Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan; Interim Final Rule ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing this interim final rule to revise its asbestos

Model Accreditation Plan (MAP) to clarify the types of persons who must

be accredited to work with asbestos in schools and public and

commercial buildings; to increase the minimum number of hours of

training, including additional hours of hands-on health and safety

training, for asbestos abatement workers and contractor/supervisors;

and to effect a variety of other necessary changes as mandated by

section 15(a)(3) of the Asbestos School Hazard Abatement

Reauthorization Act (ASHARA). This revised rule replaces the original

MAP found at 40 CFR part 763, Appendix C to Subpart E. The original MAP

contained six components which, taken together, comprised a model

asbestos accreditation plan for States and EPA-approved training

providers. These components included: (1) Initial training, (2)

examinations, (3) refresher training, (4) qualifications, (5)

decertification requirements, and (6) reciprocity. This revision adds

two new components to the original MAP; (1) definitions, which help to

determine the scope and applicability of the rule, and (2) new

recordkeeping requirements for the providers of accredited training

courses. The changes also specify the deadline for States to modify

their accreditation programs to be no less stringent than the revised

MAP as required by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section

206(b)(2). Further, the revised MAP prescribes deadlines for training

course providers and persons who must obtain accreditation to comply

with new requirements; distinguishes between the training requirements

for each of the five accredited training disciplines; adds several new

topics to the project designer training curriculum; establishes new

enforcement criteria and Federal procedures for withdrawing approval

from accredited persons and training programs; and stipulates new

information requirements for training certificates. Because the

revisions expand the minimum requirements for an accreditation plan,

States may have to modify their programs to insure that each State has

a contractor accreditation plan that is at least as stringent as the

revised MAP as required by TSCA section 206(b). Similarly, training

providers may need to adjust their training course administration or

curricula to comply with the revised MAP. Finally, EPA has modified the

organization, and some of the language of the original MAP. These

modifications, however, are technical, and do not impose new

substantive requirements.

DATES: This Rule is effective April 4, 1994. Because this is an interim

final rule, EPA is accepting further comment on this action. All

written comments must be received by EPA no later than March 4, 1994.

EPA will consider the written comments received during the 30-day

comment period in determining the need for any further rule amendments.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Field Programs Branch,

Chemical Management Division (7404), Office of Pollution Prevention and

Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., Washington,

DC 20460. EPA does not anticipate receiving any comments that contain

information claimed as confidential business information (CBI). If such

comments are submitted, however, they must be clearly labeled as

containing information claimed as CBI or they will be placed in the

public record. CBI claims should be accompanied by statements

substantiating the claim as described in 40 CFR 2.204(e)(4). If

information is claimed as CBI, a nonconfidential version of the

comments should also be submitted for the public docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan B. Hazen, Director,

Environmental Assistance Division (7408), Office of Pollution

Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, Rm E-543B, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 554-1404, TDD: (202) 554-0551.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Agency is requesting comment on this revised MAP only to the

extent that it has amended or changed the original MAP. The Agency is

not soliciting comments on provisions of the original MAP that remain

unaffected by this action. Specifically, and notwithstanding the

inclusion of some of the existing language from the original MAP in

this revised MAP, the Agency will only entertain comments to the extent

that they address actual changes which have been incorporated. Appendix

C to subpart E of 40 CFR 763 is reproduced in its entirety solely for

clarity and to facilitate understanding of how the changes and

amendments fit within the existing regulatory structure.

I. Background

In 1986, Congress enacted the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response

Act (AHERA, or TSCA Title II) which mandated a regulatory program to

address asbestos hazards in schools. A part of AHERA (section 206; 15

U.S.C. 2646) dealt with the mandatory training and accreditation of

persons who would perform certain types of asbestos-related work in

schools. Subsequently, in 1990, Congress enacted ASHARA (Pub. L. 101-

637), which amended AHERA to extend some of the training and

accreditation requirements to persons performing such work in public

and commercial buildings. Consequently, EPA is now effecting regulatory

changes to reflect and implement these statutory amendments.

Originally, section 206 of AHERA required EPA to develop a MAP

providing for the training of certain types of persons performing

asbestos-related work in elementary and secondary schools (15 U.S.C.

2646). Persons covered by this original MAP included those who

inspected school buildings for asbestos-containing materials (ACM);

developed asbestos management plans for schools; and designed or

conducted response actions with respect to friable ACM, other than

small-scale, short-duration activities, in schools. Such persons were

required to obtain accreditation as a prerequisite to performing this

work.

