04/06/84
Asbestos Strategy Document
APRIL 6 1984
SUBJECT: Asbestos Strategy Document
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Michael S. Alushin
Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air
TO: Air and Waste Management Division Directors
Regions II, IV, VI - VIII, and X
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, V, and IX
Regional Counsels, Regions I - X
Attached is the completed strategy for the enforcement of the
asbestos demolition and renovation NESHAP standard. The strategy
incorporates Regional and Justice Department comments on the March 12,
1984 draft.
Enforcement of the asbestos NESHAP occupies a high priority at
EPA and adoption of the components in this strategy will aid in that
enforcement effort. The strategy should be initiated immediately,
since the asbestos provisions are now enforceable in their entirety by
EPA. The repromulgation appeared in the April 5, 1984 Federal Register.
Asbestos Demolition and Renovation Enforcement Strategy
Introduction
Asbestos is recognized as a human and animal carcinogen and,
combined with cigarette smoking, a powerful co-carcinogen. Malignant
diseases caused by asbestos exposure include bronchial carcinoma, lung
adenocarcinoma, pleural and peritoneam mesothelioma, alimentary tract
carcinoma, and tumors of other sites. A safe threshold has not been
established. Asbestosis, a fibrotic lung disease caused by asbestos
fibers, is also associated with long-term exposure.
These diseases are linked to ambient environmental exposures as
well as to occupational exposures. To reduce ambient exposures and
the accompanying health risk, EPA regulated asbestos under the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS).
This enforcement strategy document has been prepared in order to
ensure compliance with the NESHAP standard. By specifying actions
to be taken and a procedure to follow, this strategy will provide
effective and uniform enforcement of the standard by Regions and
delegated States. This strategy document is also intended to provide
emphasis and assurances to Regional Offices and States that asbestos
occupies a high priority and that EPA is totally committed to a strong
enforcement posture.
Background
EPA first promulgated the asbestos NESHAPS on April 6, 1973.
Parts of the standard were in the form of work practice ( nonnumerical )
requirements. The Supreme Court held, in Adamo Wrecking Company v.
United States, 434 U.S. 275 (1978) that these were not emissions
standards within the meaning of the 1970 Clean Air Act. Since EPA,
at the time the asbestos regulations were promulgated, has authority
to promulgate and enforce only emissions standards, the Court upheld
dismissal of the criminal enforcement action brought against Adamo for
violations of Section 112(c)(1)(B) of the 1970 Act.
On August 7, 1977, Section 112(e) was added to specifically
authorize design, equipment, work practice, and operational standards.
Although regulations promulgated since that time could contain work
practice standards, there was doubt as to the way of dealing with
-2-
regulations promulgated prior to that time. EPA repromulgated many of
the asbestos work practice standards on June 19, 1978. However, some
work practice standards were not promulgated, and are not considered
enforceable by EPA. This has led to confusion and has greatly hindered
litigation efforts. In an attempt to end this confusion and ensure all
aspects of the asbestos NESHAP are enforceable, EPA is repromulgating
the entire asbestos standard.
The strategy document presented here addresses training,
inspection techniques, judicial and administrative enforcement
mechanisms, and other aspects essential for a successful program of
compliance with the repromulgated regulations. Flexibility is provided
so that the enforcing authority, be it the EPA Regional Office or the
delegated State or local agency, may select other options, provided a
high level of compliance is achieved. The strategy is designed to
ensure coordination between EPA Regions and their delegated States.
Since 35 States presently have asbestos enforcement delegation, it is
essential these States feel a part of the process and have the
capability and desire to successfully enforce the standard.
An EPA Compliance Data System analysis showed that the number of
demolition and renovation sources is greater than that of all other
asbestos source categories combined, and the compliance status much
worse. The strategy is thus limited to the renovation and demolition
category. An additional reason for this limitation is that since
renovations and demolitions are transitory operations, they are more
difficult to inspect and require specific enforcement guidance. This
limitation does not mean other asbestos sources should be ignored, but
means rather that EPA believes the States have sufficient knowledge of
these other sources to do a satisfactory job without additional
guidance.
Summary of Regulations
Before discussing the components of an effective strategy, it is
necessary to briefly outline the requirements of the demolition and
renovation provisions. These provisions are found at 49 FR 13658
(April 5, 1984). The owner/operator of a demolition or renovation is
exempt, pursuant to Section 61.145(b) and (d), from emission reduction
requirements if less than 80 linear meters of friable asbestos materials
covering pipes or less than 15m2 of friable asbestos material covering
-3-
other facility components is involved, and notification provisions of
Section 61.146(a), (b), and (c)(1)-(5) are met for demolitions.
Section 61.147 concerns the wetting, stripping and removal of friable
asbestos. It provides that friable asbestos materials used on any
pipe, duct, boiler, tank, reactor, turbine, furnace or structural
member shall be adequately wetted during stripping, and then removed
from the building. Rather than comply with a wetting requirement, a
local exhaust ventilation and collection system may be used to prevent
emissions to the outside air. Section 61.147(e) requires that stripped
or removed asbestos materials be wet during all stages of demolition or
renovation and related handling operations, and 61.147(f) allows
alternatives to wetting during freezing temperatures. Section 61.145(c)
exempts demolition operations, pursuant to a State or local order, on
structurally unsold buildings from all requirements except those
enumerated in the subsection.
In addition, Section 61.152 prohibits any visible emission from
the collection, packaging, transporting, or depositing of asbestos
from any demolition or renovation, and requires that asbestos waste be
deposited at acceptable waste disposal sites. Section 61.156 prohibits
visible emissions from an approved waste disposal site.
A more detailed description of the regulations is available in
several EPA guidance documents. Stationary Source Guideline S-17,
"Procedures for Source Notification of NESHAPs Requirement", and an
October 28, 1975 revision to S-17, summarize the regulations, as does
Stationary Source Guideline S-22, "Demolition and Renovation Inspection
Procedures". In addition, EPA's applicability determinations offer
interpretations of the demolition and renovation provisions. These are
available upon request from the Stationary Source Compliance Division.
Strategy Components
1. Training
It is essential that inspectors know what to look for when
inspecting a demolition or renovation operation. To address this need,
a Regional asbestos inspection workshop is being developed. ( Although
inspections would generally be done by delegated States, Regional
expertise is needed both for auditing purposes and for inspections in
-4-
non-delegated States. ) The workshop will include classroom lectures
and no-site inspection of a demolition or renovation project.
This training must also be provided to State inspectors. Each
region will be responsible for ensuring this occurs. A manual
containing all information developed at the Regional workshop will be
available for use at State workshops. A videotape of an on-site
inspection will also be available, if an actual inspection is not
practical. It is being left up to the Regions to decide who will
present these State Workshops. A contractor may be used if a Region
prefers not to use its own personnel. It is the Region's
responsibility to ensure the workshops are of acceptable quality and
that State inspectors are adequately trained.
EPA has additional written guidance available on proper procedures
to be used by inspectors during asbestos demolition and renovation
inspections. These documents are "Guidance for Controlling Friable
Asbestos Containing Material in Buildings", "Demolition and Renovation
Inspection Procedures (S-22)", and a list of revisions to S-22, dated
December 20, 1976. These documents will be provided upon request.
2. Communication
There are two aspects to adequate notification. One is EPA's need
to receive notification of demolition and renovation activities.
Receiving this notification is useful both as an audit tool and as a
means of ensuring sources are meeting all notification provisions.
Section 61.04 requires that EPA as well as delegated States receive all
information and notification reports, provided the specific delegation
did not waive requirement. (See Section 61.04(b)).
The second aspect is the development of an overall communications
strategy designed to publicize the regulations. EPA and delegated
States must ensure all sources are aware of the asbestos demolition and
renovation provisions and aware the provisions will be enforced.
A national press release has been prepared to coincide with the
publication of the asbestos repromulgation. This is Attachment 1.
Regions are encouraged to work with States in preparing similar
releases. Additionally, EPA Regions will be required to send
certified letters to all demolition and renovation contractors
in non-delegated States advising them of the asbestos provisions.
The Regions may also wish to notify contractors on an ongoing basis
as they apply for work permits. To do this EPA could contact local
governmental bodies who issue such permits and have them issue an EPA
fact sheet along with the permit. Regional Offices should also notify
school districts and other potentially-affected sources. Delegated
States may wish to adopt such options as well.
OAQPS personnel will be presenting asbestos status summaries to
national trade and industry organizations within the next month.
Regional and State personnel are encouraged to make similar
presentations, either as speaking engagements or in journal articles.
Materials developed for presentation by Headquarters will be available
for Regional and State use.
The Regions should also identify contacts at the State level, in
order to facilitate the transmittal of necessary materials to the
State. Headquarters will provide copies of the repromulgated
regulation and other pertinent materials to Regional contacts.
Adopting the methods developed here will help ensure a successful
publicity campaign leading to widespread familiarity with the standard
and acceptance of its provisions.
3. Inspections
The next component of the strategy is the actual determination of
compliance by means of inspections. The transitory nature of the
renovation and demolition process, coupled with the minimal advanced
notification requirements, makes it essential that Regions and States
have a program flexible enough to ensure minimal turnaround time
between receipt of a notification and actual inspection of the site.
The Regions have responsibility for inspections in non-delegated
States, and retain concurrent authority in delegated States. The
Regions, thus, have not only the option but the obligation to perform
inspections in delegated States should those States be doing an
inadequate job.
EPA is not committed to a specific number or level of inspections,
but only to a high level of compliance. An inspection plan may include
all sources, all contractors, or any other program consistent with the
Agency goal of 100% compliance. If one or two inspections indicate a
contractor is complying with the regulations, the enforcing authority
might wish to place greater emphasis on a less conscientious
-6-
contractor, by inspecting a series of projects done by that contractor.
This would alert the less conscientious contractor to the enforcing
authority's concern, and hopefully ensure compliance by that contractor
in future projects.
In addition to developing a strategy for inspection of notifiers,
each authority should develop a strategy for locating non-notifiers.
This could include checking building permits or public works files,
auditing waste disposal site records, or talking to national demolition
contractors about consistent underbidders. Those who underbid by a
large amount may be attempting to reduce costs by ignoring the asbestos
regulations. Another option might be that the reporting of the
presence of asbestos be required in any State permit. Discussion with
your respective States in this regard may prove beneficial. In summary,
the Regions or States retain flexibility in the selection of potential
non-notifiers for inspection; however, a program for the inspection of
such sources is an essential and required part of the asbestos strategy.
4. Grant Agreements
One concern regarding State inspections is that many grant
agreements do not contain provisions requiring inspection of asbestos
demolition and renovation projects. Since grant agreements currently
are being negotiated, a memorandum has been sent to all Regional Air
Division Directors from the Directors, OAQPS specifying that inspection
of such projects be included in these agreements.
5. Bulk Sample Analysis
An essential element in the compliance determination aspect is the
need to analyze bulk samples to determine if they contain asbestos.
EPA is currently evaluating outside contractors to perform this
function, and both the Regions and States will be able to take
advantage of this. There will be provisions for a rapid turnaround
time if analysis is needed immediately, as in the case of a Section 303
action. Use of such a lab will ensure uniform analysis techniques and
quality controls are implemented. The type of analysis to be used in
this process is Polarized Light Microscopy or X-Ray Powder Diffraction.
These were developed for the asbestos-in-schools program and are the
only currently acceptable methods EPA uses. The test method is
included as Attachment 2, and additional background material evaluating
these methods is available upon request.
-7-
6. Cross-Program Elements
In addition to being regulated under the NESHAP program, asbestos
is regulated under OSHA provisions and the EPA Toxic Substances
asbestos-in-schools program. The OSHA provisions require an 8-hour
time-weighted average airborne employee exposure of not greater than
2 fibers per cubic centimeter of air. Engineering controls, wet
methods, respirators and special clothing are required. The asbestos-
in-schools program currently has identification and notification
requirements. Local education agencies (LEAs) must identify friable
asbestos-containing building materials, notify school employees of the
location of such materials, and notify parents of the results of
inspections and analysis if friable asbestos-containing materials are
found. In addition, records indicating whether each school was
inspected for friable materials and the results of analysis of all
samples must be maintained by LEA's and each school.
Coordination between these programs appears most logical in the
area of referrals. NESHAPs inspection personnel might be able to
obtain notice of asbestos demolition and renovation operations through
the OSHA asbestos-in-schools coordinators if notification was not
provided pursuant to the NESHAP provision. Additionally, OSHA
inspectors, should they notice potential NESHAP violations, could
notify EPA. Such referral programs would obviously be reciprocal.
Further coordination beyond referrals would be more difficult.
