheduled and unplanned event, then
the operation is covered by the emergency renovation provisions and is not
subject to the same waiting period as a planned and scheduled event.  Other
removals are necessitated by unscheduled events that, although unscheduled,
can be predicted from past experience and are to be reported to EPA in
advance.  Such reports estimate the amounts and nature of these unscheduled
removals.

                              7-16
7.2.2   Reason for Updating Notices

     Comment:  Commenter 15 suggests that, to avoid being flooded with minor 
revisions to update notifications under Section 61.145(b)(1), and a qualifier,
e.g., "if amount changes by 20 percent."

     Response:  The EPA agrees with the commenter's suggestion and has
modified the requirement to update notices, requiring that an updated notice
is required when the amount of asbestos involved changes by 20 percent or
more.  The EPA notes that the current rule is interpreted to require certain
actions when there is a change in the applicability status of an operation. 
For example, a contractor that notified EPA of a demolition that involved
quantities below the threshold, but later discovers additional asbestos that
puts the operation over the threshold, must then update their notification and
comply with the work practices' requirements.

7.2.3   Identifying Updated Notices

     Comment:  Commenter 15 suggests that the revised notices required by
Sections 61.145(b)(1) and 61.145(b)(3)(iv) should be clearly identified as
such.

     Response:  The EPA believes this is a good comment and has added a space
on the example notification form to allow the notifier to indicate if the
notice is an updated version.

7.2.4   Where to Send

     Comment:  Commenter 15 and 25 request clarification under Section
61.145(b)(2) on whether the notice has to be sent to both EPA and the
delegated authority.  If so, they argued that this was excessive.

     Response:  This can vary from region to region.  The owner/operator
should talk with the appropriate enforcement agency to see where they should
send their notices.

7.2.5   Waiting Period Between Notification and Beginning Work--        
61.145(b)(3)(i)

     Comment:  1.  Commenter 21 supports EPA's revision to clarify the
definition of the waiting period between notification and initiation of
asbestos vs. nonasbestos work.

     2.  Commenter 46 suggests that EPA make it clear in the regulation that
the preparation procedures that do not disturb asbestos are exempt from the
notification waiting period.

     3.  One commenter suggests replacing "and" with "or" in "(a)(1) and (4),"
in Section 61.145.

                              7-17
     4.  Commenter 83 argues that activities that are an integral part of
abatement, even if no asbestos is disturbed, should not start before the
scheduled start date.

     Response:  1.  No response is necessary.

     2.  The EPA explained in the preamble to the revisions proposed on
January 10, 1989, that preparation activities that do not disturb asbestos are
not included in the notification waiting period.  The EPA believes that this
point is clear and that it is unnecessary to revise the regulation.

     3.  The EPA agrees with the commenter and has made the change.

     4.  The EPA does not consider it necessary or appropriate to require
contractors to delay activities that do not disturb asbestos until the
scheduled start date.

7.2.6  Individual Nonscheduled Renovation--Section 61.145(b)(3)(ii)

     Comment:  1.  Commenter 40 requests that EPA address the procedure for
complying with the Section 61.145(b)(3)(ii) annual notice requirement for the
year that the rule goes into affect.

     2.  Commenters 41 and 43 ask whether a separate notice is required when
an individual project exceeds the threshold and whether a notice is required
for each project after the original estimate has been exceeded.

     3.  Commenter 63 recommends that the notification be submitted at any
time during a calendar year, but before the notification quantities are
exceeded for that year.

     4.  Commenter 77 recommends that EPA require prior telephone notice for
each job with monthly, after-the-fact written accounts.

     Response:  1.  Commenter 40 raises a good point.  The revised
notification requirement for individual nonscheduled renovations would not
apply until the calendar year following the year that these revisions take
affect.  Until then, the previous requirements would apply.

     2.  For each individual nonscheduled renovation that occurs, either after
the threshold is reached or the original projected amount for the year is
reached, a separate notification is not required.  However, for any planned
and scheduled renovation that exceeds the threshold amounts, a separate
notification is required.  In addition, a notification is required at any time
during a calendar year that the threshold is exceeded even if the
owner/operator did not expect to exceed the threshold and, therefore, did not
submit an annual notification in advance.

     3.  If it is known that the amount of asbestos to be removed will, or is
likely to, exceed the threshold amounts, EPA prefers to have the notifications
at the beginning of the calendar year for planning purposes.

                              7-18
     4.  The EPA believes that some renovations would occur on weekends or
holidays when it would not be possible to report by telephone before the
project begins.  Furthermore, many operations would consist of small repair or
maintenance operations and would result in a large number of calls to EPA. 
For these reasons, EPA sees no advantage to a monthly, after-the-fact report
over an advance notice.

7.2.7   Emergency Renovation--Section 61.145(b)(3)(iii)

     Comment:  The following comments were received on the notification
requirements for emergency renovation.

     1.  Commenter 65 suggests that EPA allow telephone notification for
emergency renovations as well as for notifying EPA of changes in work dates
and work practices.  Commenter 63 states that it may not be possible to make a 
complete and accurate notification within 1 working day and that the
notification should be required within 5 working days after the emergency
occurs.  Or, as commenter 63 notes, an informal telephone notice would be
given within 1 working day.  Given the nature of most emergency removals, this
change will not hinder enforcement.  Also, delete the word "before" in the
first line of paragraph (b)(3)(iii).  Commenter 84 agrees that, for emergency
renovations, notification by telephone (or fax copier) prior to removal be
permitted, followed up in writing.  This would allow enforcement agencies to
determine if an inspection is necessary and eliminate questions on how to
comply with emergency operations.

     2.  Commenter 41 questions the usefulness of notification after an
emergency renovation and suggests that this information be kept on file at the
site and available for inspection.

     3.  Commenter 63 states that the quantity of asbestos to be removed as
part of emergency renovations cannot be estimated prior to their occurrence
and so should not be included in the annual notification.

     4.  Commenter 31 requests that EPA clarify the requirements for emergency
notifications; otherwise, contractors may take advantage of gray areas, making
it difficult to have equitable bidding processes.

     Response:  1.  The EPA prefers a written notification and is prepared to
accept and will take no action against an owner/operator who submits an
incomplete notification of an emergency renovation postmarked not later than 1
working day after renovation begins and follows it up with a revised and
complete notification.  The EPA is of the opinion that facsimile technology
(fax) is not yet sufficiently reliable to be considered an acceptable means
for transmitting notifications.

     2.  The EPA does not agree that notification by the following working day
for an emergency renovation serves no useful purpose.  An emergency renovation
can go on for days, even weeks or months, giving enforcement officials ample
opportunity to inspect the operation.

                              7-19
     3.  The EPA does not require annual predictions of the quantities of
asbestos to be removed as a result of emergency renovations.  Annual
predictions are required for individual nonscheduled renovations that can be
predicted based on past experience.  Emergency renovations are unexpected
events that cannot be predicted.

     4.  While favoring equitable bidding, EPA has no authority to regulate
business transactions.

7.2.8   Ordered Demolitions

     Comment:  Commenter 13 recommends that Section 61.145(b)(3)(iii) be
revised to require a notification that is postmarked or received a working day
prior to beginning the demolition of a facility ordered by a government
authority.  They argued that several days could conceivably lapse before EPA
received notification of such a demolition, depriving EPA of the opportunity
to monitor the demolition and confirm that the demolition was a building in
danger of imminent collapse.

     Response:  Although EPA understands the concern expressed by this
commenter, EPA believes that there are sufficient reasons to warrant these
notification requirements in addition to safeguards to discourage abuse of
this provision.  Typically, a demolition is ordered when a building has been
declared unsafe and in danger of collapse as a result of damage caused by
fire.  A representative from the fire department or a building inspector
employed by the appropriate government agency makes this determination.  These
structures must typically be demolished immediately and cannot await an
inspection by EPA.  Furthermore, to discourage abuse of this provision, the
notification that is submitted must identify the government representative who
ordered the demolition and the date the order was issued and the date the
demolition was ordered to begin.

7.2.9   Notification Period

     Comment:  1.  Commenter 15 argues that the 10-day notice for renovation
will result in a significant increase in incomplete notifications or
subsequent revisions with resulting confusion.  This will be especially true
for schools where final contractor selection is not made until a few days
before the project starts; the contractor information on the form may be blank
until a contractor is selected.

     2.  Due to numerous factors beyond the owner or operator's control,
commenter 43 argues that the 10-day advance notice of the exact date of
removal is an unnecessary administrative requirement that will severely impact
the regulated community.  Commenter 43 recommends that EPA allow
owner/operators to furnish an approximate schedule with a specific date before
which no removal activities can occur.

     3.  Commenter 63 explains that in the electric utility business emergency
situations, such as equipment breakdowns and  malfunctions, occur frequently.  

                              7-20
In such unplanned situations, a 10-day notification waiting period is
unreasonable; a notification as soon as possible, or 1 day before asbestos
removal work begins, would be reasonable.

     4.  Given the urgency of some renovations, as in industrial settings,
commenter 17 proposes an optional 5-day notification period for renovations as
long as enforcement has time to monitor the project, in addition to the 10-day
period.  The 5-day notification would be allowed in areas covered by State or
local agencies with a proven record of inspection.

     5.  Because of the time constraints of ships in for repairs as well as
the lack of advance information on the nature of ship repair work, commenter
37 suggests allowing notification for shipyard renovations by telephone or fax
"as early as possible, but no later than the following work day," similar to
emergency renovations.

     6.  Commenter 76 requests that EPA waive the 10-day notification for
situations in addition to emergency renovation, e.g., where unexpected
asbestos is found, and allow notification by telephone or allow the provision
for contingency plans to cover this situation; halting activities for 10 days
could be a hardship.

     7.  Commenter 4 argues that the changes in the notification requirements
will have significant adverse effects on small operators who do not have the
latitude to move crews among several removal sites to satisfy notification
requirements.  They claim that the change from "calendar days" to "working
days" increases the actual waiting time before a project can start.  It is
also very difficult, according to commenter 4, to predict in advance the exact
starting date of a project.  Commenter 4 questions whether it would be a
violation if asbestos removal did not start on the exact date.  They argue
that small entities will be disproportionately impacted.

     8.  Commenter 23 requests that EPA consider ways to streamline the
notification process.

     9.  According to commenter 94, circumstances beyond the control of the
owner/operator make the 10-day notification unrealistic for renovation; "as
early as possible..." has been sufficient for enforcement purposes.

    10.  Commenters 23, 26, 29, 30, 32, 73, and 81 support the 10-day written
notification period for all planned demolitions and renovations.

    11.  Commenter 66 argues that EPA should require receipt of notification
by correct office, instead of postmarked, 10 days prior to start of project
because the contractor often mails the notice to the wrong office.  Commenter
66 also recommends allowing the use of overnight mail service.

    12,  Commenter 84 argues that compliance should be based on receipt by the
Administrator, not postmark.

                              7-21
    13.  In commenter 84's experience, 5 days is adequate notice before
removal begins, which is normally 8 to 10 days prior to the actual stripping.

     Response:  1.  The EPA believes that proper planning should make 10 days
an adequate amount of time without being overly burdensome.  If, as commenter
15 suggests, the 10-day notification period will result in some incomplete
notices, a revised notice should be submitted when the missing information is
obtained. 

     2.  Many renovations, such as renovations in schools, office buildings,
commercial buildings, and industrial facilities, already provide advance
notice for planned, scheduled renovations.  If the renovation is not planned
or is an individual nonscheduled renovation, then provisions other than the
10-day waiting period apply.

     3.  The type of situations described by commenter 63 would typically be
covered by the provisions for emergency renovations; the 10-day waiting period
would not apply.

     4.  The EPA adopted the 10-day notification period for national
uniformity and because proper planning by owners and operators of demolition
and renovation activities should make 10-day notice feasible.  Also, most
enforcement agencies need the 10-day notice.

     5.  Although ship repair activities do appear to present a different set
of problems from other regulated sources under the NESHAP, EPA believes that
the standard is adequate to deal with ship repair operations without making
exceptions to the NESHAP.  Shipyards can provide notifications in advance and
update them when they have more complete information on the work to be
performed.

     6.  If a notification was previously submitted and additional asbestos is
discovered as part of a renovation, the owner/operator must submit only an
updated notice without any additional waiting.  If no notification was
submitted for a renovation, the owner/operator must stop all asbestos-related
activities and submit a notification and wait the required 10 days before
resuming any activities that affect asbestos.  The EPA believes, however, that
because of the careful planning that usually precedes renovation, the
discovery of unexpected asbestos is unlikely.  In demolition, where the
discovery of unexpected asbestos is a more common event, requirements were
added in the notification and work practice revisions proposed on January 10,
1989, as well as in the waste disposal provisions that will help ensure the
proper handling and disposal of asbestos that is unexpectedly found.

     7.  The EPA agrees that the change from "calendar" to "working" days will
increase the actual waiting time before a project can start, and appreciates
that this change may be troublesome for small operators.  However, EPA does
not believe that many small operators will be affected, and notes that the
average firm size is getting larger and that more and more the asbestos
removal work is done by specialized abatement contractors.  The EPA
acknowledges that it may at times be difficult to predict the exact starting 

                                
                              7-22
date of a project.  The rule contains a provision for renotifying if there is
a change in the start date.  As long as asbestos removal did not begin before
the date given on the notification, it would not be a violation, but failure
to renotify of a changed start date would be a violation.

     8.  The revisions streamline the notification process by deleting the
certified mail requirement and adding a provision for renotification utilizing
a combination of telephone and overnight delivery in some instances without an
additional waiting period.  The EPA is interested in streamlining the
notification process and will continue to seek opportunities to do so.

     9.  The EPA considers that in many instances it is possible to provide 10
working days' notice.  The new provisions for renotification proposed on
January 10, 1989, will make it easier for contractors to comply and lessen the
adverse implications for contractors and EPA of giving a starting date on a
notification that subsequently must be changed.

    10.  No response is necessary.

    11.  To require receipt of notice to demolish or renovate 10 days prior to
removal operations instead of postmarked 10 days in advance would be
equivalent to a 12 or 13 day prior notice.  The EPA experience has been that,
in most instances, the requirement for a notice postmarked 10 days prior to
removal allows enforcement 5 to 7 days to inspect a removal operation, which
has been adequate.

    12.  Most notifications are mailed to EPA.  Because of some variability in
the time required for notices to arrive at EPA's offices from the day mailed,
it would be difficult to know when to mail a notice in order for it to arrive
at EPA by the specified time.

    13.  No response is necessary,

7.2.10  Distinction Between Removal as Part of Demolition or Renovation

     Comment:  Commenter 18 asks if a building in which the asbestos is
removed before being demolished is a renovation or a demolition, or both. 
Commenter 18 also asks if all the asbestos is removed as part of a renovation
and then the building is demolished, is a 10-day notice for the demolition
required?  

     Response:  If the asbestos is being removed in order to demolish the
building, the removal is considered part of the demolition operation.  The
asbestos could be removed as part of a renovation; at a later time and in an
unrelated activity, the building could be demolished.  In this situation, the
asbestos removal would be part of a renovation activity.  However, a
notification would still be required for the demolition of the asbestos-free
building to give EPA the opportunity to verify that all of the friable
asbestos had been removed.

                              7-23
7.2.11  Renotification

     Comment:  Numerous comments were received on the proposed renotification
requirements.  Although a few favored the requirements as proposed and a few
thought the requirements should be more stringent, most of the commenters
thought they were burdensome and unworkable as proposed.  The comments are as
follows:

     1.  Commenter 18 considers the renotification requirements a relaxation
of notice requirements that will cause difficulty in scheduling inspections
and could be used to circumvent the rule.

     2.  Commenter 18 suggests requiring a significant permit fee prior to
allowing schedule revisions.

     3.  Commenter 28 disagrees with the NADC comment in the proposal preamble
that renotification by telephone should be allowed; commenter 28 recommends a
10-day notice for all projects.

     4.  Commenter 18 argues that rescheduling should not be allowed if the
contractor has never been inspected or if an unresolved enforcement action is
pending.

     5.  Commenters 15 and 30 agree that pinpointing the start date should
improve the effectiveness of enforcement programs.  Commenters 15, 18, and 84
argue that the same requirement should also apply to completion dates.  For
projects of long duration, commenter 84 recommends monthly or quarterly
updates.

     6.  Commenter 21 suggests that the renotification provisions be made more
flexible by allowing the actual start date to vary by a couple of days for
projects lasting longer than 5 days before requiring the owner/operator to
renotify.

     7.  Commenters 21, 25, 26, 36, 37, 41, 42, 45, 46, 49, 50, 58, 59, 60,
61, 62, 65, 69, 71, 73, 74, 76, 87, 88, and 94 suggest the EPA allow the use
of some other means besides certified mail for renotification, such as same
day telephone or telefax messages, when a 5-day written notice would further
delay the project.  This would be simpler and less time-consuming.  Commenter
41 also suggests that, when it is feasible to provide a 5-day written notice,
i.e., delays are known at least 5 days in advance, then such notice would be
provided.  Also, as commenters 46, 49, 50, 58, 60, 62, 69, and 73 suggest, a
telephone notice could be followed by a written notice.

     8.  According to commenters 23, 24, 36, 37, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 50,
51, 58, 59, 63, 64, 73, 75, 76, 78, 87, 88, and 94, there are numerous
unforeseen factors, such as equipment mobilization problems, personnel
availability, weather, or other project difficulties, that can cause a removal
project to start on a date other than the one submitted in the original
notification.  These commenters explain that the proposed renotification
requirements, with their additional waiting requirements, could result in 

                              7-24
unreasonable project delays and significantly increased project costs. 
Several of these commenters and commenter 84 suggest that EPA allow a project
to start within some reasonable period of time, such as a couple of days, of
the original start date without having to renotify EPA in writing.  The EPA
should provide for some flexibility in predicting the exact start date.  In
the experience of one of the commenters, jobs usually start within a day or
two of the scheduled date.

     9.  Commenters 23, 24, 27, 43, and 49 argue that the proposed
renotification requirements will result in additional burdensome paperwork for
EPA and the owner/operator because of the need to submit extra forms with each
change in start date.

    10.  Commenter 58 asks that EPA explicitly state that a delay in the start
date is not a violation of the rule.

    11.  Commenter 69 notes that the provision in Section 61.145(b)(3) that
prohibits removal work from starting on any day other than the one specified
in the revised notice could be interpreted to prohibit starting work at any
time if work cannot start on the new start date.

    12.  Commenter 83 states that the wording of Section 61.145(b)(3) suggests
that a project start date may only be changed once.

    13.  Commenter 84 is concerned that the renotification provision will be
used to circumvent the 10-day notification requirement by notifying EPA of a
project far in advance, then renotifying upon assigning the contract 5 days or
3 working days in advance of the start date.

    14.  Commenter 87 expresses doubt that the renotification requirements
would aid compliance because commencing asbestos removals before the startup
date is currently a violation.

     Response:  1.  The EPA does not consider the renotification requirements
to be a relaxation of the notification provisions.  Previously, an
owner/operator would be complying with the rule as long as a notification was
sent the appropriate number of days in advance.  They were not required to
notify EPA of any change in start dates, occasionally resulting in an
inspector arriving at a job that was finished or had not yet started.

     2.  As many commenters have noted, changes in start dates are common and
often beyond the control of the owner/operator.  The EPA simply wants to be
kept informed of these changes so that they can inspect work sites while
removal is taking place and not arrive at a site where the work has been
completed or has not begun.  The EPA does not see any advantage in requiring a
fee each time there is a change in the start date.

     3.  The EPA agrees that 10 days' notification is appropriate for
demolitions and renovations that can be planned for and scheduled.  In some
situations, however, such as emergency renovations or government-ordered 

                              7-25
demolition of buildings that are in danger of imminent collapse, EPA considers
shorter notification periods appropriate.  For renotification, a 10-day
additional waiting period would be excessively burdensome.

     4.  Changes in job start dates are a common occurrence in any
construction activity, including asbestos abatement activities.  The EPA does
not intend to prohibit such changes, but wishes to be kept informed of change
in order to efficiently schedule inspections.

     5.  For the same reasons that start dates are often rescheduled,
completion dates are also likely to change.  Although EPA considers it
important to be kept apprised of start dates for removal operations, requiring
owners/operators to continue to notify EPA throughout the project as to the
expected completion date would be an excessive reporting requirement.  The EPA
should be able to use the information on the original notification to estimate
the duration of a project in order to determine the new completion date based
on the new start date.

     Regarding the suggestion to require monthly or quarterly reports for
removal jobs of long duration, EPA sees no advantage to requiring such reports
and believes that revisiting the site while the job is ongoing would be more
useful.

     6.  Because the revised regulation will permit renotification by
telephone followed by a written notice, EPA does not consider it necessary to
allow the start date to vary by a couple of days, even for projects lasting
longer than 5 days.

     7.  See response to comment 3.

     8.  See responses to comments 3 and 6.

     9.  The EPA acknowledges the fact that the written renotification will
require additional effort from the regulated community.  However, EPA
considers this additional effort necessary to enhance enforcement and improve
compliance.

    10.  Commenter 58 is correct in the understanding that a change in start
date is not a violation of the rule.  The EPA believes that this is commonly
understood and does not think that is necessary to state it in the rule.

    11.  It is our intention to limit to one the number of changes in start
dates.  The EPA considers such an interpretation unlikely, but will consider
discussing this in future information releases on the asbestos NESHAP.

    12.  See response to comment 11.

    13.  For operations where removal will begin earlier than the original
start date, EPA has modified the provisions to require at least 10-days notice
in writing.  In this situation, industry should not be unduly burdened and EPA
will be assured of adequate advance notice.

                              7-26
    14.  Previously, the rule only required at least 10 days' advance notice. 
The owner/operator could notify EPA a month in advance to satisfy the
requirement for at least 10 days' notice and then begin the project before the
reported start date.  The EPA considers the revision proposed on January 10,
1989, necessary in order to correct that flaw in the NESHAP.

7.2.12  Notification Prior to Stripping

     Comment:  Commenter 15 agrees with the clarification that notification is
needed before asbestos stripping begins, versus before demolition, and
including both dates in the notification is much needed.

     Response:  No response is necessary.

7.2.13  Renotification/Updating

     Comment:  Commenter 28 recommends amending Section 61.145(b)(5) to
require the use of a form similar to the notification form (figure 3) when
amendments to the notification are submitted.

     Response:  The EPA agrees with the commenter's suggestion and has
modified the rule to require the use of a form similar to the one contained in
the revised rule whenever submitting a revised or updated notice.  The EPA has
also included on the example notification form a place to indicate that the
notice being submitted is a revised notice.

7.2.14  Method of Notifying EPA--Section 61.145(b)(2)

     Comment:  Several comments were received on the requirement to use
certified mail for notifying EPA.  Most of the commenters object to the use of
certified mail over other methods.

     1.  Commenters 23, 24, 25, 42, 78, 59, and 65 consider the certified mail
requirement to be unnecessary for EPA to achieve the intended purpose of the
notification process.  It was stated that certified mail would require a trip
to a post office, which is a deterrent to timely notifications.  Commenters
23, 24, 41, and 78 argue that notification by telefax machine may be more
practical than certified mail.  Commenters 25, 65, and 83 suggest that
notification by telephone or telefax be allowed, followed by a written
notification.  Commenters 24, 25, 42, and 65 observe that regular mailing of
notices works satisfactorily and should be allowed.  Commenters 28 and 66
favor allowing the use of overnight mail.

     2.  Commenter 59 argues that, if a State agency has jurisdiction, the
method of notifying should be left up to the State agency.

     3.  Commenter 32 argues that all notifications should be in writing
because telephone notification does not result in a legally enforceable
written record.  Also, commenter 32 states that allowing the use of telephone
would promote schedule changes for minor reasons that would not otherwise be
considered.

                              7-27
     Response:  1.  Several of the commenters object to the required use of
certified mail even though EPA proposed the use of certified mail as a way of
ensuring that owner/operators had proof of notification.  In view of the
negative comments and after reconsidering the issue, EPA has decided not to
require certified mail although its use would be allowed.  The use of the 
regular mail system, i.e., U.S. Postal Service, has worked satisfactorily in
the past and will continue to be allowed.  Also, because the rule specifies
postmark "...or deliver...," private overnight mail delivery is permitted.

     Regarding the use of telephone facsimile (fax) machines to transmit
notices, EPA does not consider these systems to be sufficiently reliable, at
this time, to allow their use.  Often, it is difficult to know whether a
transmission was successful.  The EPA may consider the use of facsimile
machines in the future when their reliability has been improved.

     The EPA does not consider it necessary to allow the use of the telephone
for the original notification of a demolition or renovation activity covered
by this standard.