AHERA also required States to adopt a State accreditation program

that was no less stringent than that described in the MAP (15 U.S.C.

2646(b)(2)). Persons could then obtain accreditation by completing

either an EPA-approved training course, or a training course approved

by a State with a program that was at least as stringent as the MAP,

and by passing an examination for that course. Individual States,

however, could elect to impose more stringent requirements as a

condition of accreditation.

The original MAP established five accredited ``disciplines'' for

asbestos-related activities in schools, which included: worker,

contractor/supervisor, inspector, management planner, and project

designer. For each discipline, it outlined a functional role and set of

job responsibilities, and stipulated minimum training, examination, and

continuing education requirements. It established areas of knowledge of

asbestos inspection, management plan development, and response action

technology that persons seeking accreditation must demonstrate and that

States must include in their accreditation programs.

On November 28, 1990, Congress enacted ASHARA and expanded the

accreditation requirements to apply to persons who work with asbestos

in public and commercial buildings as well as schools. Specifically,

ASHARA expanded TSCA section 206(a)(1) and (3) to require accreditation

for any person who inspects for ACM in a public and commercial

building, or who designs or conducts a response action with respect to

friable ACM in such a building. As a result of this amendment, the MAP

accreditation requirements for inspectors, project designers, workers,

and contractor/supervisors now apply equally to persons in both schools

and public and commercial buildings. Congress, however, did not extend

the accreditation requirement for management planners. As a result,

TSCA requires accreditation for persons who prepare management plans if

they work in schools, but does not require such accreditation if they

work in public and commercial buildings (15 U.S.C. 2646(a)(2)).

ASHARA also required EPA to revise the current MAP by increasing

the minimum number of hours of training, including hands-on training,

required for asbestos abatement workers in both schools and public and

commercial buildings. ASHARA, however, did not specify the amount of

additional training that would be required. In addition, ASHARA

authorized EPA to modify the MAP as necessary to implement the

extension of accreditation requirements to public and commercial

buildings.

Finally, ASHARA amended the penalty provisions of TSCA section 207

(15 U.S.C. 2647). It provided for a civil penalty for contractors who

fail to comply with TSCA accreditation requirements by inspecting,

designing, or conducting a response action in a school or public or

commercial building without TSCA accreditation, or by employing

individuals to conduct response actions in such a building, and failing

to require or provide TSCA accreditation for the employees. A

contractor who commits a violation is liable for a civil penalty of

$5,000 for each day of a violation, except for a contractor who is a

direct employee of the Federal Government (15 U.S.C. 2646 (g)).

The ASHARA accreditation provisions originally were to take effect

on November 28, 1991. ASHARA, however, authorized EPA's Administrator

to extend that effective date for one year. On January 7, 1992, the

Administrator took action to extend the effective date until November

28, 1992 (57 FR 1913, January 16, 1992). The Administrator determined

that accredited asbestos contractors were needed to perform school site

abatement required under AHERA, and that such an extension was

necessary to ensure effective implementation of section 203 of TSCA

(ASHARA section 15(c)). As a result of this extension, persons who

perform inspections, or plan or conduct response actions in public and

commercial buildings were required to obtain TSCA accreditation

beginning on November 28, 1992.

EPA has decided to phase-in the other new requirements contained in

the revised MAP when the revision takes effect. These requirements

include an increase in the minimum number of hours of training,

including hands-on training, for asbestos abatement workers in both

schools and public and commercial buildings, and other necessary

revisions.

EPA is promulgating the revised MAP as an interim final rule that

will take effect 60 days after the rule is published. The streamlined

procedures that EPA has utilized to revise the MAP are fully consistent

with the Congressional directive to EPA for developing the original

MAP. AHERA specifically authorized the Agency to issue the MAP ``after

consultation with affected parties'' (15 U.S.C. 2646(b)(1)(A)). EPA

issued it after a public request for information in the Federal

Register (51 FR 28914, August 12, 1986) and consultations with affected

parties, but without engaging in full-scale notice and comment

rulemaking. EPA has used procedures to revise the MAP that are as

extensive as those that were used to develop the original MAP. EPA

believes it is reasonable to conclude that Congress did not intend EPA

to engage in the redundancy of consultation with affected parties and

formal notice and comment rulemaking in either issuing the MAP or in

revising it, and therefore intended EPA to issue this revision to the

MAP after undertaking similar consultations with affected parties.