Projects such as joint training or inspections would create logistical
problems, as well as require a knowledge of two totally different sets
of regulations. A Region is free to set up whatever coordination
effort it desires, provided the NESHAP provisions are enforced
effectively.
7. Judicial and Administrative Enforcement Mechanisms
An effective inspection program will aid in promoting compliance,
but noncompliance problems will arise and the next component of the
strategy must address this problem. The strategy designed to respond
to violations must have as its prime objective a quick response to
every problem. Such an enforcement response must be consistent with
other responses in similar situations. A flow chart has been
developed outlining the various enforcement options. Following the
flow chart is a detailed discussion of the advantages and disadvantages
of each option, as well as suggested factors to consider in determining
any penalty amount to be assessed. ----------------
------------ ------------ ! EPA Chooses !
!EPA or ! ----------- YES !State and ! EPA Lead ! Appropriate !
!State !---!Violation!-------!EPA Decide!----------! Response to !
!Inspection! ----------- ------------ ! NESHAPs !
------------ ! ! ! Violation !
NO ! ----------------
!State Lead !
---------- !
! !
---------------- !
! EPA Monitors ! !
! State Action ! !
---------------- !
!
----------------------------------------------------------------
! ---------------
! ! Informal !
!---! Conference !
! ! with Source !
! --------------- ---------------------------------
! ! !
! ! !
! ----------- ------------ ! ------------------- --------
! ! ! ! !-303-- ! Region Develops ! ! HQ !
!---! Formal !---! Judicial !-113(b)----! Litigation !---!Review!
! ! ! ! !-113(c) ! Report ! ! !
! ----------- ------------ ------------------- --------
! !
! !
! -------------------- ---------------------------
! ! !-113a !
! ! Administrative ! ! ------------ -----------
! ! !-303 ! ! Referral ! ! Court !
! -------------------- ----! to DOJ !---! Order !
! ------------ -----------
!
!
! -------------
! ! !-!OSHA!
! ! ! ------
! ! Cross !-!7003 of RCRA!
! ! Program ! --------------
----! Elements !-!104,106(a), 107 of CERCLA!
! ! ---------------------------
! !-!TOSCA!
! ! -------
-------------
-8-
The Clean Air Act delineates specifically the administrative and
judicial options which EPA has to enforce against a demolition or
renovation source.
There are two administrative mechanisms which are applicable in
this context:
1) Section 113(a)(3) orders. Orders issued under this subsection
can require immediate compliance with the asbestos demolition and
renovation requirements. EPA does not have authority to assess or
collect penalties in this type of order. Violations of an order,
however, subject the source to penalty liability in a judicial action
under Section 113(b).
2) Section 303 orders. Orders issued under this subsection must
be based upon a finding of imminent and substantial endangerment to
the public health, rather than a violation of applicable requirements.
This authority can be exercised if "it is not practicable to assure
prompt protection of the health of persons solely by commencement of...
a civil action". These orders can also require immediate compliance.
Although EPA does not have authority to assess penalties in the order
itself, if a source violates such a Section 303 order, the government
may bring a judicial action to enforce and then collect up to $5,000
per day in penalties. A Section 303 order is effective for no more
than twenty-four hours unless, within that time, the government files
a court action under Section 303. In such instance, the order is
effective for forty-eight hours, or longer if so authorized by the
court pending litigation.
Before issuing any order under Section 303, EPA must consult with
State and local authorities to confirm the correctness of the
information forming the basis for the action and to ascertain the
action which such authorities are, or will be, taking. This
requirement applies whether or not the State has been delegated
authority to enforce the asbestos NESHAP. Even a non-delegated State is
likely to have general authority to abate imminent and substantial
health hazards, and any action a State proposes to take such general
authority is relevant to EPA's consideration as to whether to proceed
under Section 303.
-9-
A third type of administrative proceeding, a Notice of
Noncompliance issued under Section 120, is not practical in the context
of demolitions and renovations. A penalty under Section 120 begins to
accrue from the receipt of a Notice by the source. However, the
computer model for computing the economic benefit of noncompliance
discounts the first calendar month after receipt. Since compliance in
these cases does not require installation of capital equipment but
simply the following of certain procedures, the source is likely to be
able to comply within a short time frame and the resultant penalty will
be very small and possibly zero. While expeditious compliance is the
primary goal of an enforcement action, in instances in which no
penalties are likely to be derived, Section 120 is probably not the
most direct way to induce compliance.
There are three judicial avenues open to EPA for enforcement of
the asbestos regulations:
1) Section 113(b) civil action. EPA may bring an action under
this section for injunctive relief requiring compliance with the
regulations. EPA may also seek civil penalties of up to $25,000 per
day of violation. Although civil actions under Section 113(b) do not
ordinarily seek immediate injunctive relief, the broad grant of
authority to "commence a civil action for a permanent or temporary
injunction" encompasses temporary restraining orders and preliminary
injunctions. In other words, the Government could proceed under
Section 113(b) to seek immediate compliance with the asbestos
standards, as well as civil penalties, provided it can satisfy the
legal standard for immediate injunctive relief.
2) Section 113(c) criminal action. If EPA has evidence that a
person knowingly violated the asbestos demolition and renovation
requirements, the Agency can initiate a criminal enforcement
proceeding. A conviction under the criminal provision of the Clean
Air Act can result in imprisonment of up to one year and/or a penalty
of up to $25,000 per day for a subsequent conviction.
3) Section 303 civil action. EPA may bring a civil action for
immediate relief upon a finding that an asbestos source is presenting
an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, and that
State or local authorities have not acted to abate such source. As
with administrative orders issued under Section 303, EPA must consult
with State and local authorities before initiating a civil action
-10-
under this section. EPA does not have authority to collect penalties
in a Section 303 action unless it first issued an order which the
source has violated. In such instance, the Agency can seek penalties
of up to $5,000 per day of violation. An administrative order is not,
however, a prerequisite to bringing an action for immediate relief
under Section 303.
For additional information concerning enforcement under Section
303, consult the guidance on use of Section 303, distributed by
memorandum dated September 15, 1983 from Ed Reich and Michael Alushin.
In addition to formal enforcement, it may be appropriate in some
instances to proceed against a violator informally. The Agency has had
some success in the past in inducing immediate compliance by issuing a
"Finding of violation" to the source. Alternatively, or in conjunction
with such a finding, EPA can invite the source to a "show cause"
conference to determine whether immediate compliance can be achieved
without formal enforcement proceedings. Please remember, however,
that there is no statutory requirement for notice or finding of
violation nor a conference prior to formal administrative or judicial
enforcement of the NESHAP standard.
Factors to Consider in Choosing the Enforcement Option
The transient nature of demolitions and renovations is important
in establishing a framework for enforcement. EPA will be in one of
two positions in cases where it has the responsibility for taking the
enforcement action: We will be acting while the demolition or
renovation is proceeding, or we will be acting after the project has
been, or is nearly, completed.
In instances in which the demolition or renovation is ongoing,
the primary objective for enforcement is to act quickly to remedy the
violation, and a secondary concern is deterring future violations.
Therefore, the most appropriate enforcement options will be an
administrative order under Section 113(a), an order under Section 303,
or a civil action for immediate relief under Section 113(b) or Section
303. Whether EPA proceeds administratively may depend on whether the
Agency has confidence that the source will comply with such an order.
If, for example, an on-site inspection yields an indication from the
source that it will henceforth comply with the regulations, an order
-11-
may be a sufficient step to assure that compliance is achieved. If
the source is not cooperative during an inspection, or has a previous
history of noncompliance, EPA may want to proceed immediately to a
judicial action under Section 113(b) or 303.
Circumstances in a given case involving an ongoing project may
make informal enforcement action appropriate. If a source has
properly notified EPA of the demolition or renovation and is making a
good faith effort to comply but is failing to comply in some respects,
a finding of violation or conference may be sufficient to induce
immediate compliance. In such instances, the Agency should monitor
the situation to determine whether formal enforcement action becomes
necessary. As a general rule, informal enforcement should not be
considered if the source failed to notify EPA in a timely manner, or
violations of a substantial nature are occurring at the site of the
demolition or renovation.
Of the enforcement options available for immediate response,
only judicial enforcement authorizes EPA to assess or collect
penalties. In each case, the Region will need to balance the para
mount interest of achieving immediate compliance with the incremental
procedural burden associated with filing a civil action (see below)
to determine whether the matter warrants pursuing penalties. In making
this determination, the Region should be mindful that penalties are
designed to be an effective deterrent of future violations.
Where immediate judicial relief is sought, Section 113(b) will
generally be preferable to Section 303. The Government is not required
to consult with State and local authorities prior to initiating a
Section 113(b) action, but must simply give notice of the filing of an
action to the State air pollution control agency. Consultation would
be expected in delegated States. Also, the Government need only
establish a violation of the standard, as opposed to an imminent and
substantial endangerment, to sustain an action under Section 113(b).
Finally, we have greater authority to assess and collect penalties
under Section 113(b) than under Section 303.
Nonetheless, there may be instances in which a Section 303 civil
action is appropriate. This provision of the Act grants blanket
authority to abate hazards whether or not a standard has been violated.
In instances in which the applicability or validity of the regulation
is questionable, Section 303 provides broad authority to seek relief
sufficient to protect the public health. We recommend generally that
-12-
the exercise of Section 303 civil authority be proceeded by the issuance
of a Section 303 administrative order so that liability for penalties
will be established if the order is not followed. This is the best way
to assure that Section 303 enforcement takes effect as quickly as
possible accompanied by the threat of $5,000 per day in penalties if
the source fails to remedy the situation.
In instances in which the demolition or renovation is over or
nearly complete by the time EPA is ready to take enforcement action,
the primary objective will be to assure that the source complies with
the regulations in the future. An administrative order under Section
113(a) can be considered as a means of notifying the source of the
violation and formally requiring compliance, but it does not penalize
the source for past violations. In most instances in which a failure
to notify or other substantial violation has occurred, a civil action
for penalties under Section 113(b) or a criminal action under Section
113(c) will be the most appropriate enforcement response.
Procedures for Immediate Enforcement Response
The currently effective delegations of authority, which were used
by the Acting Administrator on March 17, 1983, govern the required
procedures for issuing administrative orders or initiating judicial
actions. Concurrence, notification and consultation requirements have
been designed to minimize any procedural obstacles to quick enforcement
response.
Regional Administrators are now delegated authority to issue
administrative orders under Section 113(a) without notification to or
consultation with Headquarters. Further redelegation of this authority
to the Division Director is authorized. (Delegation 7-6.) Under the
terms of the applicable delegation from the Administrator, the Regional
Administrator was originally required to consult with the Associate
Administrator for Legal and Enforcement Counsel (now the Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring) and the
Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise and Radiation (now AA for Air
and Radiation) prior to exercising this authority. However, the AA
for OLEC subsequently designated the Associate Enforcement Counsel for
Air as the person to be consulted for that office, and both he and the
AA for Air and Radiation have waived the consultation requirements.
Thus the Region can now act unilaterally to issue an administrative
order under Section 113(a).
-13-
Authority to issue administrative orders under Section 303 is
delegated concurrently to the regional Administrators and the Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation. (Delegation 7-49.) Further
redelegation to the Division Director level is authorized. The
consultation requirements set out in the delegation have been
designated by the AA for Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring to the
Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air but remain with the AA for Air
and Radiation. The consultation requirements have not been waived.
Prior to issuing an order under Section 303, the Region must therefore
consult with both OECM and the AA for Air and Radiation through SSCD.
Procedures to initiate judicial actions for immediate relief are
governed by both the delegations of authority and the Memorandum of
Understanding Between the Department of Justice and EPA. (42 F.R.
48942, September 26, 1977.) Authority to refer requests for emergency
temporary restraining orders to the Department of Justice and to the
appropriate United States Attorney has been delegated concurrently to
the Regional Administrators and the Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring. (Delegation 7-22-D.) The
Region must notify the AA for OECM when exercising this authority.
This can best be accomplished by contacting the Air Enforcement
Division in OECM, which will take responsibility for conveying notice
to the Assistant Administrator. In all cases, the EPA Headquarters
role will be fulfilled within twenty-four hours of notification to
the Air Enforcement Division, and in most instances significantly
quicker than that. See Attachment 3 for a list of the appropriate
EPA Headquarters contacts.
Ordinarily, requests for litigation must be made by EPA to the
Assistant Attorney General for Land and Natural Resources, who must
then refer a matter to the appropriate United States Attorney for
filing a civil action. However, the Memorandum of Understanding
states as follows:
"...except matters requiring an immediate temporary
restraining order may be submitted by Regional
Administrators of the Agency simultaneously to a
United States Attorney and the appropriate Assistant
Attorney General."