     2.  Where States or local authorities enforce their own asbestos
regulations, they may choose the notification procedures.  But if a State is
delegated authority for enforcing the NESHAP, then they must adhere to the
NESHAP's requirements.

     3.  The EPA is in agreement with the commenter who favors written
notifications over telephone notifications and will continue to require the
former.

7.2.15  Method of Notifying--Section 61.145(b)(3)

     Comment:  1.  Commenter 17 suggests that EPA omit all references to
"postmarked" because the certified mail option will contain the information
when the notice was received.  Also, commenter 17 thinks the postmark option
is subject to abuse because a contractor could process several envelopes
through a postage meter and then postpone actual delivery of the notices.

     2.  Commenters 29 and 30 support the use of certified mail.

     3.  Commenter 92 requests that receipts be given for delivered notices.

     Response:  1.  The EPA believes it is necessary to retain the postmark
provision of the rule because, even though it may be possible to have a notice
postmarked 10 days prior to removal, it may not always be possible to ensure
receipt of the notice by EPA 10 days before.  Concerning the possible abuse of
the postmark, a postmark is the official cancellation given to a piece of mail
showing the post office and date of mailing.  A postmark is not the same as
the markings made on mail by a postage meter.

     2.  See the first response in Section 7.2.14 of this BID.

                              7-28
     3.  The EPA agrees that a receipt should be given for a hand-delivered
notice.  But rather than adding such a requirement to the rule, EPA believes
that the individual delivering the notice should simply request a receipt.

7.2.16  Information Required--General

     Comment:  1.  According to commenter 14, the proposed revisions requiring
detailed information will result in a large increase in incomplete and/or late
notification, and will require increased enforcement efforts and additional
staff.

     2.  Commenter 23 questions the need for the detailed information.  The
commenter questions the relevance of the information on the size and use of
the facility.

     3.  Commenter 23 also argues that the requirement for separate estimates
of the amounts of friable and nonfriable asbestos makes the notification
complicated; EPA should focus on the type of work to be performed and the
general estimates of the amount of asbestos to be removed.  They also argue
that this information would provide competitors with the ability to compare
cost estimates.

     Commenter 23 believes that it would be difficult in many cases to provide
a full description of demolition or renovation work and techniques as required
because abatement contractors may not possess the information on the general,
nonasbestos-related demolition and renovation procedures.

     Response:  1.  Initially, an increase in incomplete notification may
occur.  However, the number of incomplete notifications is expected to decline
as the regulated community gains experience with the new requirements.  A
modest increase in or a reprogramming of enforcement effort may be required as
a result of the revisions proposed on January 10, 1989.

     2.  The EPA considers the information on size and use of a facility
important because it may be useful to an inspector who is evaluating a
notification from the aspect of whether or not asbestos might be present and
the amount potentially present.

     3.  The information on the amounts of friable and nonfriable asbestos
will be useful to an inspector who is prioritizing inspections; facilities
containing more nonfriable material may not be as high an inspection priority
as a facility with more friable material.  The EPA considers it unlikely that
this information could be used to someone's advantage any more than is
currently done.

     The EPA agrees that an abatement contractor may not have information on
general demolition or renovation procedures.  In those instances, the
abatement contractor should note this on the notification.

                              7-29
7.2.17  Information Required--Responsibility for Notification

     Comment:  To better inform building owners of the regulatory
requirements, commenter 21 suggests requiring building owners, or their
representative, to sign and be identified on the demolition contractor's
notification. 

     Commenter 36 requests that EPA make it clear that the independent
abatement contractor can complete and submit all necessary forms.

     Response:  Regarding the commenter's suggestion to require the facility
owner or operator to sign the notification, EPA does not consider it necessary
and notes that requiring both signatures may in some instances slow up the
notification process.  The fact that the building owner/operator has not
signed the notification in no way alters their responsibility under the
NESHAP.

     The EPA agrees that the contractor doing the asbestos removal can carry
out the notification responsibilities and is perhaps is in the best position
to do so.  This does not, however, release the facility owner/operator from
responsibility for ensuring that the removal is performed in accordance with
the NESHAP.

7.2.18  Information Required--Identification of Owner/Operator

     Comment:  Commenter 28 suggests including "abatement contractor" in
addition to the name of the owner or operator in Section 61.145(b)(4)(i). 
Commenter 54 recommends that, in addition to the facility owner/operator and
abatement contractor, any other involved contractor/consultant should be
identified.

     Commenter 61 suggests revising Section 61.145(b)(4)(i) to clarify whether
"owner or operator" means that the notice is to be given by the facility owner
or removal contractor.

     Response:  The definition of "owner or operator of a demolition or
renovation activity" as proposed on January 10, 1989, encompasses not only the
owner or operator of the building, but also the owner or operator of the
demolition or renovation operation, and thus includes abatement contractors. 
However, for clarity, we have added to Section 61.145(b)(4)(i) a requirement
to include information on the abatement contractor.

     Section 61.145(b) states that notice shall be given by the "owner or
operator."  The EPA must receive notice from one of these parties but is not
placing any restriction on which one actually provides the notice.  In each
individual case, there may be both an owner and an operator, or there may only
be one or the other, thus EPA cannot be more specific about who should provide
the notice.

                              7-30
7.2.19  Information Required--Description of Facility

     Comment:  1.  Commenter 61 recommends that Section 61.145(b)(4)(iii) be
revised to clarify that, for renovations, the required description pertains
only to the portion of the facility being altered.

     2.  According to commenter 28, the information on age, size, and prior
use of a facility is of questionable enforcement value; because it has
provided little useful information, it should be deleted and replaced with a
term like "description," which will provide more useful information.

     Response:  1.  The EPA agrees and has modified the rule to require that,
for renovations as well as for demolitions, the information on size, number of
floors, age, and present or prior use applies only to the "affected" part of a
facility when the entire facility is not involved.

     2.  The EPA believes that this information has been useful to enforcement
officials in reviewing notifications.  Information on type and age of facility
may indicate the likelihood of asbestos being present.  Information on the
size of a facility can be used to evaluate the reported estimates of the
amounts of asbestos in a facility.

7.2.20  Information Required--Asbestos Detection

     Comment:  1.  Commenter 4 asks what response other than "visual and bulk
sample analysis" would be appropriate for the notification requirement to
report the method of asbestos detection.  Commenter 28 argues that the same
answer would always be given, "building inspection," and should be deleted
because it would be of little use.

     2.  Commenter 24 suggests that, for the method of asbestos detection as
well as other information requirements, a one-time or annual submittal should
be allowed instead of submitting the same information with each notification.

     3.  Commenter 30 supports the requirement to report the method of
asbestos detection, stating that it would bolster their licensing
requirements.

     4.  Commenter 35 supports the requirement, but suggests that the preamble
to the final rule should clarify the level of detail intended.

     5.  Commenters 35 and 42 ask if a building owner could assume that
certain material contains asbestos and treat it as such, or would bulk
sampling always be required?

     6.  The requirement to report the method of detection is unnecessary,
according to commenter 43.  It is their opinion that reporting the quantity of
asbestos should be sufficient.

     Response:  1.  The EPA expects that, typically, polarized light
microscopy (PLM) will be the method used to analyze bulk samples of suspect
material.  Other less reliable methods are available, and EPA would question 

                              7-31
negative results using these methods.  The availability of these other methods
is the basis for requiring the information on detection methods.  To help
clarify this requirement, EPA will modify the rule to require that the
owner/operator report the method of detection "and analysis."

     2.  Because the response to this notification requirement can usually be
brief, EPA sees no reason why the information cannot be submitted with each
notification.  Furthermore, a one-time report from a few owners/operators
would be difficult to keep track of.

     3.  No response is necessary.

     4.  The EPA considers a brief answer adequate as long as the required
information is reported.

     5.  An owner/operator may assume that suspect material is asbestos and
treat it as such.  On their notification, they should report that they
"assumed the material to be asbestos."

     6.  See response no. 1.

7.2.21  Information Required--Quantity of Asbestos

     Comment:  Numerous comments were received on the notification provisions
in Section 61.145(b)(4)(v), particularly in regard to the requirement that the
amounts of nonfriable and potentially friable materials be reported in
addition to the amount of friable material.

     1.  Commenter 28 argues that, because most nonfriable material has the
potential to be broken, crumbled, etc., there is no need to provide separate
estimates of the amounts of friable, nonfriable, and potentially friable
materials.  Therefore, commenter 28 suggests deleting the sentence calling for
separate estimates.  In a similar vein, commenter 64 explains that, because
nonfriable material could become broken and, therefore, friable, it might be
difficult to provide separate estimates of the amount of friable material and
the amount of nonfriable material.  Commenter 83 favors the reporting of
nonfriable and potentially friable material regardless of the presence of
friable asbestos.

     2.  Commenter 30 supports the requirement to report the quantity of
nonfriable material that may be significantly damaged.

     3.  Commenters 18 and 30 note that "reduce" in Section 61.145(b)(4)(v)
should be "reduced."

     4.  Commenter 32 recommends that pipes be measured in linear units and
surfaces in units of area; the commenter suggests that EPA clarify when
asbestos quantities are to be reported in volume.  Commenter 41 states that
there was a need for consistency in the use of units in the applicability
section, 61.145(a), and the notification section, 61.145(b).  Commenters 41,
58, 59, 63, 64, and 73 argue that it would be more feasible to use one 

                              7-32

measurement rather than continually calculating all three.  Commenters 58, 62,
and 75 explain that it was often difficult to determine the volume of in-place
material.  Commenter 62 believes this requirement will cause unnecessary
exposure when workers attempt to determine the depth of the asbestos in order
to determine volume.  Commenter 32 and 59 agree that being able to report in
units of volume was often beneficial.

     5.  Commenters 36, 37, 39, 41, 43, 46, 47, 48, 50, 58, 59, 61, 63, 65,
72, 74, 93, and 95 are critical of the requirement to report the quantity of
material that is unlikely to become friable or crumbled, pulverized, or
reduced to powder.  The commenters consider this requirement inappropriate
when there is little or no risk of significant fiber release from these
materials.  Several of these commenters argue that this requirement would not
increase compliance or aid enforcement.  Commenter 95 suggests that, if EPA
persists in its belief that it needs information on nonfriable material that
is unlikely to become friable or be crumbled, etc., it should only require an
acknowledgement on the notification that such asbestos is present.

      6.  Commenter 42, 49, and 75 argue that the requirement to report
materials that do not have the potential to be broken, crumbled, etc., is
overly broad and would cover asbestos that will not be removed during a
renovation project.  They suggested that EPA should clarify that the estimate
should only cover material that will be removed or disturbed during a
renovation and not all the material in a facility.

     7.  According to commenter 45, the language of Section 61.145(b)(4)(v)
and the definition of "renovation" require a notification to be sent for any
modification to a facility, even when asbestos is not present.

     8.  Commenter 48 recommends that EPA clarify the notification
requirements to avoid having renovations submit notifications when the only
asbestos involved is nonfriable materials that will not become friable or be
crumbled, etc.

     9.  Commenter 73 believes that it will be difficult and is unnecessary to
provide estimates of the amounts that both have and will not have the
potential to break down.  This is particularly true when an estimate is being
made of the amount of asbestos to be removed annually.  Commenter 64 notes
that removal of nonfriable material could be required under "certain
conditions" that would cause it to become friable or release significant
amounts of asbestos fibers.  They argue that it would often be difficult ahead
of time to know if these "certain conditions" exist before a removal project
begins.

     Response:  1.  The EPA believes that some nonfriable materials do not
become friable (crushable with hand pressure) or release significant levels of
asbestos fibers even when left in buildings that are being demolished.  The
EPA believes these materials should be distinguished from those materials that
are friable or are likely to release significant levels of fibers when
severely damaged.

                              7-33
     2.  No response is necessary.

     3.  This paragraph has been modified, thereby removing the need to make
this correction.

     4.  The EPA intended for linear and area units to be used for in-place
materials and for volume to be used in those instances when the material is
already off the facility components and the in-place amounts are not known. 
This has occurred, for example, when an inspector arrived at a removal site
where no information was available on the amount of in-place asbestos and the
inspector had to determine if the operation is subject to the NESHAP.  The EPA
did not intend for asbestos quantities to be reported in volume in addition to
linear and area units.  The EPA has modified the rule to clarify this point.

     5.  The EPA has determined that the following asbestos-containing
materials are normally nonfriable and under most conditions, are exempt from
the removal requirements prior to demolition:  resilient floor covering,
asphalt roofing material, packings, and gaskets.  If these materials are
sanded, ground, or abraded, they must be treated according to the NESHAP. 
However, this does not eliminate the need to report in notification when
prioritizing inspections of demolitions and renovations.

     6.  Only the asbestos that will be affected by the demolition of
renovation must be reported.  We have modified the rule to require the
reporting of only that material that is in the affected part of the facility.

     7.  Renovations where no asbestos is present are not subject to the
notification requirements, unlike demolitions involving no asbestos or amounts
below the threshold.  Renovations involving nonfriable asbestos that is
unlikely to become friable, and will not release significant amounts of
asbestos fibers, are not subject to the NESHAP, including the notification
requirements.  Renovations that are likely to result in damage significant
enough to cause the material to become friable, or release significant amounts
of asbestos fibers to the air, are subject to the NESHAP.  Because of these
and other comments, the rule has been revised to clarify under what
circumstances renovations, as well as demolitions involving nonfriable
asbestos, are subject to the rule.

     8.  See response no. 7.

     9.  The EPA has modified the rule to clarify under what circumstances
renovations and demolitions involving nonfriable asbestos that is unlikely to
become friable or release significant asbestos emissions when damaged, and
nonfriable material that is likely to become friable or release significant
amounts of asbestos to the air, are subject to the rule.  The EPA will also
issue additional information at a later time to provide additional
clarification.

                              7-34
7.2.22  Information Required--Address--Section 61.145(b)(4)(vi)

     Comment:  Commenter 28 recommends revising Section 61.145(b)(4)(vi) to
require the city, street address, State, and county of the demolition or
renovation activity.

     Response:  The EPA has clarified location to include street address,
city, county, and State where the demolition or renovation is taking place. 
We have also modified the rule to require information on building number or
name and floor or room number, if appropriate.  This will help enforcement
personnel locate the demolition or renovation activity at facilities where
there are numerous buildings, or within a building that contains numerous
floors and rooms and only a single room is involved.

7.2.23  Information Required--Dates--Section 61.145(b)(4)(vii)

     Comment:  Commenter 23 recommends eliminating the requirement in Section
61.145(b)(4)(vii) for scheduled starting and completion dates and allowing
approximate dates with specific dates supplied by telephone.  Commenter 23
recommends the use of different notification procedures depending on the size
and time required to complete a job.  According to commenters 24, 43, and 63,
requiring information on the dates of demolition or renovation, especially the
completion dates, are unnecessary.

     Commenter 28 argues that the dates of demolition or renovation in Section
61.145(b)(4)(viii) are sufficient for enforcement; the removal dates (Section
61.145(b)(4)(vii)) are unnecessary.  Commenter 29 supports requiring scheduled
dates for both abatement work and demolition/renovation work.

     Commenter 84 argues that information on the days of the week and hours of
operation are important and should be required.

     Response:  The EPA needs the contractor's considered best estimate of the
starting and completion dates in order to determine the duration of the job
and plan inspection visits to the job site.  By revising the rule to allow
telephone renotification followed by a written renotification of a change in
start date without additional lengthy delays, EPA has made renotification
easier; hence, it should be less burdensome for the regulated community. 
Rather than complicate matters, EPA prefers to use only one notification
procedure.  The EPA notes that asbestos removal operations may take place only
during a small fraction of the time in which a demolition or renovation is
performed.  For that reason, asbestos removal dates are a vital part of the
information that EPA needs to plan for inspection visits.  Only one commenter
addresses the need for specifying days of the weeks and hours of the day on
the notification.  The EPA is aware that weekend and night removals do take
place.  Nevertheless, EPA does not consider it necessary to require that such
specific information be provided in the notification.

                              7-35
7.2.24  Information Required--Dates for Individual Nonscheduled Renovations--
        Section 61.145(b)(4)(vii)

     Comment:  Commenter 20 recommends that EPA revise Section
61.145(b)(4)(vii) by adding "for notifications submitted under paragraph
(b)(3)(ii) of this section, include the beginning and ending dates of the
report period" in place of "planned renovation operations involving..."  They
explain that this change would help clarify that an annual notification is
required and that separate notification is required on actual projects.

     Response:  The EPA allows facilities to submit an annual notification for
individual nonscheduled renovations.  For planned renovations that are
scheduled and that involve quantities of asbestos above the threshold,
separate notifications are required for each project.  Separate notifications
are not required for individual nonscheduled renovations, even if the amount
of asbestos exceeds the threshold.

7.2.25  Information Required--Methods--Section 61.145(b)(4)(ix)

     Comment:  Commenter 15 states that the "methods to be employed"
information required in Section 61.145(b)(4)(ix) needs to be clearly
described, i.e., cutting, scraping, wires cut and carefully lowered, etc. 
They explain that "nature and methods" has always been unclear.  Commenter 28
argues that this information is usually the same brief answer; therefore,
delete Section 61.145(b)(4)(ix) and (x).  Similarly, commenter 43 argues that
providing a description of procedures to prevent nonfriable materials from
becoming friable is unnecessary and should be deleted.  Commenter 25 explains
that their description of methods and procedures was very lengthy and the same
for each job; they feel that EPA should allow them to file this information
once and refer to it in each notice.

     Response:  In Section 61.145(b)(4)(ix), "methods" refers to
demolition/renovation procedures.  Information on methods, even if brief in
nature, is of use to EPA.  For example, if the response to the
demolition/renovation procedure is implosion versus floor-by-floor demolition,
even such a brief response will help an inspector prioritize inspections.

     The EPA needs enough information on the methods to judge whether or not
it appears likely that the removal will be done in compliance with the NESHAP,
and information on procedures to prevent nonfriable materials from becoming
friable is necessary in order to make such a judgment.  Although EPA believes
it is appropriate and beneficial for an owner/operator to have a detailed
procedure for their abatement activities, it is not necessary for EPA to have
such a detailed accounting of the procedures.

7.2.26  Information Required--Trained Supervisor--Section 61.145(b)(4)(xii)

     Comment:  1.  Commenters 49 and 62 recommend that the notice not require
the name of the trained on-site supervisor because they may have several that
are qualified and not know ahead of time which one will supervise the job; a
certification that a trained individual will be used should be sufficient.

                              7-36
     2.  Commenters 73 and 84 believe that the new training requirement may
create some problems and confusion.  They argue that EPA should clarify that a
contractor's trained supervisor or a duly authorized representative of the
owner/operator should be able to supervise the demolition or renovation, and
that a facility owner does not need to provide such expertise.

     3.  Commenter 66 recommends expanding notification information to include
the contractor's state registration number and the training experience of an
on-site supervisor(s).

     4.  Commenter 63 explains that a facility owner may not know the name of
the trained on-site supervisor when he/she notifies EPA for the contractor.
In this case, the owner should be allowed to certify on the notification that
the removal contract specifies that the contractor's on-site supervisor be
trained.

     Response:  1.  The EPA agrees with the commenters that a certification to
the affect that a job will be appropriately supervised is adequate.  In fact,
Section 61.145(b)(4)(xii) requires only such a certification; the form in
Figure 3 contains a statement calling for the trained person's name.  The EPA
has revised the example form to be consistent with the requirement in Section
61.145(b)(4)(xii).

     2.  The EPA agrees and has modified the rule to require that a trained
person supervise removal operations, and not just the owner or operator of the
demolition or renovation.

     3.  Because the differences among States and Regions and where
notifications are sent and because, in some instances, facility owners may be
submitting the notifications, EPA feels that a national regulation requiring
State registration numbers would be confusing to many regulated sources and
would not necessarily aid enforcement or increase compliance.  Regarding the
commenter's recommendation to include information on training experience, EPA
feels that the requirement to certify training in the NESHAP carries
sufficient legal authority without requiring details of the training.

     4.  See response no.  1.

7.2.27  Information Required--Ordered Demolition--Section 61.145(b)(4)(xiii)

     Comment:  Commenter 30 supports the requirement to include the date that
the order to demolish was issued and the date that the demolition was ordered
to begin.

     Response:  No response is necessary.

                            7-37    
7.2.28  Information Required--Emergency Renovations--Section 61.145(b)(4)(xiv)

     Comment:  1.  Commenter 28 recommends a format change; they suggest that
Section 61.145(b)(4)(xiv), the emergency renovation information, be renumbered
as Section 61.145(d).

     2.  Commenter 29 supports the proposed notification requirements for
emergency renovations; it allows the owner/operator to address the real
environmental problem and then worry about the paperwork.

     3.  Two commenters note that Section 61.145(b)(4)(xiv) did not include
the nonroutine failure of equipment as a reason for performing an emergency
renovation.  Commenter 59 states that Section 61.145(b)(4)(xiv) should be
revised to allow an emergency renovation for nonroutine failures of equipment
to be consistent with the definition of "emergency renovation."  Commenter 62
states that this provision should be revised by adding "or disruption of
normal industrial operations" to be consistent with the definition of
"emergency renovation" and Figure 3.

     Response:  1.  The EPA sees no advantage in creating a new paragraph (d)
for the emergency renovation information that is required in the notification. 
The EPA considers it more appropriate to keep this information requirement
with the rest of the notification requirements.

     2.  No response is necessary.

     3.  The EPA agrees with the commenters that, as proposed, an apparent
inconsistency exists between the definition of "emergency renovation,"  the
notification requirements of Section 61.145(b)(4)(xiv), and item XIV in 
Figure 3.  After further considering the problem, EPA believes that to allow
nonroutine failures involving only unsafe conditions to qualify as an
emergency renovation would impose an unreasonable financial burden on those
sources that experience a sudden, unexpected equipment failure and would be
required to provide 10 days' notice.  The EPA believes it is necessary to
provide greater flexibility for renovations necessitated by sudden, unexpected
events.  Therefore, the asbestos revisions also consider a renovation
necessitated by the sudden, unexpected disruption of normal industrial
operations to be an emergency renovation.

7.2.29  Information Required--Discovery of Unexpected Asbestos--Section
        61.145(b)(4)(xv)

     Several comments were received regarding the notification requirements
for the discovery of unexpected asbestos.

     1.  Commenters 13 and 84 argue that this revision will provide a loophole
to avoid following other work practices.  Commenter 13 notes that unacceptable
actions could result and cause needless work in contacting contractors and
revised notices.  This commenter recommends that EPA require work to stop
immediately, followed by written notice before starting work again.  Commenter 

                              7-38

84 suggests that it be handled with a telephone notice followed by a written
notice.  Commenter 92 also favors adding a notification requirement for the
discovery of unexpected asbestos.

     2.  Commenter 17 suggests that EPA require the owner/operator to report
if such contingency plans were ever implemented.

     3.  Commenters 17 and 76 support the requirement for owners/operators to
have a contingency plan in the event unexpected asbestos is discovered. 
Commenter 68 believes that the requirement for contingency plans should
alleviate some of the concern among demolition contractors about being found
in violation when new or additional asbestos is discovered.

     4.  Commenter 30 recommends that some provisions be added to control the
runoff of asbestos-contaminated water resulting from the wetting procedure
required to keep newly discovered asbestos wet.

     5.  Commenter 4 wonders what other response would ever be provided
besides "stop demolition and abate newly exposed asbestos."  Commenter 28
favors deleting this requirement as useless because the response would always
be the same, "wet down the material."  Commenters 43 and 79 consider the
requirement unnecessary and state that it should be deleted.  Commenter 79
explains that the existing provisions are adequate to handle the discovery of
unexpected asbestos.

     6.  Commenters 24 and 87 recommend that EPA allow a one-time submittal or
an annual submittal rather than submitting the plan with each notification. 
Commenter 42 argues that, because such contingency plans would be voluminous,
EPA should allow the plans to be kept at the work site, and be available for
inspection, rather than submitting the plans with each notification.

     7.  Commenter 55 explains that an owner/operator would have to provide
EPA with a manual of procedures for all response actions because it is not
always possible to know in advance what will be encountered.  They argue that
this is not practical.  Nor is it practical, according to commenter 55, to
wait 10 days for renotification while a hazardous condition remains unabated,
or a building is left vacant, which is costly for the owner.

     8.  Commenters 59 and 83 state that contingency plans should not be part
of the notification.  Commenter 59 argues that contingency planning for the 
discovery of unexpected asbestos should be part of supervisor training and not
a plan submitted with every notification.  They explain that, for a
contractor, contingency plans could change from job to job, while a facility
like an electric generating plant would have the same contingency plans.