EPA finds that there is good cause to issue an interim final rule,

without utilizing all of the notice and public comment procedures in

section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), because

those procedures are impracticable and unnecessary under the

circumstances (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). It is impracticable to utilize the

full-scale notice and comment proceedings in section 553(b) because

such proceedings would unjustifiably extend the rulemaking process, and

would further delay the implementation of the revised MAP. Congress

clearly intended that EPA act expeditiously to revise the MAP, and even

established a deadline for the EPA revisions. EPA did not meet the

deadline because of the time-consuming process that was necessary to

create an accreditation plan that would coordinate with existing,

diverse State accreditation programs, minimize disruption of current

training providers, and contain other provisions necessary to implement

the revisions. If EPA were to develop and publish a notice of proposed

rulemaking pursuant to section 553(b), the revisions would have been

even further delayed. The impact of such a delay would be exacerbated

by the additional time that is required for States to pass conforming

legislation and implement the revised MAP after it is issued.

Finally, full-scale rulemaking is unnecessary because EPA has

communicated informally with affected parties, given notice of the

revisions to the public, and provided an opportunity to submit

information and comments prior to promulgating this interim final rule.

Initially, the Agency consulted with affected organizations to identify

revisions that were necessitated by ASHARA. These organizations

included schools, commercial building owners and operators, asbestos

abatement consultants and contractors, labor organizations, training

providers, and States. Subsequently, EPA published a notice in the

Federal Register that described the revisions that were being

considered, and announced a public meeting to discuss the changes (57

FR 20438, May 13, 1992).

EPA also established a docket containing information which supports

EPA's revision of the MAP. To provide interested persons the

opportunity for oral presentation of data, views, or arguments

concerning the changes under consideration, EPA held a public meeting

on June 8, 1992, in Washington, DC. Twenty-three persons presented oral

comments for the record. A transcript of this proceeding is contained

in the docket. EPA also received 80 written comments in response to the

Federal Register announcement. These comments have also been filed in

the docket, and were carefully considered by the Agency in revising the

MAP.

II. Summary of Changes

The various new requirements of the MAP are described here in

greater detail. This summary is organized by subject area.

A. Definitions

The promulgated revisions establish a new definitions section for

the MAP. Seven terms are included to help clarify and delineate the

scope and applicability of the MAP to work performed in public and

commercial buildings. The seven terms, and their meanings, are

summarized below:

1. Public and commercial building. The term ``public and commercial

building'' is defined in TSCA section 202(10) to mean ``any building

which is not a school building, except that the term does not include

any residential apartment building of fewer than 10 units'' (15 U.S.C.

2642(10)). This definition identifies those buildings where persons

performing certain asbestos-related work are subject to the MAP

training and accreditation requirements. Such buildings generally

include apartment complexes, condominiums and cooperatives of more than

10 units, office buildings, government-owned buildings, colleges,

museums, airports, hospitals, churches, preschools, stores, warehouses,

and factories. It also includes all industrial buildings, because

industrial buildings are included within the broad statutory definition

of public and commercial buildings.

This particular term does not include elementary or secondary

schools as defined in section 198 of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 2854; 15 U.S.C. 2642(9) and (12)). The

definition in the revised MAP excludes all detached single family

homes, because they are residential buildings of fewer than 10 dwelling

units.

Furthermore, consistent with the statute and EPA's regulatory

approach for schools, the term is interpreted to include only the

interiors of buildings except for exterior hallways connecting

buildings, porticos, and mechanical systems used to condition interior

space. Consequently, accredited workers are generally not required for

work on roofing or siding materials that are on the outside of either

public and commercial buildings or schools.

2. Friable asbestos-containing material (ACM). In TSCA section 202,

friable asbestos-containing material means any material containing more

than one percent asbestos, which has been applied on ceilings, walls,

structural members, piping, duct work, or any other part of a building,

which, when dry, may be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by

hand pressure. The term includes non-friable ACM after such previously

non-friable material becomes damaged to the extent that when dry it may

be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure'' (15

U.S.C. 2642(6)). At no point does the statute regulate activities that

involve nonbuilding materials, such as asbestos gloves or asbestos

brake linings, that may be either stored or used inside of a building.

Consequently, the use of the term ``friable ACM'' in the MAP refers

only to ``friable asbestos-containing building material (ACBM),'' and,

where the statute requires accreditation for activities associated with

ACM, accreditation is only required if the asbestos is part of the

building.