As soon as possible after a decision has been made to seek an
immediate injunction, the Region should contact both the United
States Attorney in the District where the case is to be filed,
-14-
and the Assistant Chief of the Environmental Enforcement Section who
has responsibility for that Region. See Attachment 4 for a list of
the appropriate DOJ HQ contacts. Approval of the Assistant Attorney
General is required prior to filing. The Assistant Section Chief
with responsibility for the Region involved will seek verbal approval
of the Assistant Attorney General and communicate it to the Assistant
United States Attorney. Obviously it is impractical in such
circumstances to prepare a litigation report to accompany the request
for litigation. The Region should therefore be prepared to provide
essential information by telephone to both EPA and DOJ Headquarters.
DOJ is also committed to minimizing the turnaround time for
authorization of litigation in the context of requests for immediate
relief.
The September 15, 1983 guidance on Section 303 includes sample
forms for motion for temporary restraining order, complaint, and
administrative order. OECM will work with DOJ to supplement these
materials as needed in the content of this strategy.
Factors for Assessing Civil Penalties
The existing civil penalties policy for Clean Air Act violations,
issued July 8, 1980, does not, by its terms, address demolition and
renovation cases because it does not cover "intermittent or transient"
violations. Additionally, the Policy on Civil Penalties issued by the
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring on
February 16, 1984, does not supersede any statute-specific penalty
policies, but instead establishes a general framework for statute-
specific approaches to penalty assessments. The February 16, 1984
policy is useful in establishing guidelines for civil penalty
settlement amounts in demolition and renovation cases.
If the Region is referring a civil action under Section 113(b)
against a demolition or renovation source, it should recommend a
civil penalty settlement amount. Consistent with the comprehensive
penalty policy, the Region should determine a "preliminary deterrence
amount" by assessing an economic benefit component and a gravity
component. This amount may then be adjusted upward or downward by
consideration of other factors, such as degree of willfulness and/or
negligence, history of noncompliance, and ability to pay. Since there
is a wide variation in the size of demolition contractors, ability to
pay may be an important adjustment factor in some instances.
-15-
The "gravity" component should account for factors such as the
environmental harm resulting from the violation, the importance of the
requirement to the regulatory scheme, and the size of the violator.
Since asbestos is a hazardous air pollutant, the gravity factor
associated with substantive violations ( i.e., failure to adhere to
work practices or to prevent visible emissions from waste disposal )
should be high. Also, since notification is essential to Agency
enforcement, a notification violation should also warrant a high
gravity component.
Whenever a source fails to give notice prior to commencing
demolition or renovation, the Agency should seek a $25,000 penalty
unless clear mitigating factors make a reduction appropriate. As a
legal matter, the Agency can arguably seek up to $25,000 per day for
each day that the source fails to remedy the notification violation.
As a matter of policy, however, an initial notification violation
will be considered a single day of violation, but the full $25,000
should be sought except in compelling circumstances which favor the
source's equitable position. In case of recurring violations or ones
involving very large projects, the Regions should consider seeking
greater penalties. Where notification is made late, the Region should
seek a lesser penalty, reflecting to a large extent the degree to
which the Region's ability to evaluate substantive compliance has been
hampered. For example, if notification is late but still precedes
commencement of the project, a small penalty is warranted. If
notification is given such that the Region cannot inspect the project
until it is half complete, a $12,500 penalty may be appropriate. We
consider notification violations, particularly failure to notify,
sufficiently serious by itself to justify a civil referral if the
Region chooses to proceed with that option.
For substantive violations, the Region should attempt to estimate
the economic benefit derived by the source in failing to comply with
the regulations. One way to estimate the benefit is to compare the
dollar amount of the demolition or renovation contract to an estimate
of the cost to do the job in compliance with the regulations. Head
quarters will investigate whether a consultant or in-house expert can
provide general guidance concerning the determination of economic
savings. The gravity component for substantive violations should be
related to the amount of asbestos to be removed in the project, since
that is a rough measure of the potential environmental harm associated
with the activity. At a minimum, for a source which barely meets the
threshold for applicability of substantive requirements ( the amount of
friable asbestos materials is at least 80 linear meters on pipers or
-16-
at least 15 square meters on other facility components ), the penalty
should be $5,000. The penalty should be an additional $5,000 for each
additional 80 linear meters or 15 square meters of friable asbestos
material, up to a statutory maximum of $25,000 for each day of
documented violation of work practice or "no visible emissions"
requirements.
To illustrate application of these principles, assumes that a
source is removing approximately 45 square meters of friable asbestos
material. The source failed to notify EPA prior to commencing the
demolition. An EPA inspector went to the site on one day and observed
that the source was failing to wet the friable asbestos during
stripping. EPA estimates that the incremental cost of properly
removing and stripping the asbestos would be about $20 per square meter.
The "preliminary deterrence amount" associated with this hypothetical
situation would be $25,000 for failure to notify, $15,000 for the
gravity component assigned to the substantive violation, and $900 for
the economic benefit component, or a total of $40,900. This figure
could then be adjusted upward or downward if appropriate to account for
recalcitrance, history of noncompliance, inability to pay the penalty,
or similar factors.
Potential Defendants
The asbestos regulations apply to "each owner or operator" of a
demolition or renovation operation. EPA has construed this language
to include both the owner of the site and the party performing the
demolition or renovation, usually a contractor. This position is
reiterated in the preamble to the repromulgation of the standard.
While legally the Agency may proceed against both the site owner
and the demolition contractor, this does not mean that we should take
action against both in all cases. The determination of whom to take
action against must be made on a case-by-case basis. The contractor
is an appropriate party for enforcement actions in all cases involving
substantive violations, since the contractor actually performs the work
and thus is in the best position to effectuate compliance. As a
general rule, the Region should proceed against the site owner.
However, the Region may exercise discretion where an owner can show
that the contract or bid specifications required that the demolition
contractor comply with the asbestos regulations. In addition, Regions
should consider the deterrence effect of enforcement. If it is known
that the site owner has other sites which may be demolished or
renovated, it is as important to deter future violations by the owner
as it is by the contractor.
-17-
Both parties should ordinarily be held responsible if there has
been a violation of notification requirements. The Agency does not,
however, require duplicative notification: if either party provides
the requisite notification, EPA will consider the requirements to
have been satisfied.
If the Region determines to sue both parties, the parties should
ordinarily be joined in a single judicial action. In developing a
settlement penalty amount, the Region could choose to either allocate
the penalty among the defendants based on the nature of the violations
or seek a single figure to be allocated among the defendants by
themselves.
Evaluating State Action
In any State in which authority to enforce the asbestos standard
has been delegated, EPA should look initially to the State to
determine if the State is taking adequate action to address the
problem. In delegations the Agency retains the concurrent ability to
enforce against violating sources to the same extent as if there had
been no delegation. In all instances in which EPA is considering
deferral to enforcement action by a delegated State, it should
evaluate the action to determine if it is adequate in light of these
guidelines. In other words, if the demolition or renovation is
ongoing, EPA should defer only if the State action is designated to
bring the source into compliance essentially immediately. If the
demolition or renovation is complete or nearly complete at the time
EPA is evaluating the situation, the Agency should defer only if the
State is taking action to recover penalties which are reasonable when
measured against the penalty principles established in this document.
We do not think it is practical to set rigid criteria for State
resolution of an asbestos demolition or renovation violation.
However, each Region should establish clear terms of deferral in every
case, and those terms should account for the primary objectives of
enforcement, immediate compliance if an ongoing violation and
deterrence of future violations if it is too late to abate the
violation which is the subject of the enforcement action. If the
terms of deferral are not met, EPA should promptly initiate Federal
enforcement action.
-18-
Cross Program Elements
Regions should be alert to the possibility that a demolition or
renovation activity may be subject to other statutes. The most likely
overlap is that failure to properly dispose of wastes may subject the
source to action under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) and/or the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA). The Agency has already filed an action
citing Section 303 of the Clean Air Act in addition to Section 7003
of RCRA and 106 of CERCLA. In evaluating appropriate enforcement
responses, the Regional air personnel should coordinate with the
hazardous waste enforcement elements if it appears that RCRA or
CERCLA may be applicable.
8. Tracking and Auditing - The next aspect of the asbestos
strategy is an effective tracking and auditing system to ensure the
compliance program is operating successfully. The specific auditing
procedures adopted will be left to the discretion of each Region, but
there are several elements which an effective audit program should
have. The first is a requirement for joint EPA-State inspections, so
that the Regional office can be sure the State inspections are being
conducted correctly. For example, one Region has required each of its
delegated States to provide a list of project sites, from which the
Region selects specific sites where they will accompany the State
inspector.
Attachment 5 contains a sample questionnaire developed by one of
the Regions. The questionnaire seeks information from delegated States
on the overall asbestos demolition program, and the effectiveness of
the inspection procedure.
An auditing program should contain provisions for mid-year and
annual reviews of inspection reports to provide an indication of the
effectiveness of the State program. The Regions, if they receive
notification of asbestos projects along with the States, could use
this as an additional audit device, determining the percentage of
notifying sources which were inspected, and the effectiveness of the
State's notification program. It is anticipated that the National Air
Audit System for 1985 will place greater emphasis on enforcement of
asbestos regulations in delegated States.
-19-
It is essential to develop a tracking mechanism for asbestos
demolition and renovation projects. This will provide information
on the number of notifications received, number of projects inspected,
number of violations, and the manner of resolution of the violations.
Notification violations should be distinguished from substantive ones.
The most obvious tracking mechanism available is CDS. Guidelines for
using CDS to input and acquire the necessary information are provided
in Attachment 6. Regions or States are not required to use CDS if
they prefer some alternative system, but the system selected must
provide the specified information and must enable the information to
be readily available to Headquarters.
An effective tracking system, in addition to providing an overall
picture of compliance status, should also enable a State or Regional
office to determine if a contractor moving into its jurisdiction was
guilty of a violation in some other jurisdiction. SSCD is currently
developing a national register of demolition contractors which will
provide this information. Such a system cannot be completely based
on CDS, since use of CDS for tracking is an option which States or
Regions may elect not to use. However, it will require the cooperation
and support of all implementing Agencies. SSCD should be alerted to
all demolition contractors who have been cited for a violation of the
asbestos provisions.
9. Accountability - The FY 1985 Strategic Planning Management
System will contain an element evaluating Regional and State
performance in carrying out the asbestos strategy. The specific
indicators to be used are as follows: total number of notifications,
total number of inspections, total number of violations, and status
of those violations. Such information shall be reported quarterly.
Redelegation Concerns
Although many States have continued to effectively implement the
renovation and demolition provisions of the asbestos standard during
the period of this standard's instability, concerns were raised as
to whether the repromulgation of the asbestos standard will require
a Regional redelegation of State authority to enforce the asbestos
NESHAP. It is impossible to give a specific response to this general
question, since the issue depends on the kind of delegation a State
received and the authority the State relied upon when receiving the
delegation. This issue must be handled on a State-by-State basis. A
general summary of the delegation procedure will, however, be helpful
in putting this issue in perspective.
-20-
There are several types of delegations. Automatic delegation
refers to a process where agencies assume responsibility for the
implementation and enforcement of current and future NESHAPs. A
separate request for delegation is not needed every time a standard
is promulgated. In general, States with automatic delegation would
not need to take any additional actions and they would be able to
fully enforce the repromulgated regulations.
A second form of delegation is State adoption of its own
regulations using its own authority. This form of delegation should
not require any further action, provided the State regulations remain
consistent with the repromulgated asbestos standard. Since no
substantive provisions of the standard have been changed, there would
be no reason why the State regulations would be inconsistent.
A third form of delegation is adoption by reference. Under this
procedure newly delegated NESHAPs would be adopted directly into the
State code by reference to the Federal law. Minor adaptations would be
necessary in the case of the repromulgated standard, since the
repromulgation makes numbering changes. See attachment 7 for a
comparison of the numbering system for the original and repromulgated
standard. A full redelegation would not normally be necessary.
A fourth system of delegation is when a State asks for and uses
EPA authority to enforce the asbestos provisions. In other words, the
State acts as EPA's agent without adopting of standards pursuant to
State enabling legislation. Since EPA's authority was at issue in
the Adamo decision, it is likely that States using that authority
will have to receive an actual redelegation of all provisions of the
asbestos standard.