     9.  Commenters 62 and 87 question the ability to give a detailed
abatement plan for an unknown situation.  Commenter 62 suggests that the
provision should be revised to require use of the original plan to the maximum
extent possible, while commenter 87 suggests allowing a general statement of
plans to satisfy the requirement.  Commenters 73 and 87 support the
requirement for contingency plans, but recommend that EPA not require 

                              7-39
submission of elaborate plans.  Commenter 73 notes that the discovery of
additional asbestos materials will probably result in the same demolition or
renovation methods being used as described in the original notification, and
they suggest allowing a simple reference to this fact in the notification.

     Response:  1.  This provision provides owners/operators with an
alternative procedure in the event that asbestos is unexpectedly discovered or
nonfriable material becomes friable.  Previously, EPA would have required that
the demolition or renovation be halted and EPA be notified if no notification
had been sent in the case of renovation or, in the case of demolition, a
notification was sent to EPA that reported the amount of asbestos as being
below the threshold.  Such delays can be very costly for facility
owners/operators as well as for contractors.  Under the asbestos revisions,
the owner/operator must have a contingency plan in the event that unexpected
asbestos is discovered; moreover, rather than halting operations to notify
EPA, the owner/operator may continue the operation and remove the newly
discovered asbestos without delaying the project.  An amended notification or
a new notification must be submitted, but there is no waiting period before
continuing operations or removing the asbestos.  If the newly discovered
asbestos cannot be safely removed, the asbestos-containing material must be
kept wet and the entire asbestos-contaminated wastepile (or the portion that
is contaminated) disposed of as asbestos-containing waste material.  The EPA
believes that the cost of the requirement to dispose of the contaminated
wastepile as asbestos will discourage contractors from using this as a way to
avoid removing asbestos.

     2.  Because a revised notification would have to be submitted if a
significant additional amount of asbestos is discovered, EPA will be made
aware of instances where new asbestos is discovered.  This will serve the same
purpose as the report that commenter 17 recommends.

     3.  No response is necessary.

     4.  The Clean Air Act does not confer the authority to address runoff
problems.  However, the rule does require leak-tight containers that will help
restrict the movement of asbestos-contaminated water.  Additionally, if the
wetting is too carelessly performed and large amounts of contaminated runoff
result, the operator may be in violation of the requirement to properly
contain waste.  In some locations, operators will have to comply with State
and local regulations.

     5.  The EPA considers this provision an important part of the
notification because it will force owners/operators to consider how they will
deal with unexpected asbestos or previously nonfriable material before the
fact.  Further it is not clear to EPA that the response would always be the
same.

     6.  The plan that EPA is requesting as part of the notification should
provide general information on procedures to deal with unexpected asbestos or
previously nonfriable asbestos material that becomes broken, crumbled, 

                              7-40
pulverized, or reduced to powder; very detailed and voluminous descriptions
are not expected.  The EPA does expect a plan to be submitted with each
notification, however.  Owners/operators, of course, may prepare plans at any
level of detail for their own use.
 
     7.  Regarding the second part of comment no. 7, under this provision, the
owner/operator does not have to notify and wait before continuing the
demolition or renovation.

     8.  The EPA intends that the required training on the asbestos NESHAP
cover the notification requirements, including the need for contingency plans.

     9.  The EPA's intention in requiring information in the notification on a
contingency plan is to ensure that owners/operators have considered this
possibility.  The EPA understands that the exact nature of each situation in
which unexpected asbestos is discovered cannot be known in advance.  The
required contingency plans do not necessarily have to be detailed and
elaborate plans.  Rather, they can be a general plan or approach in the event
that new asbestos is discovered, including the intent to remove the asbestos
according to the procedures outlined in the original notification, if
appropriate.

7.2.30  Notification Form

     Comment:  Several comments were received on the sample notification form,
Figure 3 in the proposed revisions.  Most of the commenters consider the form
too detailed and confusing.  The following comments were received.

     1.  Commenters 15, 54, and 57 think the form was difficult to read and
confusing.  Commenter 15 also states that the form did not allow enough space
for recording information.  Commenter 54 states that there appeared to be an
inconsistency between the information required by Section 61.145(b) and that
required in Figure 3.  While supporting the requirement for a more detailed
notification, commenter 57 thinks the language was confusing and needs to be
simplified.  They suggest that the addition of a table summarizing trigger
levels and their notification deadlines would be helpful.  They state that
cross-references to other provisions using section numbers was confusing.

     2.  Commenters 23, 28, 39, 49, 62, and 76 state that the notification
form was too detailed and required unnecessary information.  Commenter 28
states that, because government-ordered demolitions and emergency renovation
occurred so infrequently, the items requesting such information should be
deleted from the form--a simple letter of explanation would suffice in those
instances.  In addition, commenter 28 agrees that EPA should provide a form
that could be used to standardize notifications, but states that a simpler
form is needed--the proposed version would take too much time to complete. 
Commenters 39, 49, and 62 argue that there is no basis for requiring owners
and operators to supply the information requested on controls to be used at
disposal sites.  Commenter 49 also thinks the requirement to report quantities 

                              7-41
of nonfriable material may exceed EPA's authority.  Commenters 15, 23, and 28
provide examples of notification forms they thought to be simpler than that
proposed while containing adequate information.

     3.  Commenter 63 supports the use of a form "similar" to that presented
in Figure 3 because this allows facilities to create their own form on a word
processor, which will expedite notification preparation.  Commenter 75 things
that, in general, the form in Figure 3 is useful but should be provided as a
single, one-page form that could be photocopied for use.  Commenter 76
requests a multicopy form that could be used to notify EPA and serve as a
waste tracking form.  They explain that this would simplify the process and
probably enhance compliance.

     Response:  1.  In response to the comments that the form was hard to
read, the form is presented in the asbestos revisions as a form that can be
photocopied for use if so desired.  The typesetting process used in the 
January 10, 1989, proposal did not permit the display of the information as it
is in the final rule.  In addition, revisions have been made to simplify the
form and make it more understandable.

     In response to the comment that there appeared to be inconsistencies
between the information required in Section 61.145(b)(4) and Figure 3, EPA has
made minor modifications to the form to bring Section 61.145(b)(4) and Figure
3 more in line with each other.  It should be noted that the form in Figure 3
is a suggested form; as long as the information requirements of Section
61.145(b)(4) are met, different formats for presenting the information are
permissible.  It is the intent of EPA that the use of a format similar to that
in Figure 3 will help to standardize the information submitted in
notifications to EPA.

     The EPA agrees with the suggestion that a table that summarizes trigger
levels and notification deadlines might be helpful in clarifying the
applicability and notification requirements.  The EPA believes this
information is more appropriately suited for inclusion in an information
release that would assist enforcement officials and the regulated community in
applying the rule to their specific situations.  The EPA is planning to issue
additional information about the rule shortly after promulgation and will
consider adding such a table.

     2.  Note that EPA is requiring a form "similar" to the form in Figure 3. 
Persons may modify the form to fit their individual needs, as long as they
supply the required information.  However, in response to comments that the
form is too detailed and contains necessary information, the form in Figure 3
has been modified.  The item that requested information on the waste disposal
practices was removed from the form in response to the three commenters who
feel it is inappropriate to request this information from owners and operators
of demolition and renovation operations.  The EPA has decided to retain the
information on the form pertaining to ordered demolitions and emergency
renovations even though, according to one commenter, a very small percentage 
of the notifications are for these kinds of operations.  Because these are 

                              7-42
example forms, individuals may choose not to include a place for that
information on the form, choosing instead to submit this information
separately when necessary.

     In response to the comment that disagreed with the requirement to supply
information on the quantity of nonfriable material, see Section 7.2.21 of this
BID.

     3.  In response to commenter 75's requests, the example form is presented
as a single page form.  In response to commenter 76's request for a form that
can be used both for notification and as a waste tracking form, EPA has
considered such a form but rejected the idea.  One reason for not having a
combined form is the amount of information that would have to be on a single
form.  The EPA prefers having as simple a form as is possible that provides
the necessary information.  The EPA does not believe a combined form is in
keeping with this objective.  Another disadvantage of the combined form is
that, while owners and operators of demolitions and renovations will be
submitting a notification and using a waste tracking form, other sources such
as milling, manufacturing, and fabricating only have a need for a waste
tracking form.  A combined form is not necessary for these sources and may be
confusing.

7.2.31  Lack of Notifications as Basis for Estimate of Noncompliance

     Comment:  Commenter 9 notes that in Region VIII, the lack of
notifications being sent to EPA is due to the fact that they are being sent to
the local or State authority instead of to EPA.

     Response:  The EPA's estimate of 50 percent noncompliance for the
requirement to notify, which served as the basis for estimating noncompliance
with removal and waste disposal requirements, was based on the situation in
one Region.  The EPA intends to improve the estimate of noncompliance as
information becomes available in a future rulemaking to revise the asbestos
NESHAP.

7.2.32  Periodic Reports

     Comment:  Commenter 18 recommends that, in Section 61.145(b)(3)(ii), EPA
should require reports at least once a year, preferably quarterly, on
demolition/renovation activities covered by annual notices submitted for
individual nonscheduled renovation.

     Response:  The EPA does not see any advantage in requiring periodic
updates from owners/operators who submit an annual notification for individual
nonscheduled operations.

7.2.33  Notification for Individual Nonscheduled Operations

     Comment:  Commenter 20 recommends that Section 61.145(b)(3)(iii) be
revised to require notification a early as possible before or at least by the
following working day for individual nonscheduled renovations.  As proposed, 

                              7-43
the commenter argues that the rule encourages circumvention by emergency and
nonscheduled renovations.  Commenter 20 also states that, because nonscheduled
renovations above the cutoff must provide a separate notification apart from
the long-term notification required in Section 61.145(b)(3)(ii), a reasonable
notification period must be specified.

     Response:  The EPA does not intend for owners or operators of facilities,
such as large industrial facilities that perform renovations on a very
frequent basis, to provide a separate notice for each renovation.  Such a
requirement would result in an excessive number of notifications that would be
burdensome to both industry and enforcement agencies.  These facilities are
permitted to predict the amount of asbestos that will be removed over a long
period of time as a result of individual nonscheduled renovations.  Scheduled
renovations involving amounts of asbestos above the threshold amounts must
provide EPA with a separate notification for these.  Regarding the commenter's
concern over notifications for emergency renovations, the asbestos revisions
require notification as early as possible or by the following working day,
which EPA believes is an appropriate requirement.

7.3  CONTROLS

7.3.1   Exemption from Removal

     Comment:  1.  Commenter 18 argues that Section 61.145(c)(1)(i) provides
too large a loophole because it does not specify the amount of concrete or
other similarly hard material that must be present to exempt removal prior to
demolition.  Concrete-based paint or another hard material could be used to
encase asbestos-containing materials to take advantage of this rule.  This
commenter states that Section 61.145(c)(1)(i) should be modified to require
that the encasing material be of such strength and thickness that asbestos
fibers could not be released during demolition or renovation.  Commenter 18
also questions the reason behind requiring wetting of encased materials if the
release of asbestos is not expected.

     Commenter 84 recommends that the exemption from removal prior to
demolition in Section 61.145(c)(1)(i) should be provided only when the
encasing material is a structural component, or when removal presents an
unreasonable safety hazard.

     2.  Commenter 93 wants the exemption of Section 61.145(c)(1) to apply to
renovation in addition to demolition.  Also, commenter 93 recommends that
Section 61.145(c)(1)(iii) by revised be deleting the phrase "during demolition
and renovation," and changing the rest of the paragraph to read "...such as,
asbestos packings and gaskets, asbestos comment materials, asbestos bituminous
or resinous roofing felts and coatings, and vinyl flooring."

     Response:  1.  The exemption for facility components encased in concrete
is not a new provision and is intended and typically interpreted to apply to
instances where, because of the hardness of the encasing material, it would be
extremely difficult to get to the asbestos in order to remove it.  In
addition, EPA believes that, when asbestos encased in concrete is left in a 

                              7-44
facility that is demolished, the opportunity for fiber release is quite small. 
The requirement to wet such material when exposed is a precaution required in
the event that the underlying asbestos would become exposed.  The EPA is not
aware of any instances where this provision was used in order to circumvent
the requirement to remove asbestos before demolition.  If, however,
information is brought to EPA's attention that this provision is being used to
circumvent the regulation, EPA may consider the need to revise the regulation,
including this paragraph, at a later date.  The revisions proposed on 
January 10, 1989, address nonrisk-based revisions to clarify and promote
compliance with the NESHAP.  Similarly, commenter 84's recommendation to
exempt only structural components would alter stringency.  The need for
revisions affecting stringency will be considered at a later date.

     2.  After considering the request by commenter 83 to include renovation
in the exemption from removal in Section 61.145(c)(1) in addition to
demolition, EPA believes that is not necessary to make the recommended change. 
Because of differences between a facility that is to be demolished and one
that is to be renovated, EPA believes that situations that would require such
a decision are not as likely to be associated with situations involving
renovation.

     Regarding the request by commenter 93 to delete the phrase "during
demolition or renovation," EPA has revised this paragraph to explicitly exempt
certain nonfriable materials.  The EPA believes that the exemptions will most
often apply to demolitions, where an entire structure is being dismantled or
wrecked.  In renovation, the process is usually much more controlled, and ACM
is being intentionally removed or stripped.  The EPA thinks that the need for
exemption from removal as part of a renovation will not occur frequently.

     The EPA takes issues with part of the suggested change to the nonfriable
materials listed in Section 61.145(c)(1)(iii).  In particular, EPA rejects the
addition of "asbestos-cement materials" to the list.  It is EPA's position
that asbestos-cement materials have the potential to release significant
amounts of asbestos fibers if severely damaged or fractured.  The decision to
allow these materials to remain in a facility to be demolished should be made
on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the type of asbestos-cement
material, the type of demolition, and any other relevant factors.  The other
suggested changes to the list of materials in Section 61.145(v)(1)(iii)
involved modification of the terminology used to indicate the affected
nonfriable materials.  As a result of this comment and others that suggest the
use of different terms, EPA has modified the terms used to describe the
nonfriable asbestos.

7.3.2   Work Practices--Clearance Inspection/Cleanup

     Comment:  Commenter 15 states that EPA should add a work practice
requiring the owner or operator to conduct a clearance inspection to ensure
that all debris is wetted and collected for disposal.  Commenter 77 recommends
that EPA set clearance standards as 0.01 f/cc.

                              7-45
     Response:  A clearance requirement may be appropriate for facilities that
have undergone an abatement and will be reoccupied, however, it is not clear
that under the Clean Air Act such a requirement could be added.

7.3.3   Work Practices--Waste Storage

     Comment:  1.  Commenter 18 suggests that Section 61.145(c) require that
after ACM is removed, it is placed in leak-tight containers and stored in a
secure, covered, and enclosed area until disposed of.

     2.  Commenter 87 notes that, in the introductory paragraph of Section
61.145(c), "section" should be "paragraph."

     Response:  1.  The rule requires that all asbestos from a demolition or
renovation be kept wet until collected for disposal (Section 61.145(c)(6)). 
Waste must be put into leak-tight containers for disposal (Section
61.150(a)(1)(iii)).  Although the rule does not explicitly regulate storage,
any waste that is stored on-site must be in leak-tight bags.  Waste generators
are responsible for taking their waste to a disposal site as soon as it is
practical to do so (Section 61.150(b)).

     Revisions requiring additional storage work practices would alter the
stringency of the rule.  Because the purpose of the revisions proposed on
January 10, 1989, is to clarify the NESHAP and promote compliance, revisions
that would alter the stringency of the rule are not being considered.  The
need for revisions that would affect stringency may be considered at a later
date.

     2.  The EPA agrees and will change "section" to paragraph.

7.3.4   Work Practices--General

     Comment:  Two commenters recommend that EPA adopt work practices similar
to those required by OSHA, and EPA under AHERA.  Commenter 50 argues that,
because removals may increase risk, EPA should implement work practices
consistent with OSHA and AHERA to protect workers and building occupants. 
Commenter 57 states that EPA should require that work areas be restricted and
signs posted similar to OSHA and AHERA regulations.  Commenter 54 argues the
the absence of visible emissions does not guarantee that safe removal
practices are being used; proper removal techniques should be required.

     Response:  Because the purpose of this rulemaking is to clarify the
current rule and promote compliance, revisions that would alter stringency,
such as the additional work practices recommended by these commenters, cannot
be considered at this time.  The need for revisions that alter stringency may
be considered at a later date.  It should be noted that removal operations
covered by the asbestos NESHAP are also subject to the OSHA regulations, and
removal operations at schools are subject to the NESHAP in addition to OSHA
and AHERA rules.  These regulations do not contradict each other.

                              7-46
     In response to commenter 54's recommendation to require work practices on
removal jobs in place of a visible emission limitation, EPA does not have a
visible emission requirement for asbestos stripping and removal operation. 
Work practices are required in all cases.  The only time a visible emission
requirement applies is during the collection and processing of waste for
disposal (Section 61.150).  Section 61.150 allows a choice between complying
with work practices or meeting the visible emission requirement.

7.3.5   Work Practices--Section 61.145(c)(3)

     Comment:  1.  According to commenter 27, there seems to be a conflict
between Section 61.145(c)(3) and the preamble explaining this section. 
Commenter 27 explains that the regulation does not contain any provision for
an inspector to reinterpret the decision of the Administrator for the use of
alternate methods, while the preamble implies that he is given the authority. 
Commenter 27 asks EPA to clarify this provision and preclude a reevaluation of
the method so long as the work is being done in accordance with the procedures
identified in the request for variance.

     2.  Commenter 89 argues that, in Section 61.145(c)(3), the phrase "in a
facility" is redundant and should be deleted.

     Response:  1.  The EPA reviewed the proposed revisions to Section
61.145(c)(3)(ii), which allows EPA approval of alternate methods, and Section
61.145(c)(3)(iii), which requires that a copy of the EPA's approval of the
alternate method be kept at the site available for inspection.  The EPA also
reviewed the discussion of this provision in the preamble (54 FR 917, 3rd
column).  The preamble discussion states that, "so that inspectors can readily
determine if alternative methods have received Administrator approval, a copy
of the approval is required to be kept at the demolition or renovation site
for inspection."  Neither Section 61.145(c)(3)(ii) and (iii) nor the preamble
allow an inspector to alter or reinterpret an approval given by the
Administrator.  The EPA does not intend for inspectors to be able to
reinterpret or nullify an approval given by the Administrator.

     2.  As used in Section 61.145(c)(3), the phrase "in a facility" is not
redundant because it deals with stripping asbestos-containing materials from
facility components while they are still in the facility.  The asbestos
revisions will make this clear.

7.3.6   Work Practices--Section 61.145(c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(6)

     Comment:  1.  Commenter 20 makes several recommendations for changes to
the work practice provisions in Section 61.145(c)(2), (c)(3) and (c)(4).  They
suggest requiring no visible emissions in addition to the existing wetting
requirements in Section 61.145(c)(2) and (3).  In Section 61.145(c)(4), they
recommend requiring both wetting and the use of local exhaust ventilation
during stripping in addition to no visible emissions.

                              7-47
     2.  Commenter 94 states that, assuming "material contained in leak-tight
wrapping (Section 61.145(c)(6)(iv)) refers to the existing cover prior to
removal, EPA recommends that all exposed asbestos be adequately wet or
encapsulated.

     Response:  1.  The recommended work practice revisions would be a change
in the stringency of the regulation.  The purpose of the revisions proposed on
January 10, 1989, is to clarify the rule and promote compliance.  The need for
revisions that would alter stringency may be considered at a later date.

     2.  The leak-tight wrapping in Section 61.145(c)(6)(iv) does not refer to
the existing material covering the in-place asbestos.  For example, it does
not include a metal jacket covering asbestos pipe insulation.  "Leak-tight
wrapping" refers to material, such as plastic sheet, wrapped around an
asbestos-covered facility component prior to or after the component is removed
in fact from a facility.  However, as the commenter recommends, any exposed
asbestos must be kept wet because it is not yet in a leak-tight container.

7.3.7   Work Practices--Section 61.145(c)(5)

     Comment:  The following comments were received on the removal and reuse
of large, asbestos-covered facility components.

     1.  Commenter 20 suggests that a provision be added to prohibit visible
emissions during the removal, transport, storage, or reuse of asbestos-covered
facility components.

     2.  Commenter 30 is concerned that some problems may arise from the
removal of large pieces of asbestos-covered equipment that become damaged
during transport and contaminate the new area.

     3.  Commenter 33 notes that this provision seems contrary to EPA's
efforts to tighten controls on asbestos and also seems contrary to the
insulation provision, Section 61.148.

     4.  Commenter 84 wants EPA to remove the word "stored" from Section
61.145(c)(5)(i) because it opens the opportunity for permanent storage or
disposal.  Commenter 99 recommends that additional measures, including
periodic inspection, reincapsulation, relabeling, and removing loose asbestos,
are needed to prevent the deterioration of asbestos on equipment that is
stored for an indefinite period.

     5.  Commenter 70 recommends that labels be retained on large facility
components covered with asbestos after they are removed to alert subsequent
owners to the presence of asbestos.  These components are often demolished,
salvaged, or sold and then renovated, stripped, or salvaged.

     6.  Commenter 99 asserts that this provision does not address
decommissioned equipment that remains in place, where the asbestos
deteriorates. 

                              7-48
     Response:  1.  The EPA rejects the suggestion to prohibit visible
emissions from the removal, transport, storage, and reuse of large asbestos-covered facility components as inconsistent with the other demolition and
renovation controls.  

     2.  If the component cannot be moved and reused without disturbing the
asbestos, then it must be stripped of its asbestos (Section 61.145(c)(5)(i)).  
     3.  The EPA sees no contradiction in adding this provision because
several requirements must be met that ensure that the reuse of such components
does not constitute a threat to public health.  In addition, the provisions of 
Section 61.148 (insulating materials) apply to the use or reuse of the
insulating materials that are friable.  Attempts to reuse friable asbestos
material are much more likely to release significant amounts of asbestos when
compared to the reuse of a facility component where several precautions must
be taken to avoid the release of asbestos.

     4.  The EPA considers storage to be a procedure that is already allowed
by the NESHAP.  Inclusion of storage in Section 61.145(c)(5) was done to
ensure that this activity is properly regulated.  Regarding the recommendation
for additional requirements to prevent the deterioration of asbestos on stored
equipment, EPA believes the regulation adequately prevents this from
occurring.  Material that is damaged or disturbed (and EPA considers this to
include material, for example, that has deteriorated to the extent of falling
off the equipment) must be stripped.  Stored equipment must also be labeled
and remain in a leak-tight container or wrapping.

     5.  In that the asbestos revisions require large facility components to
be labeled during storage, EPA considers the comment to have already been
addressed.

     6.  The EPA agrees with the comment that the rule does not address
decommissioned equipment that remains in place.  If, however, the asbestos is
disturbed or is stripped, or the component is removed from the facility, the
owner/operator must comply with other provisions of the rule.

7.3.8   Work Practices--Section 61.145(c)(6)

     Comment:  1.  Commenter 84 recommends to EPA that the types or sizes of
components allowed to be disposed of dry in Section 61.145(c)(6)(iv) should be
limited.  Leak-tight wrappings as defined would be anything from canvas
jacketing to metal shielding.  Commenter 84 recommends that EPA specify a
minimum acceptable wrapping.

     2.  Commenter 80 asks EPA to clarify the requirements for wetting
asbestos materials to prohibit the use of liquids that would be deemed RCRA
hazardous waste or Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) restricted wastes. 
They also suggest that EPA require waste generators to certify that they have
complied with this prohibition by a certification on the waste shipment
record.

                              7-49

     Response:  1.  As long as materials can be handled and disposed of
according to the NESHAP, EPA sees no reason to restrict either the types or
sizes of facility components that can be handled according to Section
61.145(c)(b)(iv).  Nor does EPA see any reason for concern over the types of
leak-tight containers if they are truly leak-tight for all waste under all
handling situations.
 
     2.  There are a number of commercial wetting agents available, and EPA
expects that the vast majority of contractors will use one of them along with
water to wet asbestos-containing material.  In the training required by this
rule, contractor personnel will be instructed in proper wetting techniques and
materials.  Although there may be a few isolated instances of wetting ACM with
RCRA hazardous waste or TSCA restricted waste, EPA does not expect that such
practices will become general and does not consider it necessary to revise the
rule to address this possibility at this time.

7.3.9   Work Practices--Chutes--Section 61.145(c)(6)(iii)

     Comment:  The following four comments were received on the use of chutes
during demolition and renovation.

     1.  Commenter 54 observes that Section 61.145(c)(6)(iii) does not address
what happens to asbestos material entering or exiting chutes used in removal,
nor what happens to the chute when it is no longer needed.

     2.  Commenters 57 and 87 argue for reducing the height at which chutes
must be used.  Commenter 87 suggests they be used at a height of 15 feet,
while commenter 57 suggests that EPA should require dust-tight chutes at
heights of 10 feet or more as some States do.