3. Inspection. Although AHERA required that schools conduct

asbestos inspections, ASHARA did not extend this same requirement to

public and commercial buildings. Furthermore, because the Asbestos-

Containing Materials in Schools Rule (``Schools Rule'') (40 CFR 763.80-

763.119) simply listed the various activities required to be included

as a part of these mandatory school inspections (40 CFR 763.85),

without actually defining the term itself, a definition of

``inspection'' is necessary to delineate the scope of the MAP

accreditation requirement as it applies to both schools and public and

commercial buildings. Accordingly, the term ``inspection'' is defined

to mean those activities undertaken to specifically determine the

presence or location, or to assess the condition of, friable or non-

friable ACBM or suspected ACBM, whether by visual or physical

examination, or by collecting samples of such material. Similarly, the

term includes all ``reinspections'' of friable and non-friable known or

assumed ACBM which has been previously identified.

The inclusion of a definition for the term inspection is intended

to clarify when a person must obtain TSCA accreditation before

performing an inspection. TSCA Title II, as amended by ASHARA, did not

define inspection. When Congress enacted ASHARA, however, the Schools

Rule was in effect, and it identified the activities that constituted

an inspection in school buildings (40 CFR 763.85 and 763.92). The

definition of inspection adopted in the revised MAP is based upon the

core inspection activities identified in the Schools Rule at

Sec. 763.85(a), including the visual or physical examination, and the

sampling of ACBM or suspected ACBM to determine its location or

presence or to assess its physical condition. Based upon the revised

MAP, a person must be accredited to engage in any one of these core

activities in a school or in a public and commercial building. In

addition, the Schools Rule continues to require accreditation for any

person who engages in any one of these core activities. Because the

Schools Rule currently requires an accredited person to conduct the

core inspection activities, and the revised MAP requires accreditation

for those same activities, the revision will not expand the need for

accredited inspectors in schools.

The definition, however, also allows for three specific exceptions,

dealing with related activities which do not require accreditation. The

three excepted activities include: periodic surveillance, compliance

inspections, and visual inspections.

The first exception under this term addresses periodic surveillance

of the type described in 40 CFR 763.92(b), which is commonly performed

by custodial or maintenance workers. Periodic surveillance is distinct

from reinspection and is limited only to visual observations. It refers

to a visual examination of an area in a building that previously has

been identified as containing ACBM, or that previously has been assumed

to contain ACBM, and that is undertaken to identify changes in the

physical condition of that ACBM. Thus, a person would not need

accreditation to visually survey a ceiling that had already been

identified in an earlier inspection or reinspection as suspected ACBM

to determine whether the ceiling had been damaged by a water leak. If

the person assessed the condition of the ceiling by collecting a

sample, or touched it to determine whether it had become friable,

however, then that person would have to be accredited as an inspector.

The second type of activity that is excluded from the definition of

inspection is compliance inspections performed by Federal, State, or

local regulatory agencies. These are excluded from accreditation

because their primary purpose is to determine adherence to applicable

statutes or regulations, and not to locate, assess, or remedy the

condition of ACBM. TSCA Title II does not provide a clear definition of

the types of inspection activities that require training. The

legislative history of ASHARA, however, indicates that Congress

intended to require training only for those persons who actually

inspect for or abate asbestos in public and commercial buildings. See

136 Cong. Rec. S15304 (Oct. 15, 1990) (statement of Sen. Burdick).

Based upon the purpose of ASHARA, EPA has concluded that government

personnel who inspect to determine compliance with laws regulating

asbestos are not required to obtain accreditation.

The third exception involves visual inspections of the type

referenced in 40 CFR 763.90(i). These types of activities are excluded

from the accreditation requirement because their purpose is to

determine whether a response action is complete, not to actually

inspect for asbestos. See 136 Cong. Rec. S15304 (Oct. 15,1990)

(statement of Sen. Burdick). Moreover, when Congress enacted ASHARA, it

was aware that AHERA required accreditation for persons who inspected

for asbestos in schools. Persons who conducted visual inspections in

schools to determine whether a response action was complete, however,

did not have to be accredited as inspectors. The legislative history of

ASHARA indicates that Congress did not intend to expand the categories

of persons that had to be accredited when it modified the accreditation

requirements to include public and commercial buildings as well as

schools. As noted by Senator Chafee: ``[ASHARA] does not require the

accreditation of any category of individuals not now required to be

accredited to perform asbestos abatement work [under AHERA].'' 136

Cong. Rec. S15309 (Oct. 15, 1990) (statement of Sen. Chafee).