The "Good Practices Manual for Delegation of NSPS and NESHAPs",
at page 46, mentions that it is EPA's responsibility to notify States
of changes to any delegated regulations, to work with States, provide
any necessary assistance, and ensure that the legal authority to
implement and enforce the revised rules is maintained. It should be
re-emphasized that the Regions should work with delegated States to
resolve any redelegation issues because cases might differ from the
general situations explained above. Earl Salo of the Office of
General Counsel (FTS 382-7632) has agreed to assist in evaluating any
redelegation problems, on a State-by-State basis.
-21-
Conclusion
Enforcement of the asbestos provisions is a high priority of
the EPA. Considerable time and resources have been devoted to the
asbestos issue, and it is expected that Regional actions will reflect
this high priority. Quoting from a January 24, 1983 memorandum from
Michael Alushin to all Regional Counsels, "Emissions of hazardous air
pollutants are a particularly important source of environmental harm
requiring special attention. I urge you to make an increased effort
to assure that sources violating asbestos standards are identified
and that enforcement of the standard proceed". This strategy document
is intended to aid in this endeavor.
Attachment 1
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today announced final
rules for amending portions of the Clean Air Act's asbestos National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. The rules reinstate
the work-practice and equipment provisions of the standard that were
invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1978.
Several of the provisions reinstate work-practice alternatives
to the standards initially set in 1973 which called for no visible
emissions of asbestos by owners or operators of asbestos sources.
The new amendments will provide additional means of compliance and
greater flexibility to the owners and operators.
The new provisions also reinstate the work-practice standards
in prohibiting the surfacing of roadways with asbestos tailings or
asbestos-containing waste materials. They reinstate the prohibition
of installations of certain molded and wet-applied insulating
materials that contain commercial asbestos, as well as reinstate a
partial exemption for demolition operations for structurally unsound
buildings.
In addition, the amendments reinstate the requirements that
asbestos removed during demolition or renovation be kept wet until it
is collected for disposal, and that asbestos not be dropped or thrown
to the ground or a lower floor. Asbestos removed more than 50 feet
above ground level must be transported to the ground in dust-tight
chutes or containers unless removed in units or sections.
Requirements for warning signs and fencing around asbestos waste
disposal sites are also reinstated.
The net effect of the largely technical changes to the standards
will be to eliminate uncertainty in those areas where the Supreme
Court invalidated EPA's work-practice standards by ruling that they
were not legally emissions standards under Section 112 of the Clean
Air Act ( Adamo Wrecking Co. vs. United States, 434 U.S. 275 (1978) ).
The 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act gave EPA authority to
establish work-practice standards and the asbestos provisions are
repromulgated under that authority.
The amendments will strengthen EPA and Justice Department
actions on asbestos enforcement cases by clarifying the regulatory
requirements and making them enforceable by EPA. The agency intends
to work with delegated States in ensuring a more active enforcement
role in the implementation of these requirements now that they have
been clarified.
-2-
In a broader context, EPA is conducting a comprehensive
examination of the overall asbestos hazardous air pollutant standard
to determine if substantive revisions are required.
The amendments were proposed in the Federal Register on July 13,
1983 and a public hearing was held in August of last year. The final
rules appear in today's Federal Register.
Attachment 2
Test Method
Interim Method for the Determination of Asbestos in Bulk Insulation
Samples*
*An interim method is carefully drafted from available source
information. This method is still under investigation and therefore
is subject to revision.*
1. Polarized Light Microscopy
1.1 Principle and Applicability
Bulk samples of building materials taken for asbestos
identification are first examined for homogeneity and preliminary fiber
identification at low magnification. Positive identification of suspect
fibers is made by analysis of subsamples with the polarized light
microscope.
The principles of optical mineralogy are well established.1,2
A light microscope equipped with two polarizing filters is used
to observe specific optical characteristics of a sample. The use of
plane polarized light allows the determination of refractive indices
along specific crystallographic axes Morphology and color are also
observed. A retardation plate is placed in the polarized light path
for determination of the sign of elongation using orthoscopic
illumination. Orientation of the two filters such that their
vibration planes are perpendicular ( crossed polars ) allows observation
of the birefringence and extinction characteristics of anisotropic
particles.
Quantitative analysis involves the use of point counting. Point
counting is a standard technique in petrography for determining the
relative areas occupied by separate minerals in thin sections of rock.
Background information on the use of point counting 2 and the
interpretation of point count data3 is available.
This method is applicable to all bulk samples of friable
insulation materials submitted for identification and quantitation
of asbestos components.
1.2 Range
The point counting method may be used for analysis of samples
containing from 0 to 100 percent asbestos. The upper detection limit
is 100 percent. The lower detection limit is less than 1 percent.
1.3 Interferences
Fibrous organic and inorganic constituents of bulk samples may
interfere with the identification and quantitation of the asbestos
mineral content. Spray-on binder materials may cost fibers and
affect color or obscure optical characteristics to the extent of
masking fiber identity. Fine particles of other materials may
also adhere to fibers to an extent sufficient to cause confusion
in identification. Procedures that may be used for the removal of
interferences are presented in Section 1.7.2.2.
1.4 Precision and Accuracy
Adequate data for measuring the accuracy and precision of the
method for samples with various matrices are not currently available.
Data obtained for samples containing a single asbestos type in a
simple matrix are available in the EPA report Bulk Sample Analysis
for Asbestos Content: Evaluation of the Tentative Method.4
1.5 Apparatus
1.5.1 Sample Analysis
A low-power binocular microscope, preferably stereoscopic, is
used to examine the bulk insulation sample as received.
* Microscope: binocular, 10-45X ( approximate ).
* Light Source: incandescent or fluorescent.
* Forceps, Dissecting Needles, and Probes.
* Glassine Paper or Clean Glass Plate.
Compound microscope requirements: A polarized light microscope
complete with polarizer, analyzer, port for wave retardation plate,
360 degree graduated rotating stage, substage condenser, lamp, and
lamp iris.
* Polarized Light Microscope: described above.
* Objective Lenses: 10X, 20X, and 40X or near equivalent.
* Dispersion Staining Objective Lens ( optional ).
* Ocular Lens: 10X minimum.
* Eyepiece Reticle: cross hair or 25 point Chalkley Point Array.
* Compensator Plates: 550 millimicron retardation.
1.5.2 Sample Preparation
Sample preparation apparatus requirements will depend upon the
type of insulation sample under consideration. Various physical and/
or chemical means may be employed for an adequate sample assessment.
* Ventilated Hood or negative pressure glove box
* Microscope Slides.
* Coverslips.
* Morter and Pestle: agate or porcelain (optional).
* Wylie Mill (optional).
* Beakers and assorted glassware (optional).
* Centrifuge (optional).
* Filtration apparatus (optional).
* Low temperature asher (optional).
1.6 Reagents
1.6.1 Sample Preparation
* Distilled Water (optional).
* Dilute CH3COOH: ACS reagent grade (optional).
* Dilute HCl: ACS reagent grade (optional).
* Sodium metaphosphate (NaPO3)6 (optional).
1.6.2 Analytical Reagents
* Refractive Index Liquids: 1.490-1.570, 1.590-1.720 in increments of
0.002 or 0.004
* Refractive Index Liquids for Dispersion Staining: high-dispersion
series, 1.550, 1.605, 1.630 (optional).
* UICC Asbestos Reference Sample Set: Available from: UICC MRC
Pneumoconiosis Unit, Llandough Hospital, Penarth, Glamorgan CF6 1XW,
U.K, and commercial distributors.
* Tremolite-asbestos (source to be determined).
* Actinolite-asbestos (source to be determined).
1.7 Procedures
Note: Exposure to airborne asbestos fibers is a health hazard.
Bulk samples submitted for analysis are usually friable and may
release fibers during handling or matrix reduction steps. All sample
and slide preparations should be carried out in a ventilated hood or
glove box with continuous airflow (negative pressure). Handling of
samples without these precautions may result in exposure of the
analyst and contamination of samples by airborne fibers.
1.7.1 Sampling
Samples for analysis of asbestos content shall be taken in the
manner prescribed in Reference 5 and information on design of sampling
and analysis programs may be found in Reference 6. If there are any
questions about the representative nature of the sample, another
sample should be requested before proceeding with the analysis.
1.7.2 Analysis
1.7.2.1 Gross Examination
Bulk samples of building materials taken for the identification
and quantitation of asbestos are first examined for homogeneity at low
magnification with the aid of a stereomicroscope. The core sample may
be examined in its container or carefully removed from the container
onto a glassine transfer paper or clean glass plate. If possible,
note is made of the orientation of top and bottom surfaces. When
discrete strata are identified, each is treated as a separate material
so that fibers are first identified and quantified in that layer only,
and then the results of each layer are combined to yield an estimate
of asbestos content for the whole sample.
1.7.2.2 Sample Preparation
Bulk materials submitted for asbestos analysis involve a wide
variety of matrix materials. Representative subsamples may not be
readily obtained by simple means in heterogeneous materials, and
various steps may be required to alleviate the difficulties
encountered. In most cases, however, the best preparation is made
by using forceps to sample at several places from the bulk material.
Forcep samples are immersed in a refractive index liquid on a
microscope slide, teased apart, covered with a cover glass, and
observed with the polarized light microscope.
Alternatively, attempts may be made to homogenize the sample
or eliminate interferences before further characterization. The
selection of appropriate procedures is dependent upon the samples
encountered and personal preference. The following are presented as
possible sample preparation steps.
A mortar and pestle can sometimes be used in the size reduction
of soft or loosely bound materials, though this may cause matting of
samples. Such samples may be reduced in a Wiley mill. Apparatus
should be clean and extreme care exercised to avoid cross-contamination
of samples. Periodic checks of the particles sizes should be made
during the grinding operation so as to preserve any fiber bundles
present in an identifiable form. These procedures are not recommended
for samples that contain amphibole minerals or vermiculite. Grinding
of amphiboles may result in the separation of fiber bundles or the
production of cleavage fragments that have aspect ratios greater than
3.1 and will be classified as asbestos fibers. Grinding of vermiculite
may also produce fragments with aspect ratios greater than 3:1.
Acid treatment may occasionally be required to eliminate
interferences. Calcium carbonate, gypsum, and bassanite ( plaster )
are frequently present in sprayed or trowelled insulations. These
materials may be removed by treatment with warm dilute acetic acid.
Warm dilute hydrochloric acid may also be used to remove the above
materials. If acid treatment is required, wash the sample at least
twice with distilled water, being careful not to lose the particulates
during decanting steps. Centrifugation or filtration of the suspension
will be prevent significant fiber loss. The pore size of the filter
should be 0.45 micron or less. Caution: prolonged acid contact with
the sample may alter the optical characteristics of chrysotile fibers
and should be avoided.
Coating and binding materials adhering to fiber surfaces may also
be removed by treatment with sodium metaphosphate.7 Add 10 mL of 10
g/L sodium metaphosphate solution to a small ( 0.1 to 0.5 mL ) sample
of bulk material in a 15-ml glass centrifuge tube. For approximately
15 seconds each, stir the mixture on a vortex mixer, place in an
ultrasonic bath and then shake by hand. Repeat the series.
-2-
Collect the dispersed solids by centrifugation at 1000 rpm for 5
minutes. Wash the sample three times by suspending in 10 mL distilled
water and recentrifuging. After washing, resuspend the pellet in 5 mL
distilled water, place a drop of the suspension on a microscope slide,
and dry the slide at 110 degrees centigrade.
In samples with a large portion of cellulosic or other organic
fibers, it may be useful to ash part of the sample and examine the
residue. Ashing should be performed in a low temperature asher.
Ashing may also be performed in a muffle furnace at temperatures of
500 degrees centigrade or lower. Temperatures of 550 degrees
centigrade or higher will cause dehydroxylation of the asbestos
minerals, resulting in changes of the refractive index and other key
parameters. If a muffle furnace is to be used, the furnace thermostat
should be checked and calibrated to ensure that samples will not be
heated at temperatures greater than 500 degrees centigrade.
Ashing and acid treatment of samples should not be used as
standard procedures. In order to monitor possible changes in fiber
characteristics, the material should be viewed microscopically before
and after any sample preparation procedure. Use of these procedures
on samples to be used for quantitation requires a correction for
percent weight loss.
1.7.2.3 Fiber Identification
Positive identification of asbestos requires the determination
of the following optical properties.
* Morphology
* Color and pleochroism
* Refractive indices
* Birefringence
* Extinction characteristics
* Sign of elongation
Table 1-1 lists the above properties for commercial asbestos fibers.
Figure 1-1 presents a flow diagram of the examination procedure.