     3.  Commenter 84 recommends that the chute requirements be updated to
allow for technological advances, e.g., truck-mounted vacuum systems, and
include performance, inspection, and maintenance standards for such systems.

     Response:  1.  Asbestos material entering chutes must be adequately
wetted, and material exiting chutes must be placed in leak-tight containers. 
The EPA will review the matter of the disposition of chutes when they are no
longer needed and may consider addressing it in a future rulemaking if it
appears to be a significant issue.

     2.  The suggested change in heights at which chutes must be used would
alter the stringency of the regulation; this rulemaking is intended to clarify
and promote compliance with the NESHAP.  The need for revisions that would
alter stringency may be considered at a later date.

     3.  The NESHAP does not prohibit the use of truck-or-trailer-mounted
vacuum systems as long as the other requirements are met, such as the wetting
requirements and containment in leak-tight containers for disposal.  However,
at this time, EPA is not establishing requirements for these kinds of material
handling or vacuum systems.  Performance and design standards could be
considered later as part of a later rulemaking to consider additional, more
stringent revisions.

                              7-50
7.3.10  Work Practices--Section 61.145(c)(7)

     Comment:  The following comments were received regarding the requirements
for demolitions occurring in freezing weather.

     1.  Commenter 79 requests that EPA define "to the maximum extent
possible" as used in Section 61.145(c)(7)(ii) in order to clarify the
responsibilities of the owner or operator regarding the removal of facility
components in units or sections.

     2.  Commenter 87 suggests that EPA reduce the number of temperature
readings to a minimum of one per day.  When it is obvious or weather forecasts
call for below freezing temperatures all day, this would reduce the costs of a
requirement that has doubtful environmental benefits.

     3.  Because of day-to-day fluctuations in temperatures in many parts of
the country, a notification informing EPA of the intent to suspend wetting for
freezing temperatures may not be very useful by the time EPA would receive it. 
In a demolition or renovation that is going to occur during a period that is
likely to be below freezing for the entire period of part of the period, the
owner or operator can include on the currently required notification that
wetting may be suspended and describe the precautions that will be taken in
lieu of wetting.

7.3.11  Work Practices--Exterior Nonfriable Products

     Comment:  Commenter 72 recommends that EPA work with the building
industry to establish work practices for handling exterior nonfriable
products, such as asbestos cement shingles.  Currently, the National Institute
of Building Science is developing such work practices that will be available
to the public.

     Response:  The EPA will look forward to reviewing the work practices
developed by the National Institute of Building Science.

7.3.12  Work Practices--Waste Water

     Comment:  Commenter 30 requests that EPA address the process of filtering
shower water prior to disposal.  Commenter 57 argues that strict controls need
to be specified for handling wastewater from wetting operations.  They note
that water that runs off or evaporates on the site could leave asbestos-containing dust, a residue that could become airborne.

     Response:  The suggested revisions would alter the stringency of the
regulation.  The purpose of the revisions proposed on January 10, 1989, is to
clarify and promote compliance with the rule.  The need for revisions that
alter stringency may be considered at a later date.
 

                             7-51 
7.3.13  Exemption from Removal--Section 61.145(c)(1)

     Comment:  The following comments were received regarding the exemption
from the requirements to remove asbestos prior to demolition.

     1.  According to commenters 18 and 20, Section 61.145(c)(1)(ii) will make
enforcement actions difficult because it will probably be used by persons who
failed to give notice and were caught demolishing a building.  Commenter 18
suggests that the rule should be changed to be limited to situations where
asbestos could not have reasonably been anticipated to be present.  Commenter
18 also suggests listing in the regulation where asbestos may be found. 
Commenter 20 argues that this provision will encourage contractors to not
identify the friable asbestos prior to demolition.  Commenter 20 recommends
deleting this provision.

     2.  For consistency with the preamble and other parts of the rule,
commenter 35 states that Section 61.145(c)(1)(iii) should be revised to
require that, when the listed nonfriable materials (packings, gaskets, asphalt
roofing, and vinyl floor tile in good condition) become friable, then they
must be removed.

     3.  Commenter 49 suggests that EPA promulgate rules to cover situations
where unexpected asbestos is found in amounts that will trigger the
notification requirements.

     4.  Commenters 57 and 66 recommend that EPA set standards for the
handling and removal of nonfriable materials to ensure that the material does
not become friable.  Commenter 57 argues that nonfriable material should not
be completely exempted from the rule, especially with regard to demolition,
because all material can become friable during demolition or renovation.

     Response:  1.  In response to commenter 18's point that Section
61.145(c)(1)(ii) would be used as an excuse for not giving notice, EPA is
modifying the rule to clarify the requirements for notification when no
asbestos is present; i.e., notification is required prior to demolition
regardless of the amount or presence of asbestos.  When asbestos is discovered
after the demolition, the asbestos must be removed if it is safe to do so.  If
not, the asbestos material and contaminated debris must be kept wet and
disposed of in a landfill.  Given the higher cost of disposing of asbestos,
EPA believes these requirements will discourage persons from trying to use
this provision to avoid removing asbestos prior to demolition.

     2.  See 7.1.1, Asbestos-Containing Material.

     3.  Procedures are contained in the asbestos revisions to cover the
discovery of unexpected asbestos, including removal, if possible, and wetting
and disposal of the asbestos and asbestos-contaminated debris.  In addition,
the notification provisions require the procedures and developed prior to
demolition in the event that asbestos is discovered unexpectedly.

     4.  See 7.1.1, Asbestos-Containing Material.

                              7-52
7.3.14  Wetting Exemption for Renovation--Section 61.145(c)(3)

     Comment:  The following comments were received on the exemption from
wetting in renovations in Section 61.145(c)(3)(i).

     1.  Commenter 23 supports safety as a basis for an exemption from the
wetting requirements.

     2.  Commenter 28 recommends that, in Section 61.145(c)(3)(i)(B)(2), the
word "capture" be changed to "contain" to differentiate from emission control
using local exhaust ventilation.

     3.  Commenter 41 recommends that, because the Administrator would
obviously be overburdened by requests for approval to use removal methods that
do not involve wetting, the rule should provide for approval from the
Administrator "or his designated representative."

     4.  Commenters 41, 42, 65, 63, 65 argue that Administrator approval of
the listed methods, Section 61.145(c)(3)(i)(B)(1)(3), should be unnecessary as
long as one of the three is used.  They suggest that EPA use OSHA's approach
and determine under what conditions wet methods are not appropriate, such as
work on live electrical equipment.  It would be the responsibility of the
owner or operator to demonstrate that the other method(s) was necessary if
requested to do so by EPA.  Commenter 42 recommends that, once an approval to
use alternatives to wetting is obtained by an owner/operator for a specified
type of work, it should remain effective for all such work without requesting
additional approval each time.  Commenter 63 suggests that EPA allow the use 
of the alternative procedures and that they be reported in the notification,
which would allow EPA 10 days to review the information and contact the
owner/operator if a problem is expected; they estimate that otherwise, it
would take a minimum of 30 days to get a response from the Administrator.

     5.  Commenter 84 recommends that, in addition to the request for a
determination that wetting is not feasible, EPA should require the
owner/operator to also submit supplementary information on the method(s) to be
use to minimize emissions.  The Administrator could then stipulate the
controls to be used.

     6.  Commenter 84 asks if the approval of an alternative method as allowed
in Section 61.145(c)(3)(ii) was to be on a case-by-case, project-specific
basis, or on an unlimited basis for a particular control technology.  They
encourage EPA to promulgate a rule that recognizes engineering solutions and
emission control devices.  Air cleaning equipment that is recognized as
effective and is maintained could be used in place of wetting.

     7.  Commenter 87 suggests that EPA establish a limit for airborne
asbestos concentration, such as 0.2 f/cc, and leave the technique of meeting
the limit up to the owner/operator.

     8.  Commenter 65 states that, because a glove-bag system, leak-tight
wrapping and local exhaust ventilation are all acceptable means of control for 

                              7-53
stripping asbestos from components that have been removed, it is reasonable to
presume that these same methods would be acceptable for use inside a facility.

     9.  Commenters 77 and 79 suggest that EPA develop a procedure under
Section 61.145(c)(3)(i) and (ii) to expedite the process whereby an
owner/operator requests and receives Administrator approval to use a method
other than wetting in order to avoid delaying projects that may be urgent but
are not emergencies.

    10.  Commenter 62 argues that EPA should allow the use of nonstandard
abatement methods, other than dry removal, subject to the Administrator's
approval.  They state that this would allow full compliance with the no
visible emission requirement at a reasonable cost for those jobs where
standard techniques would be too costly and time-consuming.  Commenter 67
requests that EPA allow for alternatives to the emission controls in Section
61.145 and notes that they were cooperating in an informal interagency group
to evaluate cost-effective ways to perform roof removals.

    11.  Commenter 59 suggests that radiological contamination should be added
as another reason for not wetting asbestos.  They note that they had received
exemptions previously in order to dispose of the radiologically contaminated
asbestos waste in a waste disposal facility for radioactive waste.  The
radioactivity in the asbestos cannot be monitored because of the beta
radiation attenuation that results from wetting.

    12.  Commenter 21 encourages EPA to require prior approval in writing for
exemptions from wetting in Section 61.145(c)(3).

    13.  Commenter 30 agrees with the requirement in Section 61.145(c)(3) to
keep the Administrator's written approval on-site for inspection.

    14.  Commenter 84 argues that EPA should increase the stringency of the
provisions that allow dry removal; EPA should require, for example, air-tight
enclosures kept under negative pressure and ventilated through a HEPA filter.

     Response:  1.  No response is necessary.

     2.  The EPA agrees that "contains" is a more appropriate term and will
substitute if for "capture."

     3.  The definition of "Administrator" in Section 61.02 of the General
Provisions (Subpart A), which also applies to Subpart M--National Emission
Standard for Asbestos, includes the Administrator of EPA or "his authorized
representative."

     4.  The EPA considers wetting to be the most effective method of
preventing asbestos fibers from becoming airborne.  The EPA agrees with OSHA
in that the instances in which wetting cannot be used are very limited.  The
EPA wants to retain the responsibility for determining whether wetting would
damage equipment of pose a hazard.  The EPA does not approve which of the
three methods canrbe used; that is the owner/operator's decision to make.  It 

                              7-54
should also be noted that EPA, like OSHA, intends for glove bags to be used
with wet removal methods inside the glove bag, if possible.

     5.  The EPA believes that supplementary information on the controls is
not warranted if the owner/operator will be using local exhaust ventilation, a
glove bag system, or leak-tight wrapping.  If, however, the owner/operator
wants to use a method other than these three or wetting, then, as commenter 84
suggests, EPA must receive additional information on the proposed controls
before issuing a decision approving or disapproving the alternate method.  The
procedure for this is contained in Section 61.145(c)(3)(ii) of the asbestos
revisions.

     6.  The EPA has and will continue to approve alternative methods
according to Section 61.145(c)(3)(ii) on a case-by-case basis.  The EPA
believes that such a case-by-case approach is warranted given that the unique
conditions that prevail at each demolition operation often warrant different
controls.

     7.  In principle, EPA agrees with the commenter's suggestion of
establishing an endpoint, such as airborne asbestos concentration, and letting
the owner/operator select the method for achieving the limit.  The EPA has set
such performance standards for the control of several pollutants and realizes
that OSHA has established an airborne asbestos level to protect workers.  At
the present time, however, EPA does not have sufficient information to decide
if such a limit is appropriate for safeguarding the public health or at what
level such a limit should be set.  Many questions must first be addressed
before EPA would consider such a performance standard over the existing
regulatory approach, i.e., the use of work practices.  Wetting, the principal  
work practice required by the NESHAP, has proven effective in significantly
reducing airborne asbestos levels when done correctly.  The EPA may consider
conducting a research effort at some time in the future to address the use of
airborne fiber levels as in indication of the adequacy of certain work
practices, such as wetting.

     8.  The EPA believes commenter 65 misunderstood Section 61.145(c)(3)(i)
as it applies to listed alternative methods.  This paragraph allows their use
regardless of whether the facility components have been removed or are still
in the facility as long as the Administrator has determined that wetting would
unavoidably damage equipment or present a safety hazard.

     9.  The EPA agrees with the commenter's concern over avoiding lengthy
delays in projects while awaiting approval to use a method other than wetting. 
The EPA believes that, if the owner/operator submits the necessary information
along with the notification 10 days in advance of removal work, EPA will
provide a response by the day removal is scheduled to begin.  If the
owner/operator believes they will need a response earlier in order to plan
their removal, they should submit the necessary information further in advance
of the removal start date.

    10.  As noted before, EPA believes that wet removal methods are
consistently the most effective means of reducing airborne emission levels and 

                              7-55
intends that, except under certain prescribed circumstances, wetting always be
used, whether alone or in conjunction with another abatement technique. 
Section 61.145(c)(3) describes the circumstances under which wetting may not
be required in a renovation, Section 61.145(c)(7) describes the circumstances
under which wetting may not be required in a renovation, and Section 61.145(c)
describes the conditions under which dry removal is allowed.  In response to
commenters 67's note regarding the study of alternatives to roof removal, as
they noted, EPA will be involved and hopes to use the information from the
tests in future rulemakings on the asbestos NESHAP.

     Commenter 62 makes reference to complying with EPA's no visible emission
limit under Section 61.145, the standards for demolition and renovation. 
Visible emission limits do not apply to operations regulated by Section
61.145; work practices are required.  However, in Section 61.150, the waste
disposal requirements have the no visible emission limit as an alternative to
work practices.

    11.  The EPA believes such an exemption could be made for safety reasons.

    12.  The EPA does require that the owner/operator must have received the
"written" approval of the Administrator to suspend wetting.

    13.  No response is necessary.

    14.  The revisions suggested by commenter 84 would increase the stringency
of the rule.  The purpose of the revision proposed January 10, 1989, is to
clarify and promote compliance with the rule.  The need for revisions to alter
stringency may be considered at a later date.

7.3.15  Wetting Exemptions in Freezing Weather--Section 61.145(c)(7)

     Comment:  The following comments were received on the provisions that
suspend wetting in freezing weather.

     1.  Commenter 20 recommends that facility components removed in units or
sections (Section 61.145(c)(7)(ii)) be removed in accordance with the
requirements of Section 61.145(c)(3)(i)(B), which requires alternative control
to wetting.  Commenter 20 argues that this provision encourages the scheduling
of work during colder parts of the year to avoid the wetting requirements.

     2.  Commenter 57 suggests narrowing the exemption from wetting by
requiring the use of surfactants that would reduce the freezing point of
water.  Also, they and commenter 84 recommend that other work practices be
used and that the required temperature readings be taken in the work area.

     Response:  1.  Although EPA generally agrees with the suggested revision,
it would alter the stringency of this rule.  The purpose of these revisions is
to clarify and promote compliance with the NESHAP.  The need for revisions
that would alter stringency may be considered at a later date.

                              7-56
     2.  The EPA agrees with the suggestion to require that the temperature
readings be taken in the work area and has modified the rule accordingly. 
Response no. 1 above would also apply to the other suggestions for more
stringent work practices and the use of surfactants.

7.3.16  Adequately Wet

     Comment:  Numerous comments (3, 18, 21, 23, 25, 28, 33, 35, 42, 49, 50,
55, 58, 62, 63, 68, 73, 83, 84, 93, and 94) were received on the subject of
adequate wetting.  Several commenters call for a more objective method for
determining when something is "adequately wet."  For example, it is suggested
that an airborne concentration could be established.  The definition is
confusing to others and, it is suggested, should state that where water
droplets are visible on the material and no visible emission is present, the
material is adequately wet.  Commenters explain that some materials should be
allowed to be coated with a liquid.  A simple moisture determination test is
also suggested.  Commenters argue that EPA should retain the existing
definition of "adequately wet" because the revision does little to improve the
definition.  Dropping the last sentence is also recommended.

     The EPA is urged to expand the definition of "Adequately wet" to clarify
that large pieces of bagged asbestos to not have to be reduced to small pieces
to be wet and that bags do not have to contain standing water.

     Response:  In the definition proposed on January 10, 1989, EPA used the
term "particulates" to be more precise than "dust," although they have
essentially the same meaning.  The observation of particulates is an
indication that friable ACM is not being adequately wetted.  Dust or
particulates do not have to be shown to contain asbestos; they are merely an
indication that the material is not wet enough to prevent airborne dust or
particulate emissions when handled.

     In the definition, the phrase "mixed or coated" was replaced by "mix or
penetrate."  This was again an attempt to be more precise in defining the end-point.  However, penetrate means "throughout" for sprayed-on friable ACM and
"penetrate the surface" on molded insulation and ceiling tile.  For packaging
of waste such as molded pipe insulation or ceiling tile, where the asbestos is
not required to be wetted throughout prior to removal (scraping/stripping) for
effective control of asbestos emissions, additional wetting may be needed to
prevent emissions if the container was inadvertently broken.  In this case,
the additional application of water or aqueous solution appears to be more
effective if applied during packaging of the waste rather than when it was in
place.

     Several commenters suggest that one way of helping to define adequately
wetted would be to use some means of quantifying the condition of being
"adequately wet," for example, a moisture measurement method or a method to
measure airborne fiber concentrations.  A screening study of the feasibility
of developing more objective measures to determine adequate wetting was
performed.  It appears that a moisture measurement method and device for 

                              7-57
determining "adequately wet" have not been established.  Development of a test
method would require the time and resources associated with a research effort. 
The EPA notes that the current approach works and that EPA plans to stick with
it until something better becomes available.

     The use of TEM or optical fiber counts to determine whether proper
procedures are being used to remove the asbestos has been suggested.  The
options that are possible using the monitoring of fiber concentrations are:

     1.  To use airborne fiber concentration (either TEM or optical) to
         determine the acceptable endpoint.  In this case, EPA would not care
         how the asbestos is removed as long as the fiber concentration limit
         is met.

     2.  To use fiber concentrations to show that the required procedures
         (wetting, packaging, etc.) are being used correctly.  Some questions
         that need to be answered are:

         -  Should TEM or optical methods be used?
         -  Should passive or aggressive sampling be done?
         -  Should samples be long-term (8 hour) or should they be short-term
            (15 minutes)
         -  How should specific activities be sampled?
         -  Are there data correlating the use of proper wetting procedures
            with fiber concentrations?

     Although measuring fiber concentrations would be a departure from EPA's
requirements of using procedures that reduce fiber concentrations during
removals, EPA is recommending that a feasibility study be performed to address
the above questions.  Such a study may eventually provide useful information. 
The EPA agrees that any approach that is selected needs to solve the problem
that removal contractors are now raising--on a real-time basis as the work
proceeds, the contractor needs to know when his wetting needs to be improved
so that he/she can take the necessary action to comply with the NESHAP rule.

     In summary, EPA has decided to retain the definition proposed on
January 10, 1989, and will develop and circulate additional information on
acceptable wetting methods.

7.3.17  Glove Bags

     Comment:  The following comments were received on allowing the use of
glove bags.

     1.  Commenters 23 and 30 support allowing the use of glove bags and leak-tight wrapping as an alternative to local exhaust ventilation in instances
where the Administrator determines that the use of wetting in a renovation is
not possible.

                              7-58
     2.  Commenter 21 explains that there is a contradiction in the OSHA and
EPA requirements on glove bag use; where EPA's position has been that a glove
bag is a small total enclosure and a substitute for total room enclosure using
plastic sheets, they claim that OSHA has been interpreting its rule that glove
bags are an additional control device, to be used inside a contained area
while the contained area is under negative pressure.  They suggest that this
interpretation almost precludes the use of glove bags.  Commenter 21
recommends that EPA's requirement be consistent with OSHA and that EPA and
OSHA come to an agreement on the use of glove bags and publish their agreement
in conjunction with the proposed revision to Section 61.145(c)(4) permitting
the Administrator to approve controls equivalent to wetting, e.g., glove bags,
etc.

     3.  Commenter 21 disagrees with the proposal preamble statement that
glove bags can be used with dry removal and urges EPA to discourage this
practice because such practices are likely to result in significant
contamination outside the glove bag.  Proper care and training in glove bag
use is needed; a 3- or 4- day course is inadequate.

     Response:  1.  No response is necessary.

     2.  Differences in EPA and OSHA requirements stem largely from the
different objectives of the two agencies.  The OSHA is responsible for
controlling exposure of workers removing asbestos as well as other workers who
may not be directly involved in asbestos removal but (because they are working
nearby) may be exposed if certain precautions are not taken.  The EPA, under
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, is responsible for controlling air pollution
to the extent necessary to protect the public health with an ample margin of
safety.  Therefore, although glove bags may be adequate for EPA's purposes,
OSHA objectives may require additional controls because of the proximity to
the exposure source of the population they are responsible for protecting. 
The EPA generally agrees with the commenter, however, that EPA and OSHA should
at some time meet jointly to address the use of glove bags, although it cannot
be a part of this rulemaking.  The goals and products of such a meeting would
have to be worked out between the two agencies if and when they agree to
consider this issue.

     3.  The EPA intends for wet removal methods to be used with glove bags as
stated in the preamble.  This intent is further emphasized by referencing OSHA
glove bag procedures, which including wetting, in the definition of glove
bags.

7.3.18  Technology vs. Paperwork

     Comment:  Commenter 9 argues that, in the interest of protecting human
health and the environment, it would be more appropriate to focus on advances
in technology, e.g., glove bags, instead of on paperwork exercises of dubious
public benefit.  They claim that their asbestos compliance program is
continuously frustrated by regulations that change frequently at the State and
Federal level.

                              7-59
     Response:  The revisions are intended to enhance enforcement and improve
compliance, while remaining neutral on stringency.  The EPA may consider the
need for revisions, including changes that incorporate advances in technology,
that would alter the stringency of the standards at a later date.  The EPA
recognizes that the asbestos revisions require additional recordkeeping and
reporting; however, EPA is requiring only the additional amount needed to
enhance enforcement and improve compliance.

7.3.19  HEPA Filters

     Comment:  Commenters 18 and 84 recommend that EPA require all local
exhaust ventilation (LEV) systems to be equipped with the HEPA filters.

     Response:  The EPA allows the use of HEPA filters with LEV systems, and
many LEV systems incorporate HEPA filters, but EPA does not require their use. 
LEV systems may be operated without producing visible emissions or must meet
the air cleaning requirements of Sections 61.152, which include design and
operating specifications for fabric filters, scrubbers, and HEPA filters.  To
require that HEPA filters be used would increase the stringency of the rule. 
The purpose of these revisions is to clarify and promote compliance with the
rule.  The need for revisions that would alter stringency may be considered at
a later date.

7.3.20  Negative Pressure System

     Comment:  The following comments were received regarding the use of
negative pressure systems.  Commenter 28 suggests revising the NESHAP to allow
the use of negative pressure systems in lieu of wetting.  They cite the use of
higher efficiency HEPA filters in conjunction with negative pressure systems
that would reduce emissions to the outside air; they also cite the fact that,
in order to comply with the OSHA standard, employees would use wet methods
anyway.  In addition to negative pressure systems, commenter 77 recommends the
use of airlocked decontamination units where glove bags are not used and the
adoption of clearance standards, such as 0.01 f/cc.

     Response:  Wetting is an effective method for preventing asbestos from
becoming airborne.  Studies have shown that wetting with plain water can
reduce airborne fiber concentrations by about 60 percent and wetting with
amended water can reduce concentrations by about 90 percent.  Negative
pressure systems use dilution to reduce the workplace airborne asbestos
concentration rather than preventing the release of fibers.  Wet removal
followed by prompt collection and bagging of waste is a proven procedure for
minimizing asbestos concentrations.

     In response to commenter 77, the recommended revisions would increase
stringency.  The purpose of the revision proposed January 10, 1989, is to
clarify and promote compliance.  The need for revisions to alter stringency
may be considered at a later date.

                              7-60
7.3.21  Restrict Access to Work Areas

     Comment:  Commenter 57 suggests that EPA require that work areas be
restricted and signs posted to prevent unauthorized entry during renovation
and demolition.

     Response:  The EPA agrees with the need to restrict access to asbestos
removal work areas but believes that the OSHA rules (Section 1926.58(e))
adequately restrict access.

7.3.22  Control Options--No Visible Emissions vs. Equipment Specifications

     Comment:  Regarding Section 61.145(c)(3)(i)(A)(1) and (4)(ii), commenter
18 does not want to allow an option of complying with equipment specifications
for air pollution control devices or meeting the no visible emission limit.

     Response:  Requiring compliance with the equipment specifications and the
no visible emission limit would increase the stringency of the rule.  The
purpose of the revisions proposed on January 10, 1989, is to clarify and
promote compliance with the rule.  The need for revisions to alter stringency
may be considered at a later date.