Consequently, EPA has concluded that a person who conducts an

inspection in a public and commercial building to determine whether a

response action is complete does not have to be accredited as an

inspector. Of course, many persons performing such activities will

otherwise need accreditation as asbestos abatement workers or

contractor/supervisors.

4. Response action. The term ``response action'' is defined in the

MAP to mean a method, including removal, encapsulation, enclosure,

repair, and operation and maintenance, that protects human health and

the environment from friable ACBM. This definition is consistent with

the definition of ``response action'' in TSCA section 202(11) (15

U.S.C. 2642(11)), and with the definition of ``response action'' in the

Schools Rule found at 40 CFR 763.83. Its incorporation into the revised

MAP will therefore ensure that it applies equally to regulated

activities in both schools and public and commercial buildings.

Consequently, those activities that are response actions in schools

will also now be response actions when and where they are undertaken in

public and commercial buildings.

Moreover, a person planning or conducting a response action is

subject to the MAP accreditation requirements only if the ACBM is

friable (15 U.S.C. 2646(a)(3)). As defined in both the MAP and in TSCA

section 202(6), ``friable ACM'' refers only to ACM that ``when dry, may

be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure'' (15

U.S.C. 2642(6)). It also includes previously ``nonfriable material

after such previously non-friable material becomes damaged to the

extent that when dry, it may be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to

powder by hand pressure'' (15 U.S.C. 2642(6)). This statutory

definition of friability thereby limits the scope of the accreditation

requirements for response actions in both schools and public and

commercial buildings to ACBM that is friable or expected to become

friable during the course of the response action.

5. Small-scale, short-duration activities. For purposes of the

revised MAP, ``small-scale, short duration activities (SSSD)'' are

tasks such as, but not limited to: (a) Removal of asbestos-containing

insulation on pipes, (b) removal of small quantities of asbestos-

containing insulation on beams or above ceilings, (c) replacement of an

asbestos-containing gasket on a valve, (d) installation or removal of a

small section of drywall, or (e) installation of electrical conduits

through or proximate to asbestos-containing materials.

SSSD can be further defined by the following considerations: (a)

Removal of small quantities of ACM only if required in the performance

of another maintenance activity not intended as asbestos abatement, (b)

removal of asbestos-containing thermal system insulation not to exceed

amounts greater than those which can be contained in a single glove

bag, (c) minor repairs to damaged thermal system insulation which do

not require removal, (d) repairs to a piece of asbestos-containing

wallboard, or (e) repairs, involving encapsulation, enclosure, or

removal, to small amounts of friable ACM only if required in the

performance of emergency or routine maintenance activity and not

intended solely as asbestos abatement (such work may not exceed amounts

greater than those which can be contained in a single prefabricated

mini-enclosure. Such an enclosure shall conform spatially and

geometrically to the localized work area, in order to perform its

intended containment function).

This definition is intended to establish a common exemption

threshold for both schools and public and commercial buildings that

limits the applicability of the MAP training and accreditation

requirements. All persons in schools or public and commercial buildings

who perform SSSD that do not otherwise meet the criteria for a major

fiber release episode under 40 CFR 763.91(f)(2) are exempt from the MAP

accreditation requirements. However, a SSSD removal of more than 3

square or linear feet of friable ACBM, where this amount of friable

ACBM either falls or is dislodged, requires the use of an accredited

worker.

6. Major and minor fiber release episodes. To help clarify the

applicability and limits of the SSSD exemption under the MAP, EPA is

incorporating two additional definitions for the terms ``Minor Fiber

Release Episode'' and ``Major Fiber Release Episode.'' Consistent with

the Schools Rule (40 CFR 763.83 and 763.91(e), (f)), a minor fiber

release episode is ``any uncontrolled or unintentional disturbance of

ACBM, resulting in a visible emission'' that ``involves the falling or

dislodging of 3 square or linear feet or less of friable ACBM.'' A

major fiber release episode is ``any uncontrolled or unintentional

disturbance of ACBM, resulting in a visible emission'' that ``involves

the falling or dislodging of more than 3 square or linear feet of

friable ACBM.'' The Schools Rule uses these terms, in addition to SSSD,

as a means to distinguish between those maintenance activities that

require the use of accredited workers, and those that do not. These

terms help delineate when persons performing operation and maintenance

activities are subject to MAP