Natural variations in the conditions under which deposits of
asbestiform minerals are formed will produce exceptions to the
published values and differences from the UICC standards. The sign
of elongation is determined by use of the compensator plate and
crossed polars. Refractive indices may be determined by the Becke
line test. Alternatively, dispersion staining may be used.
Inexperienced operators may find that the dispersion staining
technique is more easily learned, and should consult Reference 9 for
guidance. Central stop dispersion staining colors are presented in
Table 1-2. Available high-dispersion (HD) liquids should be used.
1.7.2.4 Quantitation of Asbestos Content
Asbestos quantitation is performed by a point-counting procedure.
An ocular reticle (cross-hair or point array) is used to visually
superimpose a point or points on the microscope field of view. Record
the number of points positioned directly above each kind of particle
or fiber of interest. Score only points directly over asbestos fibers
or nonasbestos matrix material. Do not score empty points for the
closest particle. If an asbestos fiber and a matrix particle overlap
of that a point is superimposed on their visual intersection, a point
is scored for both categories. Point counting provides a determination
of the area percent asbestos. Reliable conversion of area percent of
dry weight is not currently feasible unless the specific gravities and
relative volumes of the materials are known.
For the purpose of this method, "asbestos fibers" are defined
as having an aspect ratio greater than 3:1 and being positively
identified as one of the minerals in Table 1-1.
A total of 400 points superimposed on either asbestos fibers or
nonasbestos matrix material must be counted over at least eight
different preparations of representative subsamples. Take eight
forcep samples and mount each separately with the appropriate
refractive index liquid. The preparation should not be heavily
loaded. The sample should be uniformly dispersed to avoid overlapping
particles and allow 25-50 percent empty area within the fields of view.
Count 50 nonempty points on each preparation, using either
* A cross-hair reticle and mechanical stage; or
* A reticle with 25 points ( Chalkley Point Array ) and counting at
least 2 randomly selected fields.
For samples with mixtures of isotropic and anisotropic materials
present, viewing the sample with slightly uncrossed polars or the
the addition of the compensator plate to the plane polarized light
path will allow simultaneous discrimination of both particle types.
Quantitation should be performed at 100X or at the lowest
magnification of the polarized lighty microscope that can effectively
distinguish the sample components. Confirmation of the quantitation
result by a second analyst on some percentage of analyzed samples should
be used as standard quality control procedure.
The percent asbestos is calculated as follows:
% asbestos = (a/n) 100%, where a = number of asbestos counts,
n = number of nonempty points counted (400). If a = 0, report "No
asbestos detected".
If 0 LT a LT= 3, report "LT 1% asbestos".
The value reported should be rounded to the nearest percent.
1.8 References
1. Paul F. Kerr, Optical Mineralogy, 4th ed., New York, McGraw-Hill,
1977.
2. E.M. Chamot and C.W. Mason, Handbook of Chemical Microscopy,
Volume One, 3rd ed., New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958.
3. F. Chayes, Petrographic Model Analysis: An Elementary Statistical
Apprisal, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1956.
4. E.P. Brantly, Jr., K.W. Gold, L.E. Myers, and D.E. Lentzen,
Bulk Sample Analysis for Asbestos Content: Evaluation of the
Tentative Method, EPA-600/4-82-021, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, in preparation.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Asbestos-Containing Materials
in School Buildings: A Guidance Document, Part 1 and 2, EPA/OTS No.
C00090, March 1979.
D. Lucas, T. Hartwell, and A.V. Rao, Asbestos-Containing
Materials in School Buildings: Guidance for Asbestos Analytical
Programs, EPA-560/13-80-017A, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
December 1980.
7. D.H. Taylor and J.S. Bloom, Hexametaphosphate pretreatment of
insulation samples for identification of fibrous constituents,
Microscope, 28, 1980.
8. W.J. Campbell, R.L. Blake, L.L. Brown, E.E. Cather, and
J.J. Sjobers. Selected Silicate Minerals and Their Asbestiform
Varieties: Mineralogical Definitions and Identification-
Characterization, U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 8751,
1977.
9. Walter C. McCrone, Asbestos Particles Atlas, Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor
Science Publishers, June 1980.
-3-
Table 1-1. Optical properties of asbestos fibers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mineral: Chrysotile ( asbestiform serpentine ).
Morphology color: Wavy fibers, Fiber bundles have splayed ends and
"kinks". Aspect ratio typically GT 10:1 colorless, 3
nonpleochroic.
Refractive indices 2: ( alpha ) 1.493 - 1.560
( gamma ) 1.517 - 1.5626 (normally 1.556).
Birefringence: .002 - .004
Extinction: Parallel to fiber length.
Sign of elongation: + ( length slow )
Mineral: Amosite ( asbestiform grunerite ).
Morphology color: Straight, rigid fibers. Aspect ratio typically
GT 10:1. Colorless to brown, nonpleochroic or
weakly so. Opaque inclusions may be present.
Refractive indices 2: ( alpha ) 1.635 - 1.696
( gamma ) 1.655 - 1.7296 (normally 1.696 - 1.710)
Birefringence: .020 - .033
Extinction: Parallel to fiber length.
Sign of elongation: + ( length slow ).
Mineral: Crocidolite ( asbestiform riebeckite ).
Morphology color: Straight, rigid fibers. Thick fibers and bundles
common, blue to purple-blue in color. Pleochroic.
Birefringence is generally masked by blue color.
Refractive indices 2: ( alpha ) 1.654 - 1.701
( gamma ) 1.668 - 1.7175 (normally close to 1.700)
Birefringence: .014 - .016
Extinction: Parallel to fiber length.
Sign of elongation: - ( length fast ).
Mineral: Anthophyllite-asbestos
Morphology color: Straight, single fibers, some larger composite
fibers. Anthophyllite cleavage fragments may be
present with aspect ratios LT 10:14. Colorless
to light brown.
Refractive indices 2: ( alpha ) 1.569 - 1.652
( gamma ) 1.615 - 1.6766
Birefringence: .019 - .024
Extinction: Parallel to fiber length.
Sign of elongation: + ( length slow ).
Mineral: Tremolite-actinolite-asbestos
Morphology color: Tremolite-asbestos may be present as single or
composite fibers. Tremolite cleavage fragments
may be present as single crystals with aspect
aspect ratios LT 10:14. Colorless to pale green.
Refractive indices 2: ( alpha ) 1.599 - 1.668
( gamma ) 1.622 - 1.6886
Birefringence: .023 - .020
Extinction: Oblique extinction, 10-20 degree for fragments.
Composite fibers show parallel extinction.
Sign of elongation: + ( length slow ).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 From reference 5; colors cited are seen by observation with plane
polarized light.
2 From reference 5 and 8.
3 Fibers subjected to heating may be brownish.
4 Fibers defined as having aspect ratio GT 3:1.
5 Perpendicular to fiber length.
6 Parallel to fiber length.
Table 1-2. Central stop dispersion staining colors
Mineral R I Liquid Perpendicular Parallel
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Chrysotile 1.550HD Blue Blue-magenta .
"Amosite" 1.680 Blue-magenta Golden-yellow .
to pale blue
1.550HD Yellow to white Yellow to white .
Crocidolite *1.700 Red-magenta Blue-magenta .
1.550HD Yellow to white Yellow to white .
Anthophyllite- 1.605HD Blue Gold to
asbestos gold-magenta .
Tremolite-asbestos 1.605HDc Pale blue Yellow .
Actinolite-asbestos 1.605HD Gold-magenta Gold .
to blue
1.630HDc Magenta Golden-yellow .
--------------------------------------------------------------------
* From reference 9, colors may vary slightly.
b Blue absorption color.
c Oblique extinction view.
-4-
Polarized light microscopy qualitative analysis: For each type of
material identified by examination of sample at low magnification.
Mount specially dispersed sample in 1.550 liquid. (If using
dispersion staining, mount in 1.550 HD.) View at 100X with both
plane polarized light and crossed polars. More than one fiber type
may be present.
Fibers Fibers
present absent
! !
! v
! Examine two additional prepared
! slides at 100X
v !
! -----------v------------
! ! !
! v v
! ------------ Fibers Fibers
! present absent
v !
--------------------------- v
! ! Examination complete.
v v Report of no asbestos
Fibers are isotropic Fibers are anisotropic present.
(disappear at all (exhibit extinction at
angles of stage 90 degree interval of
rotation with state rotation.)
crossed polars)!
Possible fibers include: !
Fiberglass: 1-20 um !
uniform diameter. !
RI typically LT 1.53 v
Mineral wool: 8-200 um 1. Determine extinction characteristics.
diameter, bulbous 2. Determine sign of elongation.
ends and shot. !
RI typically GT 1.53 !
v
------------------------------------------
! !
v v
Positive Negative
! !
v !
---------------------------- !
! ! !
v v v
n = 1.550 (approx.) All n's GT 1.550 Mount in 1.700
Determine n. ! RI liquid
Check morphology for ! Determine n.
chrysotile. !Mount in Check morphology
If fibers are twisted !1.680 for crocidolite.
and exhibit internal !RI liquid
details, cellulose is !
indicated. v
-------------------------------------------
! !
v v
n = 1.680 (approx.) All n's LT 1.680
Determine n. !
Check morphology v
for "amosite". Mount in 1.605 RI liquid.
Determine n.
Check morphology and
characteristics for
anthophyllite-asbestos,
tremolite-actinolite-
asbestos.
Figure 1-1. Flow chart for qualitative analysis of bulk samples
by polarized light microscopy.
-5-
2. X-Ray Powder Diffraction
2.1 Principle and Applicability
The principle of X-ray powder diffraction (XRD) analysis is well
established.1,2 Any solid, crystalline material will diffract an
impingment beam of parallel, monochromatic X-rays whenever Bragg's Law,
(lambda) = 2(delta)sin(THETA),
is satisfied for a particular set of planes in the crystal lattice,
where (lambda) = the X-ray wavelength, (ALPHA);
(delta) = interplanar spacings of the set of reflecting lattice
planes, (ALPHA); and
(THETA) = the angle of incidence between the X-ray beam and the
reflecting lattice planes.
By appropriate orientation of a sample relative to the incident
X-ray beam, a diffraction pattern can be generated that, in most
cases, will be uniquely characteristic of both the chemical
composition and structure of the crystalline phase present.
Unlike optical methods analysis, however, XRD cannot determine
crystal morphology. Therefore, in asbestos analysis, XRD does not
distinguish between fibrous and nonfibrous forms of the serpentine
and amphibole minerals (Table 2-1). However, when used in
conjunction with optical methods such as polarized light microscopy
(PLM), XRD techniques can provide a reliable analytical method for the
identification and characterization of asbestiform minerals in bulk
materials.
For qualitative analysis by XRD methods, samples are initially
scanned over limited diagnostic peak regions for the serpentine
((tilde)7.4(ALPHA)) and amphibole ((8.2-8.5(ALPHA)) minerals
(Table 2-2). Standard slow-scanning methods for bulk sample analysis
may be used for materials shown by PLM to contain significant amounts
of asbestos (GT 5-10 percent). Detection of minor or trace amounts of
asbestos may require special sample preparation and step-scanning
analysis. All samples that exhibit diffraction peaks in the
diagnostic regions for asbestiform minerals are submitted to a full
((5 degrees - 60 degrees 2(THETA), 1 degree 2(THETA)/min)) qualitative
XRD scan, and their diffraction patterns are compared with standard
reference powder diffraction pattern 3 to verify initial peak
assignments and to identify possible matrix interferences when
subsequent quantitative analysis will be performed.
Accurate quantitative analysis of asbestos in bulk samples by
XRD is critically dependent on particle size distribution, crystallite
size, preferred orientation and matrix absorption effects, and
comparability of standard reference and sample materials. The most
intense diffraction peak that has been shown to be free from
interference by prior qualitative XRD analysis is selected for
quantitation of each asbestiform mineral. A "thin-layer" method of
analysis 5,6 is recommended in which subsequent to comminution of the
bulk material to (tilde)10 (Mu)m by suitable cryogenic milling
techniques, an accurately known amount of the sample is deposited on a
silver membrane filter. The mass of asbestiform material is determined
by measuring the integrated area of the selected diffraction peak using
a step-scanning mode, correcting for matrix absorption effects, and
comparing with suitable calibration standards. Alternative
"thick-layer" or bulk methods,7,8 may be used for semiquantitative
analysis.
This XRD method is applicable as a confirmatory method for
identification and quantitation of asbestos in bulk material samples
that have undergone prior analysis by PLM or other optical methods.
2.2 Range and Sensitivity
The range of the method has not been determined. The
sensitivity of the method has not been determined. It will be variable
and dependent upon many factors, including matrix effects (absorption
and interferences), diagnostic reflections selected, and their relative
intensities.