7.3.23  Training

     Comment:  Numerous comments were received on the provisions to require a
trained, on-site supervisor at all demolition and renovation operations.

     1.  Commenters 17, 18, 26, 83, and 92 support the training provision, but
would prefer that the trained person be on-site during all phases of the
asbestos abatement operation.

     2.  Commenters 23, 54, 59, and 84 support the requirement for at least
one trained on-site supervisor.  Commenter 4 supports uniform training
criteria acceptable to both EPA and OSHA.  Commenter 83 states that the
training requirements should be consistent in the NESHAP, OSHA, and AHERA
regulations.

     3.  Commenter 28 states that the demolition contractors they have talked
with do not agree with the NADC recommendation that each on-site supervisor be
trained.  Commenter 28 explains that most contractors have one supervisor who
is responsible for several simultaneous demolitions and to hire and train
additional ones would be cost prohibitive.

     4.  As proposed, commenter 39 explains that Section 61.145(b)(4)(xii)
requires a certification that an "owner or operator" trained in the NESHAP
supervise the removal operation.  They argue that this could be interpreted to
prohibit the industrial hygienist from supervising the operation because
he/she might not be the "owner or operator of a demolition or renovation
activity."  For consistency, commenter 39 wants Section 61.145(c)(8) revised
to read "... with at least one on-site person trained in the provisions of 
this regulation..."  Commenters 58 and 75 support the training requirement as 

                              7-61
long as the trained person can be one of their employees or an employee of the
contractor.

     5.  Commenters 50 and 68 recommend that asbestos project designers and
abatement workers be trained in order to ensure the quality of the asbestos
work, while commenter 54 states a need for planners and managers to be
trained.  Commenters 26 and 83 suggest that the "trained person" should be an
AHERA accredited contractor/supervisor; in addition, the workers should be
accredited.  Commenter 76 states that all workers must be familiar with safe
work practices and relevant rules and, therefore, the training requirements
are unnecessary and should be deleted.  Commenter 57 recommends that both
supervisors and workers be trained.

     Commenter 66 recommends that an EPA-established curriculum be used. 
Commenters 18 and 66 recommend that a refresher course be attended every 2
years.  Commenters recommend that the EPA training center submit to EPA a list
of persons passing the course and EPA should issue a dated certificate to be
kept at the job site.

     6.  Commenter 21 recommends that persons providing the training be
EPA/AHERA accredited.

     7.  Without a quality assurance program and a means of enforcement,
commenter 28 argues, the training requirement will have minimal results and
should be deleted.  The commenter suggests shifting resources to assist States
in developing their own licensure programs.  They also argue that additional
resources would be needed to monitor the courses and certifications. 
Commenter 28 also states that a training requirement should be delayed until
EPA can quantify the benefit of training and has established a contractor
training program.  

     8.  Commenter 28 argues that, if contractors need training, then so do
waste haulers and disposal site operators.

     9.  Commenter 32 recommends that EPA specify what evidence of training is
required.

    10.  Commenter 23 states that there appears to be some duplication between
the proposed training requirements and OSHA training requirements, which also
cover health effects and worker protection.  They recommend that EPA specify
the incorporation of the proposed training within existing training programs. 
Commenters 49, 58, and 62 recommend that EPA make clear that either AHERA or
OSHA training and certification are adequate to comply with the NESHAP.

    11.  Commenter 80 recommends that EPA include training in the recognition
of RCRA hazardous waste and TSCA-restricted wastes, which might otherwise be
used for wetting.

    12.  Commenters 57 and 66 recommend that EPA require certification of
training.  Commenter 66 recommends keeping such certification at the job site.

                              7-62
    13.  Commenter 57 argues that the training requirement should be effective
immediately rather than 1 year after promulgation, while commenter 18 suggests
that the effective date should be 6 months after promulgation instead of 1
year.

    14.  Commenter 76 agrees that removal work should be done under the
supervision of a qualified individual, but that it is not necessary for that
person to be at the job site in order for a project to be under his/her
supervision.  Regular contacts between workers and their supervisor (and if
the supervisor is kept informed) are sufficient to ensure that work is done in
a responsible manner.

    15.  Commenter 83 states that, it was their understanding that a statement
certifying that at least one on-site representative was trained in the NESHAP
will satisfy the NESHAP--no other certifications were necessary.

    16.  Commenter 92 suggests that EPA consider a training requirement for
the individual who prepares the new and expansive notification or at the least
the critical elements of the notification, such as Section 61.145(b)(4)(iv),
(v), (x), and (xv).

    17.  Commenter 63 explains that, as a result of the increased need for
training resulting from the NESHAP, EPA or the States should establish a
training program in each State and develop a training schedule available to
the public.  They recommend that the requirement for a trained on-site
supervisor should become effective 1 year after the training programs are
established.

     Response:  1.  The EPA believes that the role of the trained supervisor
is to be on-site often enough to ensure that workers understand and are using
procedures for complying with the NESHAP and to provide occasional instruction
if necessary.  The EPA does not consider it necessary for the trained
individual to constantly monitor abatement procedures.  Furthermore, the same
supervisor is often responsible for more than one job.  It would be very
costly if additional persons had to be hired and trained in order to have a
trained supervisor full-time at each job.

     2.  The EPA does not intend for this training to replace other training
requirements; in fact, many of the existing training programs already include
material on the NESHAP and would satisfy Section 61.145(c)(8).  With minor
additions, EPA believes that the OSHA training requirement would satisfy the
NESHAP.

     3.  Because EPA is not requiring the trained on-site supervisor to be at
the site at all times, EPA does not think that there will many instances where
additional supervisors will have to be hired.  Where a currently employed
supervisor must receive training, the costs of attending a 3- or 4- day course
are not excessive.

     4.  The EPA does not intend to restrict the trained on-site
representative to just the owner or operator of the demolition or renovation
activity.  It is the intent of this requirement that other trained persons can 
                              7-63
be used as long as they have the authority to effect changes in the demolition
or renovation necessary to comply with the NESHAP.  As a result of this
comment, EPA has modified Section 61.145(b)(4)(xii) to be consistent with the
intent of this provision.

     5.  In response to the commenters who recommend that project designers,
planners, managers, and workers all receive training, EPA believes that having
at least one trained individual on-site is the most economical and effective
approach to obtaining compliance with the NESHAP.  The EPA agrees that having
a trained individual involved in designing the project would help to ensure
compliance, although it is EPA's opinion that whoever the trained on-site
supervisor is will likely be involved in planning the abatement project.

     In response to comments that the trained person should be an AHERA-accredited person, although such an individual would fulfill the NESHAP
requirement, EPA does not feel that it is necessary to have such training to
ensure compliance with the NESHAP.

     In response to commenter 76, EPA agrees that all workers should be
familiar with safe work practices and relevant rules, but this is not
sufficient reason to delete the training requirement.  Even workers who know
safe work practices and are familiar with the relevant regulations often
disregard rules for a variety of reasons.  A trained on-site supervisor can
help to reduce the frequency of these infractions.

     In response to commenter 66, EPA will be developing training materials
that can be used alone or in conjunction with existing training programs. 
Regarding the commenters who recommend that refresher courses be taken every 2
years, EPA agrees and has modified the rule to require refresher courses.  The
EPA considers such additional training important to maintain familiarity with
the NESHAP as well as to keep abreast of any changes in the NESHAP.

     In response to the commenter who suggests that training be done at EPA
training centers and that a list of persons passing the course be distributed:
because EPA intends to allow training by other sources in addition to that
provided at EPA-supported training centers, a list of persons who pass the EPA
center courses would not include persons receiving their training elsewhere.

     6.  The EPA does not believe that it is necessary for the instructor to
be AHERA-accredited.  This would exclude many qualified instructors.

     7.  The EPA disagrees that the training requirement will be ineffective
without a quality assurance program.  The owner/operator will still be
responsible for compliance with the NESHAP and is not likely to accept blindly
what is offered in the training as everything required by the NESHAP.  The EPA
believes that being exposed to what the NESHAP requires has the potential to
improve compliance among those who intend to comply.  The EPA believes that
promulgating the training requirements, and not waiting to justify the
provision by a cost-benefit analysis, will do much to promote compliance.

                              7-64
     8.  The EPA believes that by educating demolition and renovation owners
and operators, compliance with the other relevant provisions, especially waste
disposal, will be improved.  The EPA will be developing guidance, including
guidance on waste disposal, that will be useful to all persons affected by the
NESHAP.

     9.  Many asbestos training courses provide a certificate or diploma to
individuals who successfully complete the training.  These would suffice as
evidence of training.

    10.  Commenters 49, 58, and 62 are correct in their understanding that
either AHERA or OSHA training would suffice as long as the NESHAP provisions
are included in those training programs.  The EPA agrees with commenter 23's
suggestion that it is appropriate to incorporate the NESHAP training into
existing training programs.

    11.  To the extent that the training covers wetting and wetting agents,
improper wetting techniques and agents will be addressed.  The EPA anticipates
that the vast majority of contractors will use commercially available wetting
agents and does not foresee problems due to use of hazardous wastes or
restricted wastes for wetting.

    12.  The EPA requires a certification on the notification that an on-site
representative has received training in the NESHAP.  In addition, the rule
requires that evidence of this training be kept at the job site and be
available for inspection.  

    13.  Given the potentially large number of persons who may need to attend
a training course as well as the time needed to add NESHAP materials to some
training programs, EPA believes that 1 year is appropriate.

    14.  No response is necessary.

    15.  This is correct.

    16.  The EPA will develop additional information to assist in the
implementation of the NESHAP, including guidance on complying with the
notification provisions.

    17.  As mentioned above, EPA considers existing training programs that
incorporate materials on the NESHAP sufficient to meet the training
requirements.  While favoring the establishment of training programs in each
State, EPA does not believe it is necessary to wait for them before requiring
trained on-site supervisors at all asbestos demolition and renovation sites.

7.3.24  Work Permit

     Comment:  Commenter 57 recommends that a work permit system be required
in all asbestos-containing buildings to ensure that asbestos is not disturbed
improperly.  Such a system normally entails work permits issued by a building
manager or asbestos coordinator before anyone does work in the building.

                              7-65
     Response:  The EPA generally agrees with the commenter that it is
important to monitor and control all activities in a building that might
disturb asbestos material.  For such a system to be effective, the building
must have first been thoroughly inspected to identify all of the asbestos
material.  Although, at this time, EPA is not considering a provision to
require all buildings to be inspected, or a permit system prior to disturbing
asbestos, these or similar provisions may be considered as part of a later
rulemaking to improve compliance.

7.3.25  General

     Comment:  Commenter 4 states that the revisions currently proposed offer
significant improvements, that it is imperative that additional revisions be
made to the notification requirements at this time, and that other changes
could offer very desirable improvements.

     Response:  The EPA agrees that the proposed revisions offer significant
improvements.  Regarding notification requirements, EPA notes that the final
rule does provide for telephone renotification of a change in the start date
of a demolition or renovation followed by a written notification, and no
longer requires a contractor to wait 5 days to begin a removal job.  The EPA
will consider other changes in a future rulemaking.

7.3.26  Stringency/Compliance

     Comment:  Several comments were received on stringency/compliance as they
relate to revision of the demolition and renovation section.

     1.  Commenter 4 prefers more effective regulations, not necessarily less
stringent ones.

     2.  Commenter 4 asserts that any regulation that increases the cost of
compliance tends to encourage violation.

     3.  Commenter 28 questions the NADC assertion that simplification would
promote compliance.

     4.  Commenter 49 states that flexible and clear regulations will
encourage compliance.

     Response:  1.  The EPA also prefers more effective regulations, and
considers this proposal to be a step in that direction.

     2.  The EPA agrees that excessively costly regulations might cause some
to ignore the rules.  However, EPA considers the costs associated with the
proposed revisions to represent a small increase in the costs of demolitions
and renovations.

     3.  Although EPA is sympathetic to the idea of simplification and
attempts to make its rules as simple and clear possible, it also rejects the 

                              7-66
blanket suggestion that simplification promotes compliance.  To the extent
that simplification increases understanding on the part of the regulated, it
may make compliance easier.

     4.  The EPA considers the proposed regulations to be flexible in that
owners and operators are provided options to choose from in determining how
they will comply with the regulations.  The EPA agrees that clarity in the
rules, to the extent that it increases understanding, may facilitate
compliance.

7.3.27  Unnecessary Burden

     Comment:  Several comments of a general nature addressing the burden that
would be imposed by the proposed revisions were received.

     1.  Commenters 4, 41, 42, and 43 state their belief that the standard
would impose a significant and unnecessary burden on the economy.

     2.  Commenter 4 argues that focusing on friable materials in industrial
applications would reduce costs, control most emission sources, and promote
compliance.

     3.  Commenter 28 agrees with the NADC assertion that more stringent
regulations may cause compliance to decrease where enforcement resources are
inadequate.

     4.  Commenter 28 asserts that a few clarifying amendments would
accomplish more than the proposed revisions and that enforcement is the key.

     5.  Commenter 35 says many contractors do not have highly technical
backgrounds and will have difficulty complying with the technical details of
the NESHAP, which continue to be confusing.

     6.  Commenter 95 believes the revisions will have a significant impact on
building owners.

     7.  Commenter 36 asserts that members of the Specialty Steel Industry of
the United States will be adversely affected by the proposed asbestos NESHAP
amendments.

     8.  Commenter 37 states that members of the Shipbuilders Council of
America will not be able to comply with certain proposed requirements because
they fail to take into account the mobile nature of ships and the fact that
ships only are at a shipyard for a limited period of time.

     Response:  1.  The EPA has examined the costs associated with the
proposed revisions and found them to be small.  The recordkeeping and
reporting costs are included in the impacts of the reporting requirements. 
Offsetting this small increased costs are the potential benefits in terms of
reduced emissions that will result from improved compliance.

                              7-67
     2.  The EPA's responsibility to protect the public health requires it to
regulate all asbestos removal activities that meet the applicability
requirements of the NESHAP.

     3.  The EPA considers the proposed revisions necessary in order to
improve compliance with the NESHAP and rejects the suggestion of possible
decreased compliance as sufficient reason to modify or withdraw the proposed
revisions.  The EPA believes that owners and operators who comply with the
NESHAP currently in force will also comply with a revised NESHAP and that the
proposed revisions will make enforcement easier.

     4.  The EPA is sympathetic with the suggestion that enforcement is the
key to compliance.  However, EPA disagrees with the assertion that a few
clarifying amendments would suffice and considers the revisions essential to
enhance enforcement and improve compliance.

     5.  The EPA is aware that the regulation is complex and sometimes
difficult to follow.  The training required by this proposal will increase
contractor knowledge of the NESHAP requirements and should facilitate
compliance with them.

     6.  The EPA agrees that owners of buildings being demolished or renovated
may pay a small additional amount for contractor services as a result of the
proposed revision.  However, the overwhelming part of demolition/renovation
costs is not chargeable to the proposed revisions to the NESHAP.

     7.  The EPA does not consider the comments submitted evidence that
specialty steel makers will be adversely affected by the proposed revisions in
any significant way beyond inconvenience.

     8.  The problem appears to be notification.  See comment and response no.
5 under Section 7.2.9 of the BID.

7.3.28  Overall Regulation of Asbestos Abatement

     Comment:  Two comments on the regulation of asbestos abatement were
received.

     1.  Commenter 29 states that asbestos abatement should be regulated by
one Federal agency with one comprehensive Federal regulation.

     2.  Commenter 57 argues that a far more comprehensive regulation is
needed to address the complexity of large-scale demolition or renovation work.

     Response:  1.  Although it might be desirable to have one comprehensive
regulation enforced by one Agency, the statutory authority to regulate
asbestos is provided by several separate Acts and is assigned to several
agencies.  The commenter's suggestion would require a change in the laws for
it to be implemented.

     2.  The EPA considers the comprehensiveness of the asbestos revision to
be appropriate for the control of air pollution by asbestos.

                              7-68
7.3.29  Objective Measures of Compliance

     Comment:  Two comments on the subject of objective measures of compliance
were received.  Commenter 23 believes that overall performance and regulatory
compliance can be improved through quantitative, objective measurements rather
than vague or subjective observations.  Commenter 33 states that, because EPA
is interested in fiber release, EPA should set a numerical emission standard
to that end.

     Response:  The EPA is not aware that methods of measuring asbestos
concentrations in ambient air are available at an acceptable cost for routine
monitoring purposes.

7.3.30  Uncertainty in Level of Compliance

     Comment:  Commenter 9 says that, given the degree of uncertainty EPA
claims is associated with the levels of compliance and noncompliance and the
agree to which emissions will be reduced by the proposed amendments, it is
questionable whether a sound basis exists for creating additional regulations.

     Response:  Although EPA cannot quantify the exact level of noncompliance,
it has no doubt that there is significant noncompliance with the NESHAP.  The
EPA believes that the revisions proposed on January 10, 1989, will promote
compliance with the NESHAP and, as a result, reduce asbestos emissions.

7.3.31  NADC Claims

     Comment:  Four comments were received on the subject of the National
Association of Demolition Contractors' claims.

     1.  Commenters 17 and 54 take exception to the claim that stringent
regulation promotes noncompliance.

     2.  Commenter 72 concurs with the NADC claims that increasingly strict
regulations increase noncompliance.

     3.  Commenter 9 disagrees that regulations need to be relaxed to increase
compliance.

     4.  Commenter 75 states that certain individuals will not comply with
regulations no matter their strengths or weaknesses.

     Response:

     1.  The EPA takes exception to that claim.

     2.  The EPA does not agree with the claim that strict regulations
increase noncompliance.

     3.  The EPA rejects the suggestion that regulations be relaxed to
increase compliance.

                              7-69
     4.  The EPA agrees with the commenter and makes the observation that such
individuals should be cited and prosecuted for violations of the NESHAP.

7.3.32  Emission Sources

     Comment:  Commenter 4 states that, although violations may be common at
commercial and residential demolition operations (which are numerous and short
term), it is the long-term, industrial jobs that account for more than 90
percent of asbestos removal.

     Response:  The EPA is interested in improving its estimates of
noncompliance and will consider this comment and other related comments
regarding compliance levels in refining its estimate.  However, the widespread
perception of noncompliance among EPA, State, and local enforcement agencies
reinforces the need for this rulemaking.

7.3.33  Level of Compliance and Emissions

     Comment:  Commenter 23 states that they were not aware of any information
to support the estimate of 50 percent noncompliance with notification
requirements.  To the contrary, commenter 23 claims that the contractors they
know comply uniformly with EPA requirements.  They argue that the volume of
work represented by nonnotifiers is small, probably less than 20 percent and
possibly as little as 10 percent.  Commenter 49 agrees with EPA that asbestos
emissions from renovations are likely to be well controlled even without the
NESHAP, and argues that compliance among utility companies is high, much
higher than the EPA estimate.

7.3.34  Emission Estimates

     Comment:  Two comments on the subject of emission estimates were
received.

     1.  Commenter 4 notes that OSHA's new worker exposure limit results in
low airborne asbestos fiber concentrations and states that EPA should review
its emission estimates for demolition and renovation in light of the new
exposure limit.

     2.  Commenter 72 argues that the permits for the emission estimates,
i.e., all asbestos removed and disposed of is the same, whether friable or
nonfriable, is false and the estimates are, therefore, inaccurate.

     Response:

     1.  The EPA will review its emission estimates and recalculate the
numbers.

     2.  The commenter is not correct because only friable asbestos was
included in the emission estimates.

                              7-70
7.3.35  Violations

     Comment:  Several comments were received on an EPA's procedure for
dealing with unintentional violations.  Commenters 23, 30, 49, and 63
recommend that EPA establish a position for dealing with unintentional
violations, e.g., the unintentional omission of certain information on the
notification, and at the very least, should provide guidance in this area. 
Commenter 28 argues that the severity of a penalty should relate to the
severity of the violation.  In regards to NADC's suggestion in the proposal
preamble concerning the need for a procedure to correct unintentional
violations, commenter 28 suggests that NADC should instruct its members to
always ask if asbestos is present and to always notify in order to avoid
unintentional violation because it is hard to determine if a violation is
unintentional.  In response to NADC's suggestion for quick correction of
unintentional violations, commenter 54 states that a competent contractor or
consultant should be hired to correct the violations.  In addition, commenter
54 recommends that EPA should incorporate contractor certification
requirements similar to the AHERA program.

     Response:  The EPA has established a position for handling violations
based on their severity.  The new asbestos severity penalty treats violations
differently based on the severity of the infraction.

     Regarding commenter 54's recommendation of AHERA-like certification
requirements, it is not clear that the AHERA contractor certification
requirements are needed to train a person in the requirements of the NESHAP,
but EPA may consider this if it is decided later that another rulemaking is
necessary.

7.3.36  Fees

     Comment:  Commenter 18 asserts that the proposed regulations should
require the EPA or delegated authority to collect permit fees to cover costs
of inspections of demolition and renovation jobs conducted in their
jurisdiction.

     Response:  The EPA has no plans to charge for inspection of demolition
and renovation jobs.  However, there is nothing in the proposed rulemaking
that would preclude a State from imposing a permit fee consistent with
applicable State law.

7.3.37  Format

     Comment:  Eight commenters submitted comments on the subject of separate
standards for demolition and regulation.

     1.  Commenters 18, 29, 63, and 87 argue for clarity an ease of use in
separate demolition and renovation requirements and separate requirements for
each type of facility.

                              7-71
     2.  Commenters 21, 30, 62, and 68 do not agree with the suggestion that
separate standards are needed for demolition and renovation.

     3.  Commenter 21 supports containing applicability, notification, and
control procedures into a single standard.

     Response:  1.  The EPA considers the many similarities in demolition and
renovation operations such that dealing with them as separate standards would
result in undesirable and unnecessary redundancy in the NESHAP.  Where
separate treatment is desirable, e.g., notification, EPA deals separately with
the unique requirements of demolition and renovation.

     2.  The EPA agrees with these commenters.

     3.  The EPA agrees with commenter 21.

7.3.38  Occupant Protection-Schools

     Comment:  Commenter 11 states that the proposed rule protects asbestos
workers, but does not protect children occupying a school while a renovation
is taking place.  All removal work should be done while school is not in
session.  Air sampling should be done to ensure the safety of areas adjacent
to the work area as well as the work areas before the building is reoccupied
by school children.  Rules for protecting children should be different than
those where adults are affected because of difference in how they are affected
by their environment.

     Response:  The concerns expressed by the commenter are covered by rules
made pursuant to authorities contained in AHERA.  The Clean Air Act does not
confer the authority to deal with indoor exposures.

7.3.39  Risk-Based Review

     Comment:  Commenter 50 asserts that, given the new information on
asbestos levels in buildings following removal and the associated health risk,
EPA should embark on a new risk-based review of the current standard.

     Response:  The EPA is considering plans to conduct a review of the
NESHAP, but with a view to protecting public health through more stringent
control of ambient air exposures not protecting building occupants from
exposures indoors.  The Clean Air Act under which the NESHAP is promulgated
does not confer authority to regulate indoor exposures.

7.3.40  NARS

     Comment:  Commenter 23 states that it is important that the National
Asbestos Registry System (NARS) data for a reporting period contain enough
information to ensure that it is not misinterpreted.

     Response:  The proposed rulemaking does not address NARS.

                              7-72

                         8.0  SPRAYING

     Comment:  Two commenters would like to have all spraying of asbestos
prohibited.  Commenter 54 states that spray-on application of a material that
contains asbestos should be prohibited, but would allow exceptions with prior
written approval if no alternative material exists.  Commenter 84 observes
that spray-on application is prohibited by other regulations and proposes to
simply ban asbestos-containing, spray-on materials.

     Commenter 57 would like EPA to ban the spraying of any products
containing more than 1 percent asbestos, which is consistent with EPA's ban on
all asbestos-containing products.

     Response:  Adopting these comments would increase the stringency of the
standard.  Revisions that would increase the stringency of the standard were
not considered for this proposal.  As stated in the preamble of the proposed
revisions, EPA is merely revising portions of the standard to clarify their
intent and to facilitate their enforcement.  The need for a review of control
stringency may be considered at a later date.

     Comment:  Commenter 18 asks that Section 61.146 be modified to require
the same notice to EPA of the delegated authority if any asbestos materials
are to be sprayed.

     Response:  Incorporating this comment into the standard would require
owners and operators spraying asbestos encapsulated with a bituminous or
resinous binder to notify the Administrator of their intent to spray such
materials.  In 1978, the EPA exempted materials, in which asbestos fibers are
encapsulated by a bituminous or resinous binder and that are not friable after
drying, from the provisions of Section 61.22(e) because there did not appear
to be acceptable substitutes available and any beneficial environmental impact
resulting from the prohibition of this use of asbestos would be negligible. 
The EPA is not aware of any evidence that would call into question its 1978
determination that negligible benefits would result from prohibiting the use
of encapsulated spray-on materials.  Hence, there does not appear to be any
compelling reason to require notification for the spraying of asbestos
encapsulated in bituminous or resinous materials.

                              8-1

                   9.0  INSULATING MATERIALS

     Comment:  Commenter 57 wants containers of insulating materials labeled
to show the percent asbestos of the contents.  This commenter suggests that
this would provide additional useful information to users while requiring only
minor modification of the labels already required by OSHA and/or the Consumer
Products Safety Commission (CPSC).

     Response:  The EPA believes that the OSHA labeling requirements meet the
needs of enforcement personnel.

     Comment:  Commenter 75 supports the Agency's regulation of the
manufacture and sale of asbestos-containing products under TSCA and believes
further reduction in the availability of asbestos-containing products is
warranted.

     Response:  No response is required.

                              9-1
            10.0  WASTE DISPOSAL FOR ASBESTOS MILLS

10.1  EMISSION STANDARD

     Comment:  Commenter 22 states that control device asbestos waste is not
transferred to the tailings conveyor at his facility and suggests that the
phrase "to the tailings conveyor" be deleted from Section 61.149(b).

     Response:  This provision is not a new requirement.  The NESHAP does not
require the use of a tailings conveyor.  Rather, it prohibits the discharge of
visible emissions to the outside air when and if control device asbestos waste
is transferred to a tailings conveyor.  Hence, there is no need to delete the
phrase from Section 61.149(b).

10.2  WASTE TRANSPORT

     Comment:  Two commenters are concerned with placarding and other
requirements of Section 61.149(d).  Commenter 22 states that his company moves
tailings from the mill by dump truck or earth-moving equipment to a disposal
site on company property and would like the requirements for placards, etc.,
in Section 61.149(d) changed so that it would apply only to transport to an
offsite disposal facility.

     Commenter 93 also suggests that the requirements of Section 61.149(d)
should apply only to vehicles transferring waste offsite.

     Response:  Although company personnel may not require warning that
asbestos waste is being transported, others who are on-site and who are not
company employees, e.g., vendor and construction personnel, clearly do. 
Further, OSHA requires that workers be informed of hazards to which they are
exposed.  Accordingly, EPA believes the provisions of Section 61.149(d) are
appropriate as proposed and should not be changed as suggested.

10.3  EXEMPTION FROM WETTING

     Comment:  Commenter 41 suggests that EPA clarify what the disposer of
asbestos waste is to do when he/she elects to suspend wetting when the
temperature is less than -9.5 C (15 F) beyond recording temperature on an
hourly basis.

     Response:  The disposer may continue to operate without wetting the
asbestos waste as long as the temperature is less than -9.5 C (15 F) and as
long as the disposer measures and records the temperature at least at hourly
intervals to demonstrate that it is below the threshold for the wetting
exemption.  The records of temperature measurements must be retained for at
least 2 years in a form suitable for inspection.

10.4  ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT METHOD

     Comment:  Commenter 41 notes that EPA has substituted the word
"treatment" for "disposal method" in Section 61.149(c)(2), and encourages the 

                              10-1
EPA to return to it original wording.  This commenter also notes that
criterion (2)(iv) does not include air pollution.

     Response:  The intent of Section 61.149(c)(2) is to provide a mechanism
for the approval of alternatives to the methods of emission control
specifically identified in the section.  The EPA believes that use of the term
"treatment" is an improvement because it more correctly describes the
activities contemplated that does "disposal method."  Although EPA believes
that it would be incorrect to return to the original wording, EPA has modified
(c)(2)(iv) to more clearly describe what is meant by treatment by referring to
"emission control and waste treatment methods" in place of "treatment."

                              10-2

      11.0  WASTE DISPOSAL FOR MANUFACTURING, FABRICATING,
        DEMOLITION, RENOVATION, AND SPRAYING OPERATIONS

11.1   APPLICABILITY

     Comment:  Several comments on the applicability of Section 61.150 were
received.  Commenter 2 asserts that asbestos-containing waste should be
subject to the same regulations whether from school buildings or other
buildings.  Commenter 8 asks if a vocational-technical instructor teaching
clutch and brake service is considered a waste generator, and if the conduct
of such instructional programs makes the schools subject to AHERA and the
proposed NESHAP amendments.  Commenter 15 states that transporters of waste
should be accountable for compliance with the NESHAP.  Commenter 47 wants the
waste disposal requirements revised to clearly exempt resilient floor tile
unless it is sanded.  Commenter 63 argues that Section 61.150 should be
revised to make clear that the provisions apply to waste shipment and disposal
offsite, not to temporary on-site storage awaiting shipment.

     Response:  Asbestos-containing waste is subject to the same controls
regardless of whether it originates in schools or in other buildings because
the requirements of AHERA and the NESHAP are identical.  Controls for waste
originating in schools were proposed under AHERA in order to satisfy AHERA
requirements.  The instructor teaching clutch and brake repair is not
considered a waste generator in the proposed revisions, and neither the
instructor nor the school in which the subject is taught is subject to the
rule because of the instructional activities.  Section 112 of the Clean Air
Act, the authority for the proposed revisions, does not provide for the
regulation of mobile sources, and asbestos waste in transport to a disposal
site is considered to be a mobile source.  The EPA's intent is to treat
resilient floor tile as nonfriable material unless it is sanded, and the
NESHAP identifies vinyl floor tile as nonfriable and exempts vinyl floor tile
from removal prior to demolition.  The NESHAP applies to waste shipment and
disposal either on-site or offsite.  Waste in temporary storage awaiting
shipment to a disposal site must be stored in leak-tight containers.

11.2  PLACARDS

     Comment:  The following comments were received on the subject of
placards.  

     1.  Five commenters (25, 58, 84, 89, and 98) point out that the
Department of Transportation (DOT) does not require placards on trucks
carrying asbestos waste.

     2.  Two commenters (25 and 59) comment that placarding is unnecessary
because individual containers are labeled.

     3.  Commenter 30 expresses the view that placards would have little
effect on accidental exposures, but that they cannot hurt.

                              11-1
     4.  Commenter 45 believes EPA intends the placards to be in place during
transport, but is not sure.

     5.  Two commenters (49 and 69) cite the need for consistency with DOT
requirements.

     6.  Commenters 61 and 98 assert that the term "placard" is inappropriate
because it has a specific application under DOT regulations for hazardous
waste transport, and that the proposal should be revised to maintain the
distinction between "marking" and "placarding" as was done in RCRA and TSCA
rulemakings.

     7.  Commenter 65 says that placards would alarm motorists.

     8.  Commenter 80 agrees with the proposal, but asks which party is
responsible for compliance.

     9.  Commenter 88 wants the requirements revised to exclude in-plant
vehicles from the placarding requirement.

    10.  Commenter 94 states that placing names, locations, and dates on
containers is a good idea.

     Response:  1.  It is correct that DOT does not require placards on trucks
carrying asbestos waste.  However, DOT does require a marking that, in
principle, is similar to a placard.

     2.  The EPA considers warning signs a useful means of warning the public
that asbestos waste is being loaded or unloaded.  The labels on containers
would not accomplish that objective as effectively because they are not as
easily seen from a distance.

     3.  Placards or markings on a vehicle involved in an accident would serve
to alert emergency personnel and others of a potential asbestos exposure
hazard and would allow them to take measures to minimize their exposure.

     4.  Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, EPA has no authority to
regulate mobile sources.  Therefore, the proposal requires markings during
loading and unloading, but not during transport.  The EPA would not object,
however, if transporters chose to leave the markings on the vehicles during
transport.

     5.  The EPA has discussed its plans for the use of markings with DOT and
does not consider its proposed use of markings to be in conflict with DOT
requirements.

     6.  The EPA has modified the regulation to replace the term "placard," a
term used by the DOT in its regulation of the transportation of hazardous
materials, with the term "mark" as suggested by the commenters.  This should
help avoid confusing DOT requirements with requirements under the NESHAP.

                              11-2
     7.  The EPA believes that motorists would appreciate being informed about
the contents of vehicles that share the roads with them.

     8.  The waste generator is responsible for complying with the
requirements for marking vehicles.

     9.  Because in-plant vehicles transporting asbestos waste are not immune
to accidents and spills, EPA considers markings to be an appropriate means of
warning people and intends for in-plant vehicles transporting asbestos waste
to be marked.

    10.  The EPA does not consider it necessary to include dates on container
labels because the waste tracking system and records include the date shipped
and the date received at a disposal site for individual waste shipments.

11.3  LABELING

     Comment:  Commenters 2 and 94 favor, while commenter 30 opposes as
overkill, the requirement to label all waste containers with the name and
location of the waste generator to eliminate illegal disposal of asbestos-containing waste material.  Commenter 21 asks that EPA clarify whether the
name on the label should be the building owner or the contractor.  Another
commenter asserts that labels should include the EPA identification number of
the generator.  Still another argues that requiring location is burdensome.

     Commenter 12 states that the labeling requirement for containers will
only burden legitimate operations.  Commenters 12 and 28 assert that illegal
operators will not identify the source of asbestos waste, and that this
provision would require them to have several different labels for the many
facilities they have requiring occasional abatement work.  Commenter 14 argues
that labeling is unnecessary where the generator and disposal facility are the
same.  Commenters 7, 4, 3, 59, and 62 assert that it would be unnecessary to
label containers of waste with generator information (Section 61.150(a)(1)(v))
if a waste tracking form is used.

     Commenters 18, 28, 41, and 84 recommend that EPA in Section 61.150 and
perhaps elsewhere, cite only OSHA labels and delete references to other
labels.

     Response:  The EPA considers the proposal to label waste containers with
the name and location of the generator to be a constructive approach to
improving compliance with the waste disposal regulation, to be appropriate to
the magnitude of the asbestos waste disposal problem, and to not be
burdensome.  The name on the label should be that of the generator who may be
either the facility owner (or operator) of the contractor.  Upon further
consideration, EPA has determined that the use of an EPA identification number
is unnecessary and that the name and location of the generator will meet EPA
needs for information.

     The EPA acknowledges that labeling containers will place a small,
additional burden on legitimate operators, but considers the ability to know 

                              11-3
the source of asbestos waste to be extremely important and sufficient
justification for the requirement.  The EPA agrees that labeling of name and
location of generator is inappropriate when the generator and disposal
facility are one and the same and has revised the NESHAP accordingly.  The
waste tracking forms accompanying a shipment consisting of asbestos waste from
several sources would not enable enforcement personnel to determine the source
of improperly contained waste if the containers were not labeled with
generator name and location.  

     The EPA agrees with the commenters who suggest that only OSHA labels be
required on containers and has revised the regulation accordingly.

11.4   WASTE TRACKING FORM

11.4.1  Uniformity of Existing Systems

     Comment:  Commenter 4 endorses the recordkeeping and waste tracking
systems as does commenter 84, while noting that it is more detailed than
necessary.

     Commenter 4 asserts that, for uniformity, the RCRA Uniform Hazardous
Waste Manifest should be used for tracking asbestos waste.  Commenter 4 would
change the record retention time to 3 years instead of 2 years to be
consistent with RCRA (same comment applies to Section 61.149).  Commenters 46,
58, and 83 would waive the requirement for a NESHAP waste shipment record in
those States utilizing the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest for asbestos
tracking.  Commenter 49 argues that the NESHAP regulations on shipping records
should be consistent with DOT.

     Response:  The EPA considers the level of detail in the tracking form to
be commensurate with the need for information.  Asbestos has not been
designated a RCRA hazardous waste; the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest is
used to follow the movement of hazardous waste regulated under RCRA.  The form
shown in Figure 4 is illustrative, and other forms that provide essentially
the same information would be acceptable.  A 2-year time for retention of
records was selected as reasonable and of sufficient duration for purposes of
enforcement.  Retaining the records for an additional year would serve no
useful purpose.

     Where States have their own regulation and already track asbestos as a
hazardous waste using the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest, EPA would not
expect them to make a separate NESHAP waste shipment record.  DOT categorizes
asbestos waste as an Other Regulated Materials (ORM) waste, and the amount of
information provided on the DOT-required shipping record is not sufficient for
EPA purposes.

11.4.2   Information Required

     Comment:  Commenter 21 asks EPA to identify the degree of accuracy
necessary in establishing the volume of friable materials as required by
Section 61.150(d)(1)(ii), and must nonfriable estimates be volumetric or will 

                              11-4
length or area suffice?  Commenter 28 would require that only the "quantity of
waste delivered" be recorded because the disposal vehicle is usually weighed
at the landfill to determine the disposal charge.  Commenter 28 has argued to
delete Section 61.150(d)(1)(iii) because the disposal site information can be
obtained from the notification.  Commenter 28 wants the physical location of
the disposal site specified in Section 61.150(d)(1)(iv) and would delete the
requirements to maintain records, Section 61.150(d)(2) and (3), because they
would be difficult to enforce.  Commenter 28 states that the format and
content for Figure 4, Waste Tracking Form, should be revised.

     Commenter 4 says the requirement to document the number of containers in
a waste shipment is costly, burdensome, can easily be circumvented, and may
expose disposal site employees trying to confirm the number of containers.

     Response:  The EPA considers an estimate of the volume of friable
material to be sufficient and does not expect owners/operators to go to
unusual lengths to determine the volume.  For example, knowing that a 20 cubic
yard truck is half full, 10 cubic yards can be estimated; or, if an
owner/operator knows the he/she has 50 bags containing about 2 cubic feet, 100
cubic feet or approximately 3.7 cubic yards can be estimated.  If components
of friable or nonfriable asbestos material are removed and wrapped and
delivered to a disposal site, they can abe reported as length or area, as
appropriate.  If only the "quantity of waste delivered" were reported, EPA
would be deprived of vital information to characterize the waste stream. 
Although disposal site information as required by Section 61.150(d)(1)(iii)
could be obtained from the notification, it should also be available on the
tracking form accompanying the waste shipment.  The physical site location
would be a useful addition to the information sought in Section
61.150(d)(1)(iv); EPA will revise the regulation to ask for physical site
location.  The EPA considers it most important that waste shipment records be
available for inspection by enforcement personnel.  The format of the waste
tracking form illustrated in Figure 4 will be revised in the final rule.

     The requirement to document the number of containers in a waste shipment
requires that the disposal site operator count and record only the number of
containers that are labeled as or are said to be asbestos.  The EPA does not
intend that the operator open containers to determine the presence of
asbestos.  The EPA does not consider the requirement especially costly or
burdensome, nor does it consider that counting containers would result in
employee exposures.

11.5  REPORTING, RECORDKEEPING

11.5.1   General

     Comment:  Commenters 24, 41, and 49 take the position that the additional
recordkeeping and reporting provisions will require additional manpower and
expenses without commensurate environmental benefits.  Commenter 24 states
that, if asbestos is hazardous, it should be listed as a hazardous waste and
regulated under RCRA.

                              11-5
     Response:  The EPA acknowledges that the additional recordkeeping and
reporting provisions will require additional labor; however, it takes
exception to the assertion that the environmental benefits will not be
commensurate with the additional labor.  The EPA believes that the proposed
recordkeeping and reporting provisions will increase the effectiveness of
enforcement efforts and, thereby, reduce asbestos emissions.

     There is no question that asbestos is hazardous.  It was not listed as a
RCRA hazardous waste because EPA determined that it could better regulate
asbestos waste under the Clean Air Act at this time.  At some future date,
however, EPA may decide to list asbestos as a hazardous waste under RCRA.

11.5.2   Semiannual Reports

     Comment:  Commenter 4 opposes semiannual reporting by generators or
disposal sites but recommend exception reporting by both.  Commenter 9 notes
that semiannual reporting is also redundant in view of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III regulations.  Commenters
28, 39, 41, 75, and 83 assert that EPA should delete the semiannual reporting
requirement in Section 61.150(d)(4)--it is redundant and will just add more
paperwork because the information is also provided on the waste tracking form.

     Commenters 24, 61, and 62 note that most waste shipment reporting now
occurs on an annual basis and that they prefer annual over semiannual
reporting.  Commenter 41 recommends that EPA adopt the biennial reporting used
by EPA's Office of Solid Waste (OSW).  Commenter 65 says that, if necessary,
EPA should supplement the existing biennial RCRA report.

     Commenter 63 asserts that it is unnecessary for the generator to submit
semiannual waste disposal reports.  Commenter 81 states that the proposal
imposes redundant reporting requirements on owners/operators due to Section
61.150(c)(4).

     Commenter 15 asserts that the semiannual reports required in Section
61.150(d) should be submitted by specific dates, e.g., January 31, and July 1.

     Commenter 15 believes the records should include business address as well
as name of transporter.

     Commenter 94 fears that small, rural landfills will use proposed
recordkeeping requirements as an excuse to refuse to accept asbestos waste,
which would increase illegal dumping.  The regulation in affect prior to the
January 10, 1989, proposal should be retained.

     Commenter 51 argues that industrial landfills on-site that are subject to
RCRA and State statutes should be exempt from the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements of Section 61.150(d).  Commenter 55 says that paragraph 61.150(d)
does not define adequately who keeps disposal records and who submits
semiannual reports.  Commenter 55 feels that building owners are unfamiliar
with the report called for in Section 61.150(d)(4).

                              11-6
     Response:  The EPA has reconsidered the matter of semiannual reports and
had determined that, because it is unlikely that the enforcement resources
needed to make effective use of a semiannual reporting system will be
available in the near future, this part of the proposal should be withdrawn. 
Enforcement agencies will still be able to identify violators by comparing the
waste records required to be maintained at the generator and disposal sites.

11.6  EPA IDENTIFICATION NUMBER

     Comment:  Several comments addressed the proposal to assign
identification numbers to generators of asbestos waste.  Most of the
commenters find the requirement confusing.  Commenters 9 and 49 state that the
system of using EPA identification numbers is confusing and misleading and
should be subject to public comment rather than tacked onto the final version
of the amendments.  Commenter 25 wonders how the system is to operate and
would they use the number they already have for hazardous waste.  Commenter 26
is unclear as to who the generator would be and suggests that the abatement
contractors should be considered the generator.  Commenter 28 thinks that this
requirement would generate a list of one-time generators, and that it should
be deferred for further study.  Commenter 41 asks if RCRA hazardous waste
identification numbers were going to be assigned to asbestos waste generators. 
As explained by commenter 61, not all generators will have an EPA
identification number as required in Section 61.150(d)(1)(i) and (4)(i). 
Commenters 62 and 63 express confusion over the proposed identification number
and urge that a single number be assigned to an entire company, rather than to
each building or facility.  Commenter 18 asks how the identification numbers
are to be determined and assigned; is it to be done now; and, if the program
is delegated to a State or local program, would this require a State
identification number?

     Response:  Because of the confusion expressed by all the commenters over
how a system of assigning identification numbers to asbestos waste generators
would work, EPA has reconsidered this provision and has decided to delete this
requirement.  The EPA is confident that, even without such a unique numbering
system, it will be possible to track waste shipments for the purpose of
pursuing enforcement actions.

11.7   BROKEN, NONFRIABLE MATERIAL--SECTION 61.150(A)(3)

     Comment:  The following comments on broken, nonfriable material were
received.

     1.  The EPA has estimated that fiber emissions from broken asbestos
cement products are significant, while the National Association of Demolition
Contractors (NADC) has estimated that they are not.  A simple, economical test
is needed to determine the significance of asbestos emissions from broken
asbestos-cement products.

     2.  Commenters 5 and 27 state that treating broken, nonfriable material
as friable asbestos will significantly increase the costs of demolitions.  

                              11-7
These additional costs should be specifically addressed before the regulation
is finalized.

     3.  Commenter 30 days that the determination of what broken, nonfriable
material should be treated as friable should be left to the discretion of the
inspector.

     4.  Commenter 47 argues that Section 61.150(a)(3), the requirement to
treat broken, nonfriable material, should be revised to state that it does not
apply to resilient floor covering unless sanding occurs.  Commenter 49 wants
the list of materials in Section 61.145(a)(5) that cannot become friable
expanded to include transite and asbestos-cement products.

     5.  Commenter 93 asserts that product edges are essentially the same for
nonfriable ACM whether broken or not.

     Response:  1.  The EPA continues to consider asbestos-cement products to
be a potentially significant source of fiber release under circumstances that
lead to its being crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder (e.g., being hit
with a wrecking ball).  The EPA agrees that a test to determine the
significance of such emissions is needed.  However, such a test is not
available at this time, nor is EPA aware of such a test that is forthcoming in
the near future.

     2.  The EPA is aware that nonfriable ACM that is broken is not
necessarily a significant source of asbestos fiber release.  To avoid the
confusion that would likely be caused by use of the term "broken," EPA has
deleted it from the regulation.  Furthermore, in clarifying its position on
the handling and treatment of nonfriable asbestos material, EPA requires that
all ACM be removed prior to demolition.  Certain nonfriable materials, such as
resilient floor covering are exempt from this requirement.  Other nonfriable
materials that are likely to become crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder
during a demolition, including nonfriable materials, Section 61.150(a)(3), the
provision to treat the broken edges of nonfriable materials, was deleted.  The
EPA believes this revision will help to clarify the regulation and is
consistent with its policy regarding nonfrible materials.

     3.  To the extent that it can do so, EPA intends to explicitly exempt
from the rule certain nonfriable materials, such as asphalt roofing and floor
tile.  The need to remove and dispose of other nonfriable materials will
continue to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

     4.  It is the EPA's intent to exempt nonfriable resilient floor tile that
is in good condition from the NESHAP requirements for demolition and
renovation, including waste disposal, unless it is sanded or abraded.  The EPA
considers transite and asbestos-cement products as nonfriable materials that
are potential sources of asbestos emissions when they are crumbled,
pulverized, or reduced to powder in the course of demolition and renovation
operations; they are not exempt from the demolition and renovation provisions. 
(See 7.1.1, Asbestos-Containing Material.)

                              11-8
     5.  Use of term "broken" has led to some confusion over EPA's policy
regarding nonfriable materials.  The EPA intends to cover material that would
be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder during demolition or renovation. 
The EPA agrees with the commenter, and the term "broken" has been deleted from
the regulation.

11.8   ASBESTOS-CONTAINING WASTE MATERIAL

     Comment:  The following comments on asbestos-containing waste material
were received.

     1.  Commenters 2 and 10 observe that all nonfriable materials can be
broken, crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder in the course of operations
regulated by this subpart, and commenter 2 says that the definition of
asbestos-containing materials should be modified accordingly.

     2.  Commenter 47 would like to exclude resilient floor covering from the
definition of asbestos-containing waste material unless it is sanded.

     3.  Commenter 95 believes that the exceptions at Section 61.150(b)(3) of
the proposed revisions to the regulation apply to resilient tile unless it is
sanded.

     4.  Commenter 93 would like Section 61.150(b) revised to eliminate
language that is redundant with the proposed definition of asbestos-containing
waste materials.

     5.  Commenter 79 states that the application of Section 61.150(b) to
asbestos-containing waste from natural draft cooling towers in the electric
utility industry would represent a significant burden.  In periods between
maintenance, some of the several thousand asbestos-cement boards that make up
the tower become damaged, and pieces fall into the base of the tower and
become mixed with the soil.  It is not possible to determine what portions of
the soil do or do not contain asbestos, and it would be necessary to treat it
all-several thousand cubic yards--as asbestos-containing waste material. 
Commenter 79 expresses concern that they will use up too much landfill
capacity.  The commenter recommends that EPA review this issue in greater
detail, provide a mechanism by which the regulated community can demonstrate
that this material does not pose a threat to the environment, and allow an
exemption from Section 61.150(b).

     Response:  1.  The EPA agrees that in theory all nonfriable materials can
be broken, crushed, etc.  As a practical matter, however, some asbestos-containing materials, such as floor tile, are not expected to be so badly
damaged during demolition that they would release significant levels of
asbestos fibers.  To accommodate such exceptions, EPA has revised the
definition of asbestos-containing waste material to exempt nonfriable
resilient floor covering, asphalt roofing, packings, and gaskets that are from
demolition and renovation operations.

                              11-9
     2.  The EPA agrees and the definition of asbestos-containing waste
material has been revised to clarify its intent not to regulate certain
nonfriable materials.

     3.  The EPA agrees with the commenter.

     4.  The EPA agrees that Section 61.150(b) is redundant in that it repeats
some part of the definition of asbestos-containing waste material and has
revised the paragraph accordingly.

     5.  The asbestos-cement pieces that break off the boards and fall into
the base of the tower in periods between maintenance are not subject to the
NESHAP and can remain there indefinitely.  The EPA would consider maintenance,
in which cement boards are replaced, a renovation, and any asbestos-cement
material removed on such occasions would have to be handled in accordance with
the provisions of this rule.  Also, EPA would consider removal of the
asbestos-contaminated soil sediment a renovation subject to the provisions of
this rule.