2.3 Limitations
2.3.1 Interferences
Since the fibrous and nonfibrous forms of the serpentine and
amphibole minerals (Table 2-1) are indistinguishable by XRD
techniques unless special sample preparation techniques and instrument
ation are used,3 the presence of nonasbestiform serpentines and
amphiboles in a sample will pose severe interference problems in the
identification and quantitative analysis of their asbestiform analogs.
The use of XRD for identification and quantitation of asbestiform
minerals in bulk samples may also be limited by presence of other
interfering materials in the sample. For naturally occurring materials
the commonly associated asbestos-related mineral interferences can
usually be anticipated. However, for fabricated materials the nature
of the interferences may vary greatly (Table 2-3) and present more
serious problems in identification and quantitation.10 Potential
interferences are summarized in Table 2-4 and include the following:
* Chlorite has major peaks at 7.19(ALPHA) and 3.58(ALPHA) that
interfere with both the primary ((7.36(ALPHA)) and secondary
((3.66(ALPHA)) peaks for chrysotile. Resolution of the primary
peak to give good quantitative results may be possible with a
step-scanning mode of operation is employed.
* Halloysite has a peak at 3.63(ALPHA) that interferes with the
secondary ((3.66(ALPHA)) peak for chrysotile.
* Kaolinite has a major peak at 7.15(ALPHA) that may interfere with
the primary peak of chrysotile at 7.36(APLHA) when present at
concentrations of GT 10 percent. However, the secondary chrysotile
peak at 3.66(ALPHA) may be used for quantitation.
* Gypsum has a major peak at 7.5(ALPHA) that overlaps the
7.36(ALPHA) peak of chrysotile when present as a major sample
constituent. This may be removed by careful washing with distilled
water, or by heating to 300 degrees centigrade to convert gypsum to
plaster of paris.
((3.66(ALPHA)) chrysotile peak.3
* Overlap of major diagnostic peaks of the amphibole asbestos minerals,
amosite, anthophyllite, crocidolite, and tremolite, at approximately
8.3(ALPHA) and 3.1(ALPHA) A causes mutual interference when these
minerals occur in the presence of one another. In some instances
adequate resolution may be attained by using step-scanning methods
and/or by decreasing the collimator slit width at the X-ray port.
* Carbonates may also interfere with quantitative analysis of the
amphibole asbestos minerals, amosite, anthophyllite, crocidolite,
-6-
and tremolite. Calcium carbonate (CaCO3) has a peak at 3.035(ALPHA)
that overlaps major amphibole peaks at approximately 3.1(ALPHA) when
present in concentrations of GT 5 percent. Removal of carbonates with
a dilute acid wash is possible; however, if present, chrysotile may
be partially dissolved by this treatment.11
* A major talc peak at 3.12(ALPHA) interferes with the primary
tremolite peak at this same position and with secondary peaks
of crocidolite ((3.10(ALPHA)), amosite ((3.06(ALPHA)), and
anthophyllite ((3.05(ALPHA)). In the presence of talc, the major
diagnostic peak at approximately 8.3(ALPHA) should be used for
quantitation of these asbestiform minerals.
The problem of intraspecies and matrix interferences is further
aggravated by the variability of the silicate mineral powder
diffraction patterns themselves, which often makes definitive
identification of the asbestos minerals by comparison with standard
reference diffraction patterns difficult. This variability results
from alterations in the crystal lattice associated with differences in
isomorphous substitution and degree of crystallinity. This is
especially true for the amphiboles. These minerals exhibit a wide
variety of very similar chemical compositions, with the result being
that their diffraction patterns are characterized by having major (110)
reflections of the monoclinic amphiboles and (210) reflections of the
orthorhombic anthophyllite separated by less than 0.2(ALPHA).12 2.3.2
Matrix Effects
If a copper X-ray source is used, the presence of iron at high
concentrations in a sample will result in significant X-ray
flourescence, leading to loss of peak intensity with increased
background intensity and an overall decrease in sensitivity. This
situation may be corrected by use of an X-ray source other than copper;
however, this is often accompanied both by loss of intensity and by
decreased resolution of closely spaced reflections. Alternatively, use
of a diffracted beam monochromator will reduce background fluorescent
radiation, enabling weaker diffraction peaks to be detected.
X-ray absorption by the sample matrix will result in overall
attenuation of the diffracted beam and may seriously interfere with
quantitative analysis. Absorption effects may be minimized by using
sufficiently "thin" samples of analysis.5,13,14 However, unless
absorption effects are known to be the same for both samples and
standards, appropriate corrections should be made by referencing
diagnostic peak areas to an internal standard78 or filter substrate
(Ag) peak.5,6
2.3.3 Particle Size Dependence
Because the intensity of diffracted X-radiation is particle-size
dependent, it is essential for accurate quantitative analysis that
both sample and standard reference materials have similar particle size
distributions. The optimum particle size (i.e., fiber length) range
for quantitative analysis of asbestos by XRD has been reported to be
1 to 10um.15 Comparability of sample and standard reference material
particle size distributions should be verified by optical microscopy
(or another suitable method) prior to analysis.
2.3.4 Preferred Orientation Effects
Preferred orientation of asbestiform minerals during sample
preparation often poses a serious problem in quantitative analysis
by XRD. A number of techniques have been developed for reducing
preferred orientation effects in "thick layer" samples.7,8,15 For
"thin" samples on membrane filters, the preferred orientation effects
seem to be both reproductible and favorable to enhancement of the
principal diagnostic reflections of asbestos minerals, actually
increasing the overall sensitivity of the method.12,14 However,
further investigation into preferred orientation effects in both thin
layer and bulk samples is required.
2.3.5 Lack of Suitably Characterized Standard Materials
The problem of obtaining and characterizing suitable reference
materials for asbestos analysis is clearly recognized. NIOSH has
recently directed a major research effort toward the preparation and
characterization of analytical reference materials, including asbestos
standards,16,17. However, these are not available in large quantities
for routine analysis.
In addition, the problem of ensuring the comparability of
standard reference and sample materials, particularly regarding
crystallite size, particle size distribution, and degree of
crystallinity, has yet to be adequately addressed. For example, Langer
et al.13 have observed that in insulating matrices, chrysotile tends to
break open into bundles more frequently than amphiboles. This results
in a line-broadening effect with a resultant decrease in sensitivity.
Unless this effect is the same for both standard and sample materials,
the amount of chrysotile in the sample will be underestimated by XRD
analysis. To minimize this problem, it is recommended that standardized
matrix reduction procedures be used for both sample and standard
materials. 2.4 Precision and Accuracy
Precision of the method has not been determined.
Accuracy of the method has not been determined.
2.5 Apparatus
2.5.1 Sample Preparation
Sample preparation apparatus requirements will depend upon the
sample type under consideration and the kind of XRD analysis to be
performed.
* Morter and Pestle: Agate or porcelain.
* Razor Blades.
* Sample Mill: SPEX, Inc., freezer mill or equivalent.
* Bulk Sample Holders.
* Silver Membrane Filter: 25-mm diameter, 0.45-um pore size. Sales.
Corp. of America, Flotronics Div., 1957 Pioneer Road, Huntington
Valley, PA 19006.
* Microscope Slides.
* Vacuum Filtration Apparatus: Gelman No. 1107 or equivalent, and
side-arm vacuum flask.
* Microbalance.
* Ultrasonic Bath or Probe: Model W140, Ultrasonics, Inc., operated at
a power density of approximately 0.1 W/mL, or equivalent.
* Volumetric Flasks: 1-L volume.
* Assorted Pipet.
* Pipet Bulb.
* Nonserrated Forceps.
* Polythylene Wash Bottle.
* Pyrex Beakers: 50-mL volume.
* Desiccator.
* Filter Storage Cassettes.
* Magnetic Stirring Plate and Bars.
* Porcelain Crucibles.
* Muffle Furnace or Low Temperature Asher.
2.5.2 Sample Analysis
Sample analysis requirements include an X-ray diffraction unit,
equipped with:
* Constant Potential Generator; Voltage and mA Stabilizers.
* Automated Diffractometer with Step-Scanning Mode.
*Copper Target X-Ray Tube: High intensity; fine focus, preferably.
* X-Ray Pulse Height Selector.
* X-Ray Detector ( with high voltage power supply ): Scintillation or
proportional counter.
-7-
* Focusing Graphite Crystal Monochromator; or Nickel Filter ( if copper
source is used, and iron florescence is not a serious problem ).
* Data Output Accessories: Strip Chart Recorder, Decade Scaler/Timer,
Digital Printer.
* Sample Spinner (optional).
* Instrument Calibration Reference Specimen: a-quartz reference
crystal (Arkansas quartz standard, #180-147-00, Philips Electronics
Instruments, Inc., 85 McKee Drive, Mahwah, NJ 07430) or equivalent.
2.6 Reagents
2.6.1 Standard Reference Materials
The reference materials listed below are intended to serve as
a guide. Every attempt should be made to acquire pure reference
materials that are comparable to sample materials being analyzed.
* Chrysotile: UICC Canadian, or NIEHS Plastibest. (UICC reference
materials available from: UICC, MRC Pneumoconiosis Unit, Llandough
Hospital, Penarth, Glamorgan, CF61XW, UK).
* Crocidolite: UICC.
* "Amosite": UICC.
* Anthophyllite-Asbestos: UICC.
* Tremolite Asbestos: Wards Natural Science Establishment, Rochester,
NY; Cyprus Research Standard, Cyprus Research, 2435 Military Ave.,
Los Angeles, CA 90064 ( washed with dilute HCl to remove small amount
of calcite impurity ); Indian tremolite, Rajasthan State, India.
* Actinolite Asbestos: (Source to be determined).
2.6.2 Adhesive
Tape petroleum jelly, etc. ( for attaching silver membrane filters
to sample holders ).
2.6.3 Surfactant
1 Percent aerosol OT aqueous solution or equivalent.
2.6.4 Isopropanol
ACS Reagent Grade.
2.7 Procedure
2.7.1 Sampling
Samples for analysis of asbestos content shall be collected as
specified in EPA Guidance Document #C0090. Asbestos-Containing
Materials in School Buildings.10
2.7.2 Analysis
All samples must be analyzed initially for asbestos content by
PLM. XRD should be used as an auxiliary method when a second,
independent analysis is requested.
Note: Asbestos is a toxic substance. All handling of dry
materials should be performed in an operating fume hood.
2.7.2.1 Sample Preparation
The method of sample preparation required for XRD analysis will
depend on: (1) the condition of the sample received (sample size,
homogeneity, particle size distribution, and overall composition as
determined by PLM); and (2) the type of XRD analysis to be performed
(qualitative or quantitative; thin layer or bulk).
Bulk materials are usually received as inhomogeneous mixtures of
complex composition with very wide particle size distributions.
Preparation of a homogeneous, representative sample from asbestos
containing materials is particularly difficult because the fibrous
nature of the asbestos minerals inhibits mechanical mixing and
stirring, and because milling procedures may cause adverse lattice
alterations.
A discussion of specific matrix reduction procedures is given
below. Compare the methods of sample preparation are detailed in
Sections 2.7.2.2 and 2.7.3.3. Note: All samples should be examined
microscopically before and after each matrix reduction step to monitor
changes in sample particle size distribution, composition, and
crystallinity, and to ensure sample representativeness and homogeneity
for analysis. 2.7.2.1.1 Milling - Mechanical milling of asbestos
materials has been shown to decrease fiber crystallinity, with a
resultant decrease in diffraction intensity of the specimen; the degree
of lattice alter ation is related to the duration and type of milling
process.19-22 Therefore, all milling times should be kept to a minimum.
For qualitative analysis, particle size in not usually of
critical importance and initial characterization of the material with
a minimum of matrix reduction is often desirable to document the
composition of the sample as received. Bulk samples of very large
particle size (GT 2-3mm) should be comminuted to (tilde)100(Mu)m.
A mortar and pestle can sometimes be used in size reduction of soft
or loosely bound materials though this may cause matting of some
samples. Such samples may be reduced by cutting with a razor blade
in a mortar, or by grinding in a suitable mill (e.g., a microhammer
mill or equivalent). When using a mortar for grinding or cutting,
the sample should be moistened with ethanol, or some other suitable
wetting agent, to minimize exposures.
For accurate, reproductible quantitative analysis, the particle
size of both sample and standard materials should be reduced to
(tilde)10(Mu)m (see Section 2.3.3). Dry ball milling at liquid
nitrogen temperatures (e.g., Spex Freezer Mill, or equivalent) for a
maximum time of 10 min is recommended to obtain satisfactory particle
size distributions while protecting the integrity of the crystal
lattice.5 Bulk samples of every large particle may require grinding
in two stages for full matrix reduction to LT 10(Mu)m.8,16
Final particle size distributions should always be verified by
optical microscopy or another suitable method.
2.7.2.1.2. Low temperature ashing - For materials shown by PLM to
contain large amounts of gypsum, cellulose, or other organic materials,
it may be desirable to ash the samples prior to analysis to reduce
background radiation or matrix interference. Since chrysotile under
goes dehydroxylation at temperatures between 550 and 650 degrees
centigrade, with subsequent transformation to forsterite,23,24 ashing
temperatures should be kept below 500 degree centigrade. Use of a low
temperature asher is recommended. In all cases, calibration of the oven
is essential to ensure that a maximum ashing temperature of 500 degrees
centigrade is not exceeded. 2.7.2.1.3 Acid leaching - Because of the
interference caused by gypsum and some carbonates in the detection of
asbestiform minerals by XRD (see Section 2.3.1), it may be necessary to
remove these interferents by a simple acid leaching procedure prior to
analysis (see Section 1.7.2.2).
2.7.2.2 Qualitative Analysis
2.7.2.2.1 Initial screening of bulk material - Qualitative analysis
should be performed on a representative, homogeneous portion of the
sample with a minimum of sample treatment using the following procedure:
1. Grind and mix the sample with a mortar and pestle (or equivalent
method, see Section 2.7.2.1.1) to a final particle size
sufficiently small ((tilde)100(Mu)m) to allow adequate packing into
the sample holder.
2. Pack sample into a standard bulk sample holder. Care should be
taken to ensure that a representative portion of the milled sample
is selected for analysis. Particular care should be taken to avoid
possible size segregation of the sample. (Note: Use of a back
packing method 25 for bulk sample preparation may reduce preferred
-8-
orientation effects.)
3. Mount the sample on the diffractometer and scan over the diagnostic
peak regions for the serpentine ((tilde)7.4(ALPHA)) and amphibole
((8.2-8.5(ALPHA)) minerals (see Table 2-2). The X-ray diffraction
equipment should be optimized for intensity. A slow scanning speed
of 1 degree 2(THETA)/ min is recommended for adequate resolution.
Use of a sample spinner is recommended.
4. Submit all samples that exhibit diffraction peaks in the diagnostic
regions for asbestiform minerals to a full qualitative XRD scan
(5-60 degrees 2(THETA); 1 degree 2(THETA)/min)) to verify initial
peak assignments and to identify potential matrix interferences
when subsequent quantitative analysis is to be performed.
5. Compare the sample XRD patter with standard reference powder
diffraction patterns (i.e., JCPDS powder diffraction data3 or those
of other well-characterized reference materials). Principal lattice
spacings of asbestiform minerals are given in Table 2-2; common
constituents of bulk insulation and wall materials are listed in
Table 2-3.
2.7.2.2.2 Detection of minor or trace constituents - Routine screening
of bulk materials by XRD may fail to detect small concentrations (LT 5
percent) of asbestos. The limits of detection will, in general, be
improved if matrix absorption effects are minimized, and if the sample
size is reduced to the optional 1 to 10(Mu)m range, provided that the
crystal lattice is not degraded in the milling process. Therefore, in
those instances where confirmation of the presence of an asbestiform
mineral at very low levels is required, or where a negative result from
initial screening of the bulk material by XRD (see Section 2.7.2.2.1)
is in conflict with previous PLM results, it may be desirable to
prepare the sample as described for quantitative analysis (see Section
2.7.2.3) and step-scan over appropriate 2Q ranges of selected
diagnostic peaks (Table 2-2). Accurate transfer of the sample to the
silver membrane filter is not necessary unless subsequent quantitative
analysis is to be performed.
2.7.2.3 Quantitative Analysis
The proposed method for quantitation of asbestos in bulk samples
is a modification of the NIOSH-recommended thin-layer method for
chrysotile in air.5 A thick-layer or bulk method involving pelletizin
the sample may be used for semiquantitative analysis;7,8 however,
this method requires the addition of an internal standard, use of a
specially fabricated sample press, and relatively large amounts of
standard reference materials. Additional research is required to
evaluate the comparability of thin- and thick-layer methods for
quantitative asbestos analysis.
For quantitative analysis by thin-layer methods, the following
procedure is recommended:
1. Mill and size all or a substantial representative portion of the
sample as outlined in Section 2.7.2.1.1.
2. Dry at 100 degrees centigrade for 2 hours; cool in a desiccator.
3. Weigh accurately to the nearest 0.01 mg.
4. Samples shown by PLM to contain large amounts of cellulosic or
other organic materials, gypsum, or carbonates, should be submitted
to appropriate matrix reduction procedures described in Sections
2.7.2.1.2 and 2.7.2.1.3. After ashing and/or acid treatment,
repeat the drying and weighing procedures described above, and
determine the percent weight loss, L.
5. Quantitatively transfer an accurately weighed amount (50-100 mg)
of the sample to a 1-L volumetric flask with approximately 200 mL
isopropanol to which 3 to 4 drops of surfactant have been added.
6. Ultrasonicate for 10 min at a power density of approximately
0.1W/mL, to disperse the sample material.
7. Dilute to volume with isopropanol.
8. Place flask on a magnetic stirring plate. Stir.
9. Place a silver membrane filter on the filtration apparatus, apply
a vacuum, and attach the reservoir. Release the vacuum and add
several milliliters of isopropanol to the reservoir. Vigorously
hand shake the asbestos suspension and immediately withdrawn an
aliquot from the center of the suspension so that total sample
weight, Wt, on the filter will be approximately 1 mg. Do not
adjust the volume in the pipet by expelling part of the suspension;
if more than the desired aliquot is withdrawn, discard the aliquot
and resume the procedure with a clean pipet. Transfer the aliquot
to the reservoir. Filter rapidly under vacuum. Do not wash the
reservoir walls. Leave the filter apparatus under vacuum until dry.
Remove the reservoir, release the vacuum, and remove the filter
with forceps. ( Note: Water-soluble matrix interferences such
as gypsum may be removed at this time by careful washing of the
filtrate with distilled water. Extreme care should be taken not
to disturb the sample. )
10. Attach the filter to a flat holder with a suitable adhesive and
place on the diffractometer. Use of a sample spinner is recommended.
11. For each asbestos mineral to be quantitated, select a reflection
(or reflections) that has been shown to be free from interferences
by prior PLM or qualitative XRD analysis and that can be used
unambiguously as an index of the amount of material present in the
sample (see Table 2-2).
12. Analyze the selected diagnostic reflection(s) by step scanning in
increment of 0.02 degrees 2(THETA) for an appropriate fixed time
and integrating the counts. (A fixed count scan may be used
alternatively; however, the method chosen should be used
consistently for all samples and standards.) An appropriate scanning
interval should be selected for each peak, and background corrections
made. For a fixed time scan, measure the background on each side of
the peak for one-half the peak-scanning time. The net intensity, Ia
is the difference between the peak integrated count and the total
background count.
13. Determine the net count, IAg, of the filter 2.36(ALPHA) silver
peak following the procedure in step 12. Remove the filter from
the holder, reverse it, and reattach it to the holder. Determine
the net count for the unattenuated silver peak, IoAg. Scan times
may be less for measurement of silver peaks than for sample peaks;
however, they should be constant throughout the analysis.
-9-
OMITTED: 2.7.14 - 2.9 Formulas for Normalized Intensities
2.10 References
1. H.P. Klug and L.E. Alexander, X-ray Diffraction Procedures for
Polycrystalline and Amorphous Materials, 2nd ed., New York:
John Wiley and Sons, 1979.
2. L.V. Azaroff and M.J. Buerger, The Powder Method of X-ray Crystal
lography, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1958.
3. JCPDS - International Center for Diffraction Data Powder
Diffraction File, on Powder Diffraction Studies, 1601 Park Lane,
Swarthmore, PA.
4. W.J. Campbell, C.W. Huggins, and A.G. Wylie, Chemical and Physical
Characterization of Amosite, Chrysotile, Crocidolite, and Nonfibrous
Tremolite for National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
Oral Ingestion Studies, U.S. Bureau of Mines Report of Investigation
RI 8452, 1980.
5. B.A. Lange and J.C. Haartz, Determination of microgram quantities
of asbestos by X-ray diffraction: Chrysotile in thin dust layers of
matrix material, Anal. Chem, 51(4):520-525, 1979.
6. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, Volumes 5, U.S. Dept. HEW,
August 1979, pp. 309-1 to 309-9.
7. H.W. Dunn and J.H. Stewart, Jr., Determination of chrysotile in
building materials by X-ray Diffractometry, Anal. Chem., 54(7);
1122-1125, 1982.
-10-
8. M. Taylor, Methods for the quantitative determination of asbestos
and quartz in bulk samples using X-ray diffraction, The Analyst,
103(1231):1009-1020, 1978.
9. L. Birks, M. Fatemi, J.V. Gilfrich, and E.T. Johnson, Quantitative
Analysis of Airborne Asbestos by X-ray Diffraction, Naval Research
Laboratory Report 7879, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C.,
1975.
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Asbestos-Containing
Materials in School Buildings: A Guidance Document, Parts 1 and 2,
EPA/OTS No. C00090, March 1979.
11. J.B. Krause and W.H. Ashton, Misidentification of asbestos in
talc, pp. 339-353, In: Proceedings of Workshop on Asbestos:
Definitions and Measurement Methods (NBS Special Publication 506),
C.C. Gravatt, P.D. LaFleur, and K.F. Heinrich (eds.), Washington,
D.C: National Measurement Laboratory, National Bureau of Standards,
1977 (issued 1978).
12. H.D. Stanley, The detection and identification of asbestos and
asbestiform minerals in talc, pp. 325-337, In: Proceedings of
Workshop on Asbestos: Definitions and Measurement Methods (NBS
Special Publication 506), C.C. Gravatt, P.D. LaFleur, and K.F.
Heinrich (eds.), Washington, D.C: National Measurement Laboratory,
National Bureau of Standards, 1977 (issued 1978).
13. A.L. Rickards, Estimation of trace amounts of chrysotile asbestos
by X-ray diffraction, Anal. Chem., 441(11):1872-3, 1972.
14. P.M. Cook, P.L. Smith, and D.G. Wilson, Amphibole fiber
concentration and determination for a series of community air
samples:
Use of X-ray diffraction to supplement electron microscope analysis,
In: Electron Microscopy and X-ray Application to Environmental and
Occupational Health Analysis, P.A. Russell and A.E. Hutchings
(eds.), Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Science Publications, 1977.
15. A.N. Rohl and A.M. Langer, Identification and quantitation of
asbestos in talc, Environ. Health Perspectives, 9:95-109, 1974.
16. J.L. Graf, P.K. Ase, and R.G. Draftz, Preparation and Character
ization of Analytical Reference Minerals, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication
No. 79-139, June 1979.
17. J.C. Haartz, B.A. Lange, R.G. Draftz, and R.F. Scholl, Selection
and characterization of fibrous and nonfibrous amphiboles for
analytical methods development, pp.295-312, In: Proceedings of
Workshop on Asbestos: Definitions and Measurement Methods (NBS
Special Publication 506), C.C. Gravatt, P.D. LaFleur, and K.F.
Heinrich (eds.), Washington, D.C: National Measurement Laboratory,
National Bureau of Standards, 1977 (issued 1978).
18. Personal communication, A.M. Langer, Environmental Sciences
Laboratory, Mount Sinai School of Medicine of the City University
of New York, New York, NY.
19. A.M. Langer, M.S. Wolff, A.N. Rohl, and I.J. Selikoff, Variation
of properties of chrysotile asbestos subjected to milling,
J. Toxicol and Environ. Health, 4:173-188, 1978.
20. A.M. Langer, A.D. Mackler, and F.D. Pooley, Electron microscopical
investigation of asbestos fibers, Environ. Health Perspect.,
9:63-80, 1974.
21. E. Occella and G. Maddalon, X-ray diffraction characteristics of
some types of asbestos in relation to different techniques of
communication, Med. Lavoro, 54(10):628-636, 1963.
22. K.R. Spurny, W. Stober, H. Opiela, and G. Weiss, On the problem
of milling and ultrasonic treatment of asbestos and glass fibers
in biological and analytical applications, Am.Ind.Hyg. Assoc.J.,
41:198-203, 1980.
23. L.G. Berry and B. Mason, Mineralogy, San Francisco: W.H. Greenman
and Co., 1959.
24. J.P. Schelz, The detection of chrysotile asbestos at low levels
in talc by differential thermal analysis, Thermochimica Acta,
8:197-204, 1974.
25. Reference 1, pp. 372-374.
26. J. Leroux, Staub-Reinhalt Luft, 29:26 (English), 1969.
27. J.A. Leroux, B.C. Davey, and A. Paillard, Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J.,
34:409, 1973.
Table 2-1. The asbestos minerals and their nonasbestiform analogs.
Asbestiform Nonasbestiform
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Serpentine
Chrysotile Antigorite, lizardite .
Amphibole .
Anthophyllite asbestos Anthophyllite .
Cummingtonite-grunerite asbestos ("Amosite") Cummingtonite-grunerite .
Crocidolite Riebeckite .
Tremolite asbestos Tremolite .
Actinolite asbestos Actinolite .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2-2 Principal lattice spacings of asbestiform minerals.3
Principal (delta)-spacings(ALPHA) JCPDS Powder
Minerals and relative intensities diffraction filec no.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chrysotile 7.37/100 3.65/70 4.57/50 21-543c .
7.36/100 3.66/80 2.45/65 25-645 .
7.10/100 2.33/80 3.55/70 22-1162 ( theoretical ) .
"Amosite" 8.33/100 3.06/70 2.756/70 17-745 ( nonfibrous ) .
8.22/100 3.060/65 3.25/70 27-1170 ( UICC ) .
Anthophyllite 3.05/100 3.24/60 8.26/55 9-455 .
3.06/100 8.33/70 3.23/50 16-401 ( synthetic ) .
Actinolite 2.72/100 2.54/100 3.40/60 25-157 .
Crocidolite 8.35/100 3.10/55 2.720/35 27-1415 ( UICC ) .
Tremolite 8.38/100 3.12/100 2.705/90 13-437c .
2.706/100 3.14/95 8.43/40 20-1310c( synthetic ) .
3.13/100 2.706/60 8.44/40 23-666 ( synthetic .
mixture with richterite ).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* This information is intended as a guide, only Complete powder
diffraction data, including mineral and source, should be referred
to, to ensure comparability of sample and reference materials
where possible. Additional precision XRD data on amosite,
crocidolite, tremolite, and chrysotile are available from the U.S.
Bureau of Mines, Reference 4. b) From Reference 3. c) Fibrosity
questionable
-11-
Table 2-3. Common constituents in insulation and wall materials
(from Reference 10)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Insulation materials B. Spray finishes or paints
Chrysotile Bassanite
"Amosite" Carbonate minerals ( calcite,
Crocidolite dolomite, vaterite )
*Rock wool Talc
*Slag wool Termolite
*Fiber glass Anthophyllite
*Gypsum ( CaSO4-2H2O ) Serpentine ( including chrysolite )
Vermiculite ( micas ) "Amosite"
*Perlite Crocidolite
Clays ( kaolin ) *Mineral wool
*Wood pulp *Rock wool
*Paper fibers ( talc, clay, *Slag wool
carbonte fillers ) *Fiber glass
Calcium silicates (synthetic) Clays (kaolin)
Opaques (chromite, magnetite Micas
inclusions in serpentine Chlorite
Hematite (inclusions in "amosite") Gypsum (CaSO4.2H2O)
Magnesite Quartz
*Diatomaceous earth *Organic binders and thickeners
Hydromagnesite
Wollastonite
Opaques (chromite, magnetite
inclusions in serpentine)
Hematite (inclusions in "amosite")
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Amorphous materials - contribute only to overall scattered radiation
and increased background radiation.
Table 2-4. Interferences in XRD analysis of asbestiform minerals
Primary diagnostic peaks
Asbestiform (Approximate
mineral (delta)-spacing in (ALPHA)) Interference
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Serpentine
Chrysotile 7.4 Nonasbestiform serpentines.
( antigorite, lizardite )
Chlorite
Kaolinite
Gypsum
3.7 Nonasbestiform serpentines.
( antigorites, lizardite )
Chlorite
Halloysite
Cellulose
Amphibole
"Amosite" 3.1 Nonasbestiform amphiboles.
Anthophyllite ( cummingtonite-grunerite,
Crocidolite anthophyllite, riebekite,
Tremolite tremolite )
Mutual interferences
Carbonates
Talc
8.3 Nonasbestiform amphiboles.
( cummingtonite, grunerite,
anthophyllite, reibeck,
tremolite )
Mutual interferences
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment 3
EPA HEADQUARTERS CONTACTS
Office Phone Home Phone
SSCD
Robert Myers FTS-382-2875 301-587-3468
Environmental Scientist
Compliance Monitoring Branch.
(if unavailable)
Richard Biondi, Chief FTS-382-2831 703-978-5674
Regulations Analysis Section
Compliance Monitoring Branch.
OECM - Air
Elliot Gilberg FTS-382-2864 202-543-5243
Senior Attorney-Advisor
(if unavailable).
David Rochlin FTS-382-2866 202-462-1797
Assistant Enforcement Counsel.
Attachment 4
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CONTACTS
Office Phone
Carol Green FTS-633-5403
Assistant Chief
Environmental Enforcement Section.
George Lawrence FTS-633-5271
Assistant Chief
Environmental Enforcement Section.
After Hours Home Phone
George Lawrence 703-442-0848
Stephen Ramsey 301-270-6968
Chief
Environmental Enforcement Section
Attachment 5
ASBESTOS DEMOLITION PROGRAM
1. How do you handle notifications of proposed asbestos removal
projects?
2. Describe the record management system in use.
3. How many notifications did you receive last year? How many
did you inspect? (Explain if necessary).
4. Who is responsible for assuring the asbestos waste material
is disposed of in the landfill?
5. Do you coordinate the disposal of asbestos materials with all
involved hazardous/toxic waste disposal agencies?
6. Is there any coordination with OSHA?
7. How many man years are devoted to your asbestos programs?
8. Who is your present asbestos coordinator? Phone?
9. What kinds of training do your asbestos demolition inspectors
receive?
10. What kinds of safety equipment do they use?
11. a. Is your agency equipped to determine the presence of
asbestos in materials?
b. What equipment do you have available for this?
c. What procedures do you use?
12. Have you detected violations since receiving the delegation
of authority? If so, what ultimate enforcement action was
taken?
13. The asbestos standard is currently under review by EPA. Do
you have any suggestions or revisions?
14. What is the extent of your activities involving other
hazardous emission sources? (RCRA hazardous waste
incinerators)
GUIDANCE FOR 1984 FIELD AUDIT OF STATE ASBESTOS INSPECTORS
AIR ENGINEERING SECTION, AIR MANAGEMENT BRANCH,
AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION
I. Before arriving at the site with the State inspector, determine
if he or she has:
A. Received proper notification (10 or 20 days, with all
information required by 40 CFR 61, Subpart B(d)(1) or
(2)). If not, why?
B. Received any training related to this type inspection
(personal safety, asbestos demolition project inspection
courses, etc.).
C. The proper safety equipment.
- Proper respiratory protection.
- Clothing.
- Hard hat, safety shoes, safety glasses.
D. Notified the appropriate OSHA office. (Will an OSHA
representative be present?)
II. At the asbestos removal project site does the inspector:
A. Locate the proper site supervisor (contractor, owner,
owner's designee)?
B. Properly identify himself to the site supervisor?
C. Ascertain the extent of the contaminated area in relation
to the rest of the immediate site area, including the
heating/cooling duct system, that could possibly contaminate
the rest of the building or site? Is asbestos present
in other parts of the buildings or site?
-2-
D. Assure that proper warning signs and area security
measures are in place and being observed?
E. Don the proper safety equipment before entering
contaminated areas?
F. Request the site supervisor accompany him or her during
the inspection?
III. In the Contaminated area, does the inspector check to
see if:
A. The room was properly prepared ( remove all removable
items, protect walls, windows and floors with
construction plastic, seal off all air conditioning ducts,
install double-walled entrance/egress shield )?
B. The asbestos-containing materials to be removed are
being properly wetted ( and obtain information on
surfactant specifications, mixture ratio, amounts used, note
overuse )?
C. The material is being properly removed from the adhering
surface ( so as to minimize fiber emissions )?
D. The material is being properly bagged and labeled?
E. The workers are properly equipped with respiratory
protection, clothing, tools?
F. Ambient sampling is being conducted ( in contaminated
area, outside contaminated area, in other parts of
building or site )? By whom?
-3-
G. The workers are taking care to prevent tracking of
asbestos-contaminated materials outside contaminated
area and taking proper precaution to contain the
asbestos fibers in the contaminated area? ( Do they
leave contaminated disposable clothing/footwear in
contaminated area? )
H. Personnel showers are installed ( is water contained for
burial in landfill )?
I. The no smoking, drinking or eating rule is being observed
in the work area?
J. During clean-up all contaminated cleaning materials are
carefully removed and placed in plastic bags for shipment
to burial site?
K. The room is sponge-wiped and/or carpets wet-vacuumed or
if a HEPA vacuum system is being used?
L. All contaminated cleaning materials including cleaning
water ( vacuum water ) are properly disposed off?
M. The waste containers are properly labeled and stored in
a secured area for shipment to the landfill?
N. The waste-hauling vehicle is properly enclosed?
O. The bags and/or containers are carefully loaded and
unloaded on the hauling vehicles with no containers
being broken?
-4-
P. The landfill meets the requirements of 40 CFR 61,
Subpart B. ( Is the asbestos waste material covered
before the end of the day? )
Q. The burial site is being suitably marked for future
location?
IV. Insofar as the state's asbestos sampling and analysis
capabilities are concerned:
A. Does the inspector ever gather bulk asbestos samples?
B. Does the inspector conduct air sampling for asbestos
fiber concentrations?
C. How is analysis conducted?
V. After the auditor and inspector leave the site, constructive
criticism should be offered to the inspector by the auditor,
taking care to ensure that he or she understands that the
auditor is merely making suggestions rather than dictating
policy or procedure changes. In case of improper state
agency policy, these matters should be resolved between
EPA and agency directors and followed up during the mid-year
evaluation.
Comments:
Attachment 6
Use of CDS to Track Asbestos Renovation and Demolition Sources
Regions II and VII have established and are implementing
procedures for using CDS to track asbestos renovation and
demolition (R and D) projects. The approaches are similar and
relatively easy to implement. The process consists of tracking
at the source level individual contractors (name and address)
and tracking at the point level, under the process description
(PRDS), the job location. For example, the specifies of Region
II's procedures are as listed:
. Sources as demolition sites are not entered into CDS.
Instead, we enter the particular contractor (name and
address) that is doing the job. If more than 1 contractor
is working on one demolition, we enter both as separate
"sources". If the contractor is located outside the
Region, we enter it under county "0001" in NJ or NY (a
county field). Name street, city and zip code are
entered.
. APCD of 8 and APST of D and R are entered. On the "5"
card (PTNO 000) we enter SCMS, CMS2 and PLLT (AB).
. We use a special point numbering system depending upon the
location of the job (either NJ or NY). If the job
(demolition or renovation) is in New Jersey, we enter PTNO 100,
101, 102, etc. For New York, we enter 300, 301, 302, etc. This is
independent of where the contractor is located.
. On the "5" card for the specific points, we enter CMST, CMS2,
PLLT (AB), and PRDS. At PRDS we list the job location (e.g.
PRDS = High School/Board St/Newark, NJ). Under the specific
points we enter all of the actions associated with that
particular demolition or renovation which correspond to
inspections and enforcement actions.
These are offered as examples of how CDS is being used to
deal with transitory activities. We urge you to adopt a similar
procedure. If further explanation is needed on this subject,
please contact Gerald DeGaetano (Region II) at 8-264-4726,
JoAnn Heiman (Region VII) at 8-758-2576, or Franklin Smith
(SSCD) at 8-382-2831.
Attachment 7
Old Designation (Section) Repromulgated Designation
Subpart B Subpart M
. 61.20 61.140
. 61.21 61.41
. 61.22 -----
. (a) 61.142
. (b) 61.143
. (c) 61.144
. (d) 61.145
. (d)(1)(i) 61.145
. (d)(1)(ii) 61.146
. (d)(2) 61.146
. (d)(3)(i)(A)(B) 61.145
. (d)(3)(ii) 61.145
. (d)(4) 61.147
. (d)(5) 61.146
. (d)(6) 61.145
. (e) 61.148
. (f) 61.142 - 61.152
. (g) 61.141
. (h) 61.149
. (i) 61.150
. (j) 61.152
. (k) 61.151
. (l) 61.153
. 61.23 61.154
. 61.24 61.155
. 61.25 61.156
Return to Enforcement Policies