11.9   WORK PRACTICES

11.9.1  Asbestos Not Removed Prior to Demolition

     Comment:  Two comments were received on the subject of handling asbestos
not removed prior to demolition.

     1.  Commenter 68 believe Section 61.150(a)(4) should require asbestos
waste from demolitions involving facility components encased in concrete,
areas not accessible prior to demolition, and facilities demolished under
government orders to be packaged in leak-tight containers.

     2.  Commenter 20 recommends that the reference to Section
61.145(c)(1)(ii) (materials not accessible prior to demolition) be deleted
from Section 61.150(a)(4).

     Response:  1. The EPA requires asbestos waste not removed prior to
demolition to be wetted, it cannot be removed.  Following demolition, the
volumes of asbestos-containing waste are expected to be quite large because
the asbestos will be mixed with large amount of debris.  The EPA considers the
amounts of asbestos-containing waste to be too large to require the use of
leak-proof containers.

     2.  Materials not accessible prior to demolition must be adequately
wetted.  The EPA sees no reason to delete the reference to inaccessible
material in the waste disposal provisions of Section 61.150(a), which
specifies procedures for handling and treating asbestos that was left in a
facility during demolition.         

                             11-10
11.9.2  Waste Containers

     Comment:  Commenter 41 notes that the leak-tight bags required by Section
61.150 are often torn open at the disposal site while being covered and
concludes that bags are, therefore, impractical and inconsistent with safe
waste disposal.

     Response:  The revisions do not require bags; they require leak-tight
containers, which may be bags.  When properly handled and treated with
reasonable care, bags are appropriate containers.  After disposal, any
container will deteriorate.

11.9.3  Wetting Process       

     Comment:  1.  Commenter 4 asks that the revisions clarify that material
contained in leak-tight wrapping does not need to be opened or unwrapped and
wetted.

     2.  Commenter 28 would revise Section 61.150(a)(3) to require that
nonfriable asbestos waste material be adequately wetted while being loaded for
transport to a disposal site.

     Response:  1.  Section 61.145(c)(6)(iv) already addresses this point. 
The EPA will also prepare additional information on this to assist all
affected parties.

     2.  In an effort to clarify how EPA intends for nonfriable materials to
be handled and disposed of, the regulation has been revised at several places. 
Some of these revisions have already been discussed.  For example, the
definitions of "asbestos-containing material" and "asbestos-containing waste
material" were revised to clarify that nonfriable resilient floor covering,
roofing, packings, and gaskets that are not in poor condition are exempt from
the removal and waste disposal requirements.  Also, EPA has deleted from the
regulation the word "broken" where it was used to explain under what
conditions nonfriable materials were covered.  The EPA has also modified the
regulation stating that actions are necessary if nonfriable material (other
than those exempted nonfriable materials) are left in a facility that is
demolished and the material becomes crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder
by the demolition.  In this case, the material would have to be removed and
treated as friable asbestos, if possible, or the entire pile of debris
contaminated with asbestos would have to be kept wet and disposed of in an
acceptable landfill.  These revisions will help to clarify the requirements of
Section 61.150(a)(3).

11.9.4  Transport of Waste

     Comment:  Three comments on transport of waste were received.

     1.  Commenter 2 says that the NESHAP should be amended to adopt DOT rules
for transporting asbestos-containing waste, i.e., fully enclosed dropboxes and
no open truck hauling.

                             11-11
     2.  Commenter 26 says that it would be beneficial to specify the type of
vehicle used for hauling asbestos waste, such as a covered roll-off container
or an enclosed truck.   

     3.  Commenter 2 would like the practice of uncontrolled dumping of small
loads of asbestos waste into a larger vehicle at transfer stations banned
immediately.

     Response:  1.  The EPA is not aware of such DOT regulations for asbestos
waste.

     2.  The recommended revision would affect stringency.  The purpose of
this rulemaking is to clarify and promote compliance with the rule.  The need
for revisions that alter stringency may be considered at a later date.

     3.  Transfer stations were outside the scope of this rulemaking.  They
may be considered during future rulemakings.

11.9.5  Processing Waste

     Comment:  Three comments on the subject of processing waste were
received.

     1.  Commenter 18 says that, unless demolition/renovation waste is
processed into nonfriable forms, Section 61.150(a)(2) should be deleted from
the proposal.  Commenter 65 considers the requirement to process asbestos
waste into nonfriable material (Section 61.150(a)(2)) confusing.

     2.  Commenter 84 disagrees with requiring control device wastes to be
wetted or mixed to form a slurry because some landfills prohibit liquid
wastes.

     Response:  1.  The revisions do not require asbestos waste to be
processed into nonfriable material.  Section 61.150(a) does require owners or
operators to discharge no visible emissions or use one of the treatments
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of the section, one of which is
processing asbestos waste into a nonfriable form.

     2.  Paragraph 61.150(a)(1) does not require control device waste to be
wetted or mixed to form a slurry; it is a compliance option that may be
selected by an owner or operator.  The EPA also notes that wet collectors are
employed as control devices at some facilities and that the collected material
is in the form of a slurry.

11.9.6  Control Options

     Comment: Five comments on the subject of control options were received.

     1.  Commenter 18 argues that all material should be adequately wetted and
that the reference to Section 61.152 should be removed.

                             11-12
     2.  Commenters 54, 70, and 94 say that the regulation should require both
no visible emissions and work practices.

     3.  Commenter 84 states that the regulation at Section 61.150(a) appears
to contradict itself because visible emissions would be a failure to implement
the requirement for adequate wetting.

     Response:  1.  If this comment were adopted, it would increase the
stringency of the standard by eliminating a control option.  The intention of
these revisions is to revise portions of the standard that are not risk-based
to clarify their intent and to facilitate their enforcement.  The EPA may
consider the need for a review of control stringency at a later date.

     2.  See response no. 1.

     3.  The EPA sees no contradiction between the two compliance
alternatives, i.e., no visible emissions and the adequate wetting work
practice.  Choosing the visible emission limit to comply with places no
restriction on the method for achieving it.  For example, at a plant
manufacturing asbestos brakes, rejected brakes can be collected for disposal
without producing visible emissions, even when handled dry because they are
nonfriable.  At the same time, choosing to comply with the adequate wetting
alternative does not contradict the no visible emission limit option because
the part of the defining language for "adequately wet, is only a measure of
how well the wetting was performed.  Furthermore, the NESHAP in effect prior
to the January 10, 1989, proposal prohibited visible emissions during the
wetting operation, unless controlled by an air cleaning device.

11.9.7  Alternative Methods

     Comment:  Commenter 4 says that the regulation should allow the
Administrator to approve alternative removal, handling, and treatment methods.

     Response:  Paragraph 61.150(a)(5) provides for the use of alternative
treatments that have received prior approval of the Administrator.  The
procedure to follow to obtain Administrator is prescribed in paragraph
61.149(c)(2).

11.9.8  General

     Comment:  Commenter 57 would like the regulation to be more specific and
cover areas such as when to bag waste, removal of excess air from bags, use of
goose-neck sealing, and storage.

     Response:  The recommended coverage is outside the scope of this
rulemaking.

11.10   ON-SITE DISPOSAL

     Comment:  Four commenters (3, 46, 49, and 64) state that, because they
own the landfills they use for disposing of their asbestos, it does not seem 

                             11-13
necessary to label all waste containers with the name and location of the
generator.  They also believe that they should retain the landfill's copy of
the waste tracking form, and that the manifest requirements should be waived
where the waste is generated and disposed of on-site.  Commenter 49 argues
that placarding of vehicles should not be required for on-site disposal.      

     Response:  The EPA recognizes that the circumstances of on-site disposal
are different from off-site disposal.  The EPA's interest is to have a record
of the quantities of asbestos waste disposed of and its location.  The EPA
will adjust the language of the proposed rule to address the special
circumstances of on-site disposal.

     In the matter of placarding, EPA believes the requirement is appropriate
as proposed.  Although company personnel may not require warning that asbestos
waste is being transported, other persons on-site who are not company
employees, e.g., vendors and construction workers, clearly do.  Further, OSHA
requires that workers be informed of hazards to which they are exposed.

11.11  OFFSITE DISPOSAL

     Comment:  Because small entities will not operate their own landfill,
commenter 4 argues that they would bear a disproportionate share of the
increased disposal cost, calling Regulatory Flexibility Act provisions into
play.

     Response:  The EPA agrees that there will be some increase in disposal
costs.  However, EPA's analysis indicates that the increases in cost and the
nature of the demolition services industry are such that no significantly
disproportionate impacts will be experienced by smaller entities.

11.12  HOLDING TIME

     Comment:  Three commenters (15, 21, and 54) submitted comments on the
subject of holding time.  They recommend that a timeframe for disposal be
specified (e.g., not more than 5 days from the last day that asbestos is
stripped or removed), that a timeframe or holding time also be specified for
manufacturing and fabricating sources, and that the rule require waste to be
deposited as soon as possible rather than as soon as practical at a disposal
site.

     Response:  Because of the varying lengths of time needed to accumulate
enough waste to economically transport waste to a disposal site, EPA believes
it is less burdensome to allow the waste generator to decide when to take
waste to a disposal site.  Waste that is being held for transport must be
properly contained and, therefore, does not pose a public health threat.

                             11-14

11.13  FORMAT

     Comment:  Commenter 18 recommends that the disposal standards in Section
61.150 be separate for renovation and demolition operations.

     Response:  The EPA considers the waste treatment methods and requirements
in Section 61.150 to be applicable in whole or in part to waste disposal for
manufacturing, fabricating, demolition, renovation, and spraying operations. 
Although reader confusion might be reduced somewhat, it would be offset by the
redundant language necessitated by separating waste disposal for renovation
and demolition benefits of the recommendation to be minimal and, therefore,
has decided not to adopt it.

11.14  RESPONSIBILITY FOR COMPLIANCE

     Comment:  Section 61.150(a) should be revised to clearly indicate that a
good-faith effort by a generator will not result in liability for the actions
of the transporter or disposal site that are beyond the generator's legal
control.

     Response:  It is not EPA's intention to hold the generator liable for the
actions of the transporter or the disposal site operator.  The final rule is
revised to clarify this point.  However, the waste generator is responsible
for selecting an acceptable disposal site.

11.15  ENFORCEMENT

     Comment:  Commenter 30 questions whose responsibility it is to check the
accuracy of generator waste shipment records against those of the disposal
site.  They also ask who will pay for it and how much time will it take, and
suggest charging a permit fee for demolition and renovation.

     Response:  The EPA or the delegated authority for enforcing the NESHAP
will have the responsibility of checking waste shipment records.  Agreement
between the records of the generator and the disposal site are not a critical
issue because, in most instances, the disposal site's records will be a copy
of the record originated by the generator.  A primary purpose of the records
will be to allow inspectors to determine if the waste shipped by a particular
generator reaches the disposal site designated on both the notification and
the waste shipment record at the generator's site.  The cost of examining
these records will be borne by the enforcing agency as part of their normal
inspection procedures.  Although the NESHAP does not address the use of permit
fees to offset enforcement costs, States and local governments are not
prohibited from initiating a permit system.

11.16  GENERAL

     Comment:  Two general comments on waste disposal were received.

                             11-15
     1.  Commenter 57 states that EPA's Asbestos Waste Management Guidance
document contains several recommendations that should be incorporated into the
revised NESHAP.

     2.  Commenter 87 suggests that EPA supply waste generators with a list of
disposal sites that meet the NESHAP requirements.

     Response:  1.  The NESHAP was revised to incorporate some of the
recommendations in the Asbestos Waste Management Guidance document; e.g., the
proposed waste tracking system is similar to those found in the Guidance. 
However, the recommendations for decontaminating the outside of containers and
double bagging would increase the stringency of the standards.  Other
recommendations dealing with waste transport and authorized under AHERA are
not authorized under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, which is the legal
authority for NESHAPs.

     2.  Most State agencies can identify disposal sites that meet the
requirements of the asbestos NESHAP.  Generators of asbestos waste should
contact their State environmental and/or health agency to obtain the name and
location of the nearest disposal site.

                             11-16
              12.0  INACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL SITES

12.1  APPLICABILITY

     Comment:  Three comments on the subject of applicability were received.

     1.  Commenter 45 states that the proposal expands the coverage of Section
61.151 to include demolition and renovation waste, while Commenter 84 says
that the section should also apply to demolition and renovation waste.

     2.  Commenter 45 notes that Section 61.151(e) could be interpreted to
apply to existing inactive sites within 60 days after the rule is promulgated.

     Response:  1.  Section 61.151 applies only to inactive disposal sites
operated by the owners or operators of mills and manufacturing and fabricating
operations.  It does not apply to inactive disposal sites that are operated by
demolition/renovation or other sources.  Expanding the coverage of Section
61.151 to include the numerous landfills that have received asbestos-containing waste in the past is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

     2.  The EPA intends that Section 61.151(e) cover sites that become
inactive after the effective date of this rulemaking.

12.2  WORK PRACTICES

     Comment:  Two comments on work practices were received.

     1.  Commenter 22 requests clarification as to whether the NESHAP applies
to asbestos mining operations and/or ore.

     2.  Commenter 41 wants paragraph 61.151(d) amended to discourage
activities that disturb waste.

     Response:  1.  The rule applies to mills and manufacturing and
fabricating operations, but not to mines.

     2.  Because the Administrator's written approval must be obtained prior
to disturbing asbestos-containing waste material at a disposal site, adding an
admonition to avoid disturbing waste seems unnecessary.

12.3  RECORDKEEPING, REPORTING

     Comment:  Three comments on the subject of recordkeeping and reporting
were received.

     1.  Commenter 22 asserts that the requirement to record a notation on the
property deed, Section 61.151(e), should not apply to a mill with on-site
tailings disposal on a continuing basis, but perhaps could be a post-closure
requirement.

                              12-1

     2.  Commenter 84 would delete Section 61.151(e)(2) because the only
important information is that asbestos is in the landfill; a general
disclosure of the presence of asbestos should suffice.

     3.  Commenter 80 supports the requirement to note on the property deed
when a site was used for asbestos waste disposal.  They request that the final
rule be clear as to the level of detail required in such deed notation and
recommends it be of a general nature.

     Response:  1.  The requirement does not apply to active waste disposal
sites, only to inactive disposal sites.

     2.  The EPA considers the information called for in Section 61.151(e)(2)
necessary to fully inform potential purchasers that the property has been used
for the disposal of asbestos.  Information on the quantity of asbestos and its
location would enable subsequent owners to make informed and prudent decisions
about the use of the land and parts thereof.

     3.  The EPA agrees with the commenter and considers the information
required on the deed to be general in nature with the more detailed
information on file with EPA.

12.4  NATURAL BARRIERS

     Comment:  One comment was received on Section 61.151(b)(3) that points
out that the word "deters" was omitted from the last line of Section
61.151(b)(3) between "adequately" and "access."

     Response:  This omission has been corrected.

12.5  EXCAVATION OF ASBESTOS WASTE

     Comment:  During internal review of the proposed regulation, the
requirement to obtain Administrator approval before excavating a disposal site
containing asbestos waste was questioned; notification was suggested as being
sufficient.

     Response:  After consideration of the comment, EPA has decided to require
that a notification be sent instead of requiring approval to excavate.  The
EPA believes that requiring notification will be less intrusive for the
regulated community and that adequate advance notice to EPA can be given to
provide enforcement personnel with an opportunity to evaluate the controls and
to inspect these sources.  The same change is being made in the provisions for
active waste disposal sites.

                              12-2
                       13.0  AIR CLEANING

     Comment:  Commenter 22 says that EPA should not try to regulate an
invention, that they have small baghouses that cannot be inspected without
creating excessive dust and exposure, and that any faulty bags result in
emissions that would be detected in minimal time.  Commenter 22 wants Section
61.152(a)(3) deleted.

     Response:  This section applies to fabric filters installed after the
date of this proposal and requires only that provision be made for easy
inspection.  The EPA recognizes that many baghouses are too small to walk into
to inspect bags.  For such devices, inspection ports or removable panels could
provide a means for visual inspection of the bags.  The costs of such
modifications would be minimal.

                              13-1
                       14.0  REPORTING   

     Comment:  Commenter 28 recommends that tonnage of waste be included in
the reporting required by Section 61.153(a)(4)(ii).

     Response:  The proposal specifies cubic meters (cubic yards) because EPA
believes it is easier for waste generators to determine or estimate volume
than weight because they know the capacities of containers and transport
vehicles.  Not all generators or disposal sites will have the means to
determine weight.  Volume is specified in Section 61.153 in order to be
consistent with Sections 61.149 and 61.150.

                              14-1

                  15.0  ACTIVE DISPOSAL SITES

15.1   COSTS

     Comment:  Two comments were received on the subject of NADC's suggestions
on cost reduction.

     Commenter 2 states that NADC's suggestion to reduce special handling and
recordkeeping provisions in order to reduce disposal costs and emissions from
waste has no merit.  Commenter 30 considers loosening the requirements for
friable materials unthinkable, but that separate handling with less stringent
controls might be an option for nonfriable ACM.

     Response:  The EPA considers the requirements in Section 61.154 to be
necessary in view of the estimated 227,000 kg/yr of asbestos emissions from
waste disposal and the small associated costs.  The EPA also notes that many
disposal sites are currently operated in compliance with the proposed
requirements.

15.2   WORK PRACTICES

     Comment:  Most of the comments submitted regarding work practices at
disposal site favored more stringent controls.

     1.  Commenter 2 argues that the requirements to segregate asbestos-containing waste material should be more stringent to avoid problems later
caused by nonasbestos leachate and the need to excavate the site for remedial
action.  Commenter 54 also recommends against the mixing of asbestos and
municipal waste and notes that this would ensure the integrity of containers
during covering operations.

     Commenter 24 recommends that EPA reconsider the use of petroleum dust
suppressants that is being prohibited in some areas.  Commenter 83 explains
that Section 61.154(c)(2), which permits the use "of resinous or petroleum-based dust suppression agents" at waste sites, is in direct conflict with
their State regulations.

     Commenter 84 argues that the standard for active disposal sites continues
to allow no visible emissions or work practices, as well as other hazardous
operations.  They assert that the requirements should be revised to include
other available control measures such as trenches, prohibiting compacting
until covered, and careful handling of containers.

     Commenter 41 recommends that EPA require covering waste in a manner that
avoids rupturing bags.

     Commenter 54 recommends that disposal site requirements be revised to
require that disposal sites have no visible emissions, that material be
covered more frequently than once per 24 hours, and that dust suppressants be
used between coverings.  Commenter 57 recommends covering broken containers 

                              15-1
immediately and all other waste at least twice every 24 hours to prevent wind 
erosion.  Commenter 54 notes that, because "leak-tight" containers can break,
control of emissions should be addressed during the unloading and deposition
of asbestos-containing waste.

     Commenter 57 argues that the final cover requirements should be revised
consistent with EPA's Waste Management Guidance document, and the waste
disposal practices contained in EPA's Waste Management Guidance document
(incorporated as App. D. to AHERA regulations, Subpart E, 40 CFR 763) should
be incorporated into the NESHAP.

     Commenter 57 recommends that disposal sites be fenced with 6-foot high,
chain link fence topped with barbed wire.

     2.  Commenter 89 argues that an inconsistency exists between Sections
61.154 (active disposal sites) and 61.151 (inactive sites) in that Section
61.151 (a)(4) only permits the use of dust suppression agents for tailings at
inactive sites, while Section 61.154(c)(2) permits their use at active
disposal sites for all asbestos waste (which includes tailings).

     3.  Commenter 41 suggests clarifying Section 61.154(c)(1) by inserting 
"or 6 inches" after "Be covered with at least 15 centimeters."

     4.  Commenter 80 notes that the proposal would prohibit asbestos waste in
a landfill from being disturbed without prior EPA approval.  They recommend
that EPA define "disturbing" as used in Section 61.154 (k) and clarify the
prohibition against disturbing waste so that it does not apply to the
installation of gas controls, leachate collection equipment, or similar
devices at landfills containing asbestos waste.

     Response:  1.  Although EPA agrees that many of the recommended revisions
are desirable, they would increase the stringency of the regulation.  The
purpose of the revisions proposed on January 10, 1989, is to promote
compliance and enhance enforcement and not to alter the stringency.  The need
for revisions that will affect stringency and bring the waste disposal
requirements more in line with current practices may be considered at a later
date.

     2.  The EPA permits the use of dust suppressants on inactive tailings
piles because it is not feasible to expect that these large piles could be
economically covered with nonasbestos material.  Furthermore, the surface of
asbestos tailings piles forms a hard crust when left exposed and, in
combination with the use of dust suppressants, presents a surface unlikely to
erode.  For inactive landfills, it is already common practice to use a final
cover of nonasbestos material.  The EPA also allows an active site to use a
dust suppressant at the end of each working day instead of a nonasbestos
cover.  The commenter saw no difference between this and the use of dust
suppressants as a final cover on tailings piles.  However, EPA considers the
use of dust suppressants on active sites on a daily basis as appropriate
because additional waste will be placed on top of the existing waste, helping 

                              15-2
to prevent asbestos emissions.  Although EPA believes that the provisions for 
active and inactive sites are protective of public health, EPA will consider
revisions in a later rulemaking to bring the NESHAP more in line with current
waste disposal practices.

     3.  For consistency among all EPA documents, it is EPA policy to use
metric units in all of its regulations and other documents, followed by the
equivalent English units in parenthesis.
 
     4.  The EPA agrees with this commenter that what constitutes "disturbing"
asbestos waste should be clarified.  Because the term "disturb" is used
elsewhere in the regulation in connection with other activities, a definition
might be confusing.  Instead, EPA will define the term where it occurs in the
regulation in order to avoid unnecessarily affecting other nonrelated
provisions.

     The EPA disagrees with the commenter's suggestion to exclude activities
such as the installation of collection or monitoring systems from the
definition of "disturb."  These kinds of activities should occur infrequently
in an asbestos-only landfill and are normally associated with the initial
construction of a landfill.

15.3   RESPONSIBILITY FOR COMPLIANCE

     Comment:  Four comments were received on the subject of disposal site
owner/operator responsibility for disposal.

     1.  Commenters 2, 17, and 23 believe that making the disposal site owner
or operator responsible for complying with the NESHAP disposal requirements
will help to ensure better compliance.

     2.  Commenter 30 acknowledges that this change could be very useful, but
fears that it may force some public landfills to close due to liability
concerns.

     Response:  1.  The EPA agrees with this comment.  The revision was
proposed because EPA recognized that it was extremely difficult for waste
generators to ensure compliance with the disposal requirements of the NESHAP.

     2.  Although it is possible that some disposal sites may increase
disposal charges or refuse to accept asbestos waste as a result of this
proposed change, EPA considers it unlikely that public landfills will cease
operating.

15.4   VERIFYING DISCREPANCIES ON MANIFEST

     Comment:  1.  Commenter 19 asks how waste disposal site representatives
will realistically be able to confirm the description of materials (Item 4,
Figure 4), especially if the waste is in opaque plastic bags or cardboard
drums?

                              15-3
     2.  Commenter 80 expresses concern over the discrepancy and certification
requirements being imposed on landfill owners and operators.  They state that,
if there is a discrepancy in a waste tracking form, and it is reported to EPA
by the landfill operator, EPA should pursue and take appropriate action
against the generator.  They comment that this responsibility should not be
shifted to the landfill operator.

     Commenter 80 argues that landfill operators should not bear the
responsibility of independent verification of information already certified as
accurate by the waste generator as required by Section 61.145(e)(4).  They
claim that requiring the landfill facility to reevaluate and verify this
information, other than in general terms, would take an inordinate amount of
time and unnecessarily increase worker exposure.  They explain that the
requirement to certify the accuracy of the total quantity of waste shipped
would be impossible in most situations because most generators and disposal
facilities do not have weight scales.  They suggest that the final rule
require checking for discrepancies only in general terms.  Commenter 80 also
argues that the disposal site not have to certify the accuracy of statements
made by the generator on the waste tracking form.  The EPA should require the
generator certification to be made under penalty of law, as is done under
other EPA programs, e.g., RCRA and the land disposal restrictions program.

     Response:  1.  The EPA does not expect the disposal site owner/operator
to risk exposure to asbestos to confirm the contents of bags of waste.  They
only need to confirm that the bags of asbestos or bags said to be asbestos are
labeled as such and, in general terms, the quantity.

     2.  The EPA agrees with the commenter's assertion that, after a
discrepancy has been reported to EPA by the disposal site, it is the
responsibility of the enforcement agency to follow it up.

     Regarding commenter 80's concern with verification responsibility, EPA
intends, as stated above, that the disposal site verify the waste contents in
general terms, for example, to note when there is a gross discrepancy between
the amount of waste reported and the amount actually received.

15.5   INSPECTION OF WASTE

     Comment:  The suggestion by NADC (commenter 2) that disposal sites should
accept asbestos-containing waste material and not question its source or
condition will encourage improper disposal of materials other than asbestos-containing waste material.  Disposal site inspection procedures should be
strengthened.

     Response:  Although it is possible that adoption of the NADC suggestion
might lead to the improper disposal of other materials, EPA does not consider
it likely that such practice would be widespread given the legal sanctions
that would be imposed on an offender upon apprehension.  The EPA considers the
inspections called for in Section 61.154 to be appropriately stringent.

                              15-4
15.6   INSPECTION AND RECEIPT

     Comment:  Commenter 2 suggests that the inspection and receiving of
asbestos-containing waste material be performed in a facility kept under
negative pressure and exhausted to a HEPA filter.

     Response:  The purpose of the revisions proposed on January 10, 1989, is
to promote compliance and enhance enforcement of the NESHAP.  This suggestion
would increase the stringency of the standard and is outside the scope of this
rulemaking.

15.7   GENERAL

     Comment:  Three comments of a general nature were received on Section
61.154.

     1.  Commenter 10 notes, as pointed out by EPA, that it is the asbestos
waste segment that accounts for most asbestos emissions and is in need of
additional regulation.

     2.  Commenter 75 suggests using Section 61.154 only as a guideline for
waste disposal sites.  Commenters 75 and 83 feel that the revision would
increase disposal costs, causing some firms to dispose of waste by less than
appropriate methods, and causing some disposal sites to stop accepting
asbestos.

     Response:  1.  The EPA considers the proposed Section 61.154 appropriate
to the regulatory need that it addresses.

     2.  The EPA believes that guidance alone would be insufficient and that
regulations are necessary to compel behavior in the interest of public health. 
Although it is possible that some operators may attempt to dispose of waste
improperly, EPA does not consider it likely that such a practice would be
widespread given the legal sanctions that can be imposed for violating this
regulation.  The EPA acknowledges that some disposal sites have stopped
accepting asbestos waste.  However, EPA does not expect waste disposal sites
in general to respond to this regulation by ceasing to accept asbestos waste.

     Comment:  Two comments were received on the use of the term "NESHAP
landfill."  Commenter 64 says the use of term "NESHAP landfill" in the
preamble is not consistent with "active waste disposal sites" in Section
61.154, and that there is no such thing as a "NESHAP landfill."  Commenter 80
says the use of the term is unclear and should be defined in the final rule.

     Response:  By "NESHAP landfill" EPA meant a landfill operated in
compliance with the provisions of this regulation.  The EPA agrees that there
is no such thing as a "NESHAP landfill" and was referring to landfills that
were acceptable disposal sites under the NESHAP.

     Comment:  Commenter 4 observes that over 99 percent of all asbestos
emissions result from improper asbestos waste disposal methods, concludes that 

                              15-5
numerous, convenient, cost-effective disposal sites are the key to reduction
of emissions, and supports regulation changes that affect this goal.

     Response:  Additional, conveniently located, and cost-effective disposal
sites would facilitate disposal of asbestos-containing waste material.

15.8   RECORDKEEPING, REPORTING

15.8.1   Asbestos Waste Tracking System-Form

     Comment:  Commenter 19 thinks that instead of "operator," there should be
a "contractor" who is performing the work and who should have the EPA ID
number in Figure 4, Item 2.

     Response:  See the response to Section 11.6 of this BID.

15.8.2   Waste Volume

     Comment:  Commenter 21 requests that EPA clarify that the record of
volume of waste received [Section 154(e)(1)(iii)] is an actual volume (or bag
count) of waste, not the volume of the roll-off container or transport
vehicle.  They also suggested clarifying the degree of accuracy consistent
with Section 61.150(d)(1)(ii).

     Response:  The commenter is correct in that the reported volume should be
that of the waste and not the volume of the transport vehicle.  Furthermore,
EPA agrees that volume units are more likely to be used rather than area or
linear units because the waste will typically be in containers and volume is
likely to be the only unit of measurement that can be determined with
consistency at the disposal site.

15.8.3   Retention of Forms

     Comment:  1.  Commenter 28 recommends that, in place of the recordkeeping
required in Section 61.154(e), EPA should require that a copy of the waste
tracking form be kept as required in Section 61.150(d)(1).

     2.  Commenter 80 agrees with the requirement that landfill operators send
a copy of a signed waste shipment record back to the generator.

     Response:  1.  The EPA intends that the disposal sites do just as the
commenter is recommending.

     2.  No response is necessary.

15.8.4   Reporting Improperly Contained Waste

     Comment:  Commenters 15 and 28 recommend that the owner/operator be
required to notify EPA immediately if "improperly enclosed or uncovered waste"
is encountered as in Section 61.154(e)(iv).

                              15-6
     Response:  The EPA agrees with these comments on the need to report
immediately to EPA whenever a shipment of improperly contained waste is
received and has added such a requirement.  The EPA believes that the prompt
reporting of such violations will aid enforcement efforts against waste 
generators who do not comply with the NESHAP requirements for packaging
asbestos waste (when chosen over the no visible emissions requirement), or who
use transporters who do not take precautions to avoid damage to the waste
shipment while in transit.  However, it is not EPA's intent that the disposal
site report waste shipments in which one or a few containers are slightly
damaged.  The EPA intends to use this provision to identify potentially
serious violations of the NESHAP.

15.8.5   Recording Improperly Contained Waste

     Comment:  1.  Commenter 4 opposes the requirement for disposal site
owner/operator to record and report improperly contained waste because it will
motivate some removal contractors to seek an illegal disposal site.

     2.  Commenter 23 states that having to verify discrepancies between the
waste shipment record and the waste received at the disposal site will drive
up costs because of having to count bags that will be time-consuming, increase
the exposure of landfill employees, and discourage landfills from accepting
asbestos waste.

     3.  Commenter 34 expresses concern over the requirement to document
discrepancies and improperly contained waste because it puts the site operator
into a role of regulation and enforcement; this provision should be clarified.

     4.  Commenter 80 recommends that the requirement for landfill operators
to keep records of improperly contained waste be replaced with a requirement
that waste generators and transporters inspect and certify that all material
is properly packaged before being transported, and that the transport of
improperly contained waste be prohibited.

     Response:  1.  The EPA agrees that this may happen in some instances. 
However, it is EPA's intent to use this information to identify chronic
violators where the potential for emissions would be the greatest.  When a
disposal site's records indicate that there is frequently a problem with a
particular contractor's waste shipments, EPA can send an inspector to observe
the contractor's operations and take whatever actions are appropriate to
correct the situation.

     2.  The EPA intends for the waste disposal site owner/operator to verify
waste shipments for gross discrepancies, and not for discrepancies of a few
bags of waste.  The EPA does not envision increased worker exposure during the
inspection of waste shipments for significant discrepancies between what is
reported on the waste shipment record and what is actually received.

     3.  The site operator is not asked to regulate or enforce; rather, he/she
is only asked to provide information to EPA.  The EPA considers the provision
clear on this point.

                              15-7
     4.  The EPA agrees with the recommendation that generators certify that
all material is properly packaged in accordance with the provisions of this
rule for shipment, and the final rule is changed to require certification. 
The EPA sees no need to delete the requirement for landfill operators to
inspect and keep records of improperly contained waste.

15.8.6   Semiannual Report-Submittal Dates

     Comment:  Commenter 15 recommends that the semiannual waste reports
required in Section 61.154(f) be submitted by specific dates, e.g.,            
January 31, and July 1.

     Response:  Upon additional consideration of this provision, EPA has
decided to omit the requirement for semiannual reporting from today's rule. 
This decision is based in part on several comments opposing semiannual
reporting as unnecessary (See Section 11.5.2).  In addition, because of the
large commitment of enforcement resources that would be required for such a
system to properly function, EPA believes that the proposal is overly
ambitious at this time.  The EPA believes, however, that enforcement can use
the available information and adequately identify violators by comparing the
waste records that are required to be kept by waste generators and waste
disposal sites.  At this time, a more workable solution will be to require
disposal sites to report to EPA whenever there is a discrepancy between the
amount of waste received and the amount reported on the waste shipment papers. 
The discrepancy report should be submitted to the same agency that was
notified of the demolition or renovation.  In addition, disposal sites will be
required to comply with the general reporting provisions of 40 CFR Part 61. 
Specifically, new disposal sites will be required to comply with the
requirement to apply for approval to construct (Section 61.07) and the
requirement to notify EPA of startup dates (Section 61.09).  Existing disposal
sites that will accept asbestos waste after the effective date of the rule
will be required to supply EPA with information on their operations (Section
61.10).  This information will be useful to enforcement in tracking asbestos
waste.

15.8.7   Generator

     Comment:  Commenter 19 asks who is the generator because "generator" is
not defined in Section 61.141?  The commenter also notes that only the
operator has an EPA ID in Figure 4, and asks how will the disposal site know
if asbestos is friable or not and what is the storage site?

     Response:  "Generator" means "waste generator," which is defined in
Section 61.141 as any owner or operator of a source covered by this subpart
whose act or process produces asbestos-containing waste material.  The EPA has
revised the final rule to make this clear.  The EPA has abandoned the use of
an EPA ID because it would be difficult to implement and because it does not
appear to offer any great advantages.  The disposal site operator will be able
to obtain the quantities of friable and nonfriable asbestos material from Item
6 of Figure 4, Asbestos Waste Tracking System.  However, semiannual reports 

                              15-8
are not being required of disposal site operators because EPA has determined
that it will be receiving sufficient information through other reporting
mechanisms.  "Storage site" was inadvertently left in Section 61.154; it has
been deleted from the final rule.

15.8.8   Maintenance of Records

     Comment:  Two comments were received on Section 61.154(g).

     1.  Commenter 22 states that they submit records of tons of mill tailings
quarterly and annually to the State of California.  Their taxes and fees for
this activity are based on short tons.  It would be an unnecessary burden to
determine volume, and there seems to be no useful purpose of doing so.

     2.  Commenter 93 argues that EPA should be willing to accept information
on mill tailings in tonnage instead of cubic meters as required by Section
61.154(g).

     Response:  1.  The EPA does not consider dividing weight by an assumed
density to be unduly burdensome.  This requirement is consistent with the
records required by Section 61.149.  The EPA considers volume a more useful
expression of quantity for land disposal than weight.

     2.  The EPA desires the information on quantity to be in cubic meters or
yards and does not consider the requirement unduly burdensome.

15.8.9   Opposition to Semiannual Reports

     Comment:  Several commenters were opposed to the semiannual reporting
requirement.  Commenter 28 recommends that EPA delete semiannual reporting
because it increases the Agency's workload and detracts from enforcement
activities.

     Commenter 51 argues that, for industrial landfills that accept waste from
on-site facilities and are subject to RCRA recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, semiannual reporting as required by Section 62.154(f) is
excessive.  Commenter 93 argues that EPA should not apply the reporting
requirements of Section 61.154(f) to mill tailings, or they should be
lessened.

     Response:  See the response to Section 15.8.6 of this BID.

15.8.10  Waste Shipment Record--Information Required

     Comment:  Commenter 15 suggests that the waste shipment record, required
in Section 61.150(d), include the business address as well as the name of the
transporter.

     Response:  The EPA agrees with the recommendation and has added a
requirement to record the address and telephone number of the transporter.

                              15-9
15.8.11  Location of Waste

     Comment:  1.  According to commenter 19, many landfill sites dispose of
asbestos in their normal working face.  They wondered if a statement such as
"anywhere within the horizontal and vertical limits of the landfill there may
be asbestos" would satisfy the location requirements of Section 61.151(e).

     2.  Commenter 51 agrees that the disposal site operator should keep
pertinent information regarding the location and quantity of asbestos waste.

     3.  Commenters 28 and 65 argue that the requirement to keep records of
location are unnecessary because depth will change overtime; only a record
that asbestos is present is sufficient.  They believe that the location
requirement will require the services of a surveyor and that this will result
in higher disposal costs, refusal by some landfills to accept waste, and
dumping in unauthorized areas.  Commenter 65 argues that what is important is
that the prospective purchaser know of the presence of asbestos and get EPA's
permission before excavating any parts of the site.  Commenter 80 generally
agrees with the requirement to record location, but notes that there are
certain complications in mapping the area of the waste.  They explain that,
due to settling, the vertical location will change over time; EPA should allow
for some inaccuracies in mapping due to naturally occurring events.  Commenter 
80 also believes the mapping requirements will be overwhelming for many
landfills, especially those that do not segregate asbestos waste from other
waste.

     Response:  1.  If such a response accurately describes the location of
asbestos in the landfill, then such a response would be appropriate.

     2.  No response is necessary.

     3.  Indicating only that asbestos has been disposed of on the site and
that it is located below grade would constitute minimum compliance with this
provision.  In such cases, however, EPA would probably have no alternative but
to act conservatively and consider the entire site to be contaminated with
asbestos because EPA's purpose is to avoid future exposures to asbestos.  Such
a determination would clearly impact the future use and value of the property. 
Thus, it would be in the property owner's interest to specify the location of
the asbestos material as fully as possible in order to limit the extent of the
property whose future use would be restricted.

15.8.12  On-Site Disposal

     Comment:  1.  Commenters 22 and 74 argue that the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements of Section 61.154 should not apply to the on-site
disposal of asbestos waste.  Commenters 51 and 59 assert that industrial on-site landfills that are subject to RCRA and similar State statutes should be
exempt from the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of Section 61.154(f)
and (g).

                             15-10
     2.  Commenter 4 explains that the proposed recordkeeping requirements for
disposal sites would require local sanitary landfills, where most asbestos 
waste is deposited, to begin segregating asbestos waste from nonasbestos
waste.  They argue that this requirement will reduce the number of local
sanitary landfills that accept asbestos waste, result in greater hauling
distances, and increase disposal costs.

     3.  Commenter 80 generally supports the requirements for landfill
operators to maintain records of the receipt of asbestos waste, although
certain aspects of the requirements are regarded as impractical and
environmentally unsound.

     Response:  1.  The EPA agrees that it not reasonable for facilities that
dispose of their own waste on-site to follow all of the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements that facilities that dispose of their waste offsite do. 
Therefore, EPA has modified the rule to clarify this aspect.  Facilities
utilizing on-site disposal must, however, maintain records of the amounts of
asbestos waste and where it is disposed of.  For facilities that already
comply with requirements similar to those of Section 61.154 (g) (the location
requirements) because of State or local hazardous waste regulations, EPA does
not intend that they maintain separate, redundant records.  The same records
will satisfy EPA's requirements.

     2.  The EPA does not require segregation of asbestos waste, although some
sanitary landfills have elected to do so.  Although some landfills may
determine that the recordkeeping requirements are so burdensome that they
should cease accepting asbestos waste, EPA does not expect that any
appreciable number of local sanitary landfills will do so.

     3.  Responses to the commenter's specific comments on the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are located elsewhere in this chapter.

15.8.13  Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting

     Comment:  Commenter 80 believes that the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements will significantly and unnecessarily increase the burden for
landfill operators.  They estimate that the new requirements will require an
estimated 1/2 man-year per site.

     Response:  The EPA has estimated the additional burden to waste disposal
sites resulting from the new recordkeeping and reporting requirements to be
about one man-week per site per year.

15.9   REGULATORY AUTHORITY

     Comment:  Commenters 34 and 41 comment on the subject of regulatory
authority for waste disposal as follows:

     1.  Asbestos waste disposal should not be regulated under the NESHAP.
     2.  Recordkeeping and cover requirements should be included in revisions
         to RCRA Subtitle D regulations, Section 258.29.

                             15-11
     3.  The approval to remove or disturb asbestos waste should be a State
         responsibility.

     Response:  1.  The EPA reviewed its options for regulating asbestos waste
disposal and determined that the NESHAP is the most efficient way to regulate
the disposal of asbestos-containing waste material at this time because, after
all, the problem is one of air quality not ground-water quality.

     2.  The recordkeeping requirements proposed for the NESHAP are similar to
the manifest requirements of Subtitle C of RCRA, whereas Subtitle D contains
no recordkeeping requirements.  Indeed, Subtitle D addresses the management of
nonhazardous solid waste rather than hazardous waste.  Although not listed as
a RCRA hazardous waste, asbestos-containing waste is nevertheless hazardous,
and the NESHAP is the most efficient mechanism for establishing recordkeeping
and cover requirements.

     3.  The EPA considers the granting of approvals to excavate or disturb
asbestos waste to be the prerogative of the Administrator.  However, in States
that have been delegated authority for NESHAP enforcement, the States will
make the decision on whether to grant approval to remove or disturb asbestos
waste.

15.10  EPA ID NUMBER

     Comment:  Commenter 51 asks how facilities that do not have an ID number
and do not generate hazardous wastes obtain one?  Commenters 58 and 61 argue
that not all asbestos waste generators have EPA ID numbers, nor are they
likely to need one under RCRA.  They recommend that it be optional.  Commenter
80 asserts that operators of disposal sites cannot comply with the requirement
to record the generator's EPA ID number until all generators are given ID
numbers, which would exclude certain removal projects, such as schools. 
Commenter 83 states that there is no procedure for issuing ID numbers, but
that it appears to be similar to the RCRA program.  They argue that, if
asbestos requires this degree of tracking, it should be regulated as a
hazardous waste.  Commenter 83 asserts that it is beyond the resources
available at the State level to set up an equivalent program.

     Response:  Because of the confusion expressed by all the commenters over
how a system of assigning ID numbers to waste generators would work, EPA has
reconsidered this provision and has decided to delete this requirement; it is
not contained in the final rule.  The EPA is confident that, even without such
a unique numbering system, it would be possible to track waste shipments back
to the generator for the purpose of pursuing enforcement actions.

15.11  ASBESTOS IN GROUND WATER

     Comment:  Commenter 97 expresses concern over the failure of the proposed
rule to address the potential for asbestos in a landfill to move into an
aquifer beneath the landfill and contaminate ground-water supplies.

                             15-12
     Response:  Although asbestos is found in surface water and ground water,
usually as a result of contamination by naturally occurring asbestos, EPA does
not consider the contamination of ground water from asbestos disposed of in a
landfill as very likely.  In one EPA study, asbestos in soil was characterized
as immobile, having about the same mobility as clays, or about 1 to 10
centimeters per 3,000 to 40,000 years.1 

15.12  REFERENCE

     1.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Movement of Selected Metals,
Asbestos, and Cyanide in Soil:  Applications to Waste Disposal Problems. 
Office of Research and Development.  Cincinnati, Ohio.  Publication No. EPA-600/2-77-020. p. 82-83.

                             15-13
                16.0  WASTE CONVERSION PROCESSES

16.1  GENERAL

     Comment:  Commenter 23 supports the provisions to approve waste
treatment/conversion processes. 

     Response:  The EPA appreciates the support.

16.2  APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT

     Comment:  According to commenter 23, EPA should require in Section
61.155(1)(4) that all waste conversion processes be demonstrated prior to
approval of the application to construct.

     Response:  The EPA does not consider a demonstration of the process to be
necessary in all cases.  The proposal provides the Administrator with the
option of requiring a demonstration of the process prior to approval of the
application to construct, should he deem it necessary.  The EPA also notes
that Section 61.155(b) requires a startup performance test after the plant is
constructed.

16.3  PERFORMANCE TEST

     Comment:  Commenter 23 says that EPA should add to Section 61.155(d)(iii)
a requirement that the sampling and testing methods be included in the
performance test protocol and the permit to operate to ensure thorough testing
of output materials.

     Response:  The EPA agrees with the comment, and the asbestos revisions
will provide a protocol for sampling and analysis.

16.4  OPERATING PARAMETER MONITORING

     Comment:  Commenter 90 recommends validation of a continuous temperature
monitoring method to be used in lieu of TEM to verify the production of
asbestos-free material.

     Response:  Because this standard applies to all conversion processes, not
just vitrification, temperature may not be the only indicator of process
efficacy.  For example, some processes use chemical treatment followed by
"medium" temperature conversion.  For the time being, EPA intends to retain
the requirements as proposed.  At some future date, EPA may determine that
operating parameter monitoring is sufficient.

16.5  ANALYSIS OF FEED AND OUTPUT

     Comment:  Several comments were received on the analysis of feed to and
output from waste conversion processes.

                              16-1
     1.  Commenter 2 says that all of the output from asbestos conversion
processes should be sampled and analyzed for the presence of asbestos.

     2.  Commenter 90 states that the proposed method for sampling the feed
stream and analyzing the samples with PLM before the feed enters the processor
is not the preferred method for reducing environmental contamination and
assuring employee safety and should be revised.

     3.  Commenter 38 states that the analysis of output material must include
x-ray diffraction in conjunction with TEM.

     4.  Commenter 38 argues that, after the 90 day startup period, weekly,
not monthly, composite samples should be taken and analyzed for the presence
of asbestos.

     5.  Commenter 21 asks that procedures for sample preparation for TEM be
clarified; that comminution size of particle reduction be specified; that the
standard or interim method of analysis that is acceptable be identified; and
that laboratory qualifications meeting requirements of the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) and AHERA be identified.

     Response:  1.  As a practical matter, all of the output cannot be
sampled.  The issue is how much of the output needs to be sampled and at what
frequency.  The EPA considers the sampling prescribed in Section 61.155
appropriate to determine whether the output from a conversion process contains
asbestos.

     2.  The commenter would prefer to use the bulk sample analysis of
asbestos-containing material obtained during the building survey (rather than
an analysis of feed at the site where the waste conversion process is located)
to document the asbestos content of the waste processed.  The EPA notes that
analysis of feed is only required during performance testing, not as a routine
procedure during day-to-day operation.  For performance testing, EPA considers
an analysis of the waste stream entering the conversion process an essential
part of startup testing and rejects the suggestion of substituting other
analytical data for the required analysis.  The EPA assumes that workers
taking samples for the purpose of asbestos determination would conform to
applicable OSHA requirements such as personal protective equipment.

     3.  The EPA questions the utility of x-ray diffraction analysis of output
samples due to the very low concentrations of asbestos expected from a
successful conversion process.

     4.  The EPA considers monthly composite samples of output to be adequate
for determining whether the waste conversion process is performing in a
satisfactory manner and to be consistent with efforts to limit the burden
imposed by testing.

     5.  Currently, EPA has no protocol for the TEM analysis of output
materials from these processes.  The final rule requires the owner or operator
of waste conversion processes to submit to EPA for approval a protocol for the
analysis of output materials by TEM.

                              16-2
16.6  TEST FOR LEACHABLE CHEMICALS

     Comment:  Commenter 21 recommends adding provisions at Section
61.155(b)(3) to require additional chemical testing of leachable materials
(chemicals) from the conversion product.

     Response:  Significant leaching of chemicals from the products of certain
types of waste conversion processes, e.g., vitrification, is considered
unlikely.  For other processes that produce products that may contain
leachable chemicals, the Administrator may require more information on product
composition as part of the application for a permit to construct.

16.7  MONITORING

     Comment:  Two comments on the subject of visible emissions were received. 
     1.  Commenter 23 asserts that an air monitoring requirement should be
established rather than a "no visible emissions" standard.

     2.  Commenter 54 would revise Section 61.155(e) to require both no
visible emissions and compliance with the air cleaning requirements.

     Response:  1.  The use of the no visible emission requirement in Section
61.155(e) is consistent with other parts of the NESHAP.  The EPA is not aware
of a satisfactory source testing method for asbestos.  For fugitive emissions,
visible emissions monitoring is preferable to air monitoring because it is
easier and less costly.

     2.  The EPA indicated in the preamble that the revisions  proposed on
January 10, 1989, were not intended to increase the stringency of controls. 
Requiring both no visible emissions and compliance with the air cleaning
requirements would increase the stringency of the rule.

16.8  SAFETY OF OUTPUT MATERIALS

     Comment:  Commenter 2 says that the safety of nonasbestos output
materials from asbestos waste conversion processes should be established
before permitting these processes to operate.

     Response:  The EPA agrees with the comment.  The Administrator can
require evidence of the safety of output materials as part of the application
for a permit to operate.

16.9  OTHER TREATMENT PROCESSES

     Comment:  Commenter 89 offers two comments concerning other treatment
processes.

     1.  Section 61.155 should also be applied to operations using fixation
techniques because they present the same potential emission hazards.

                              16-3
     2.  Would this section apply to facilities that want to recycle asbestos
waste material?

     Response:  1.  Section 61.155 applies only to processes that convert
asbestos-containing waste material into nonasbestos (asbestos-free) material. 
Fixation techniques process asbestos-containing waste material into nonfriable
form and are covered at Section 61.150(a)(2).

     2.  This section does not apply to recycling facilities unless they
convert asbestos-containing waste material into nonasbestos (asbestos-free)
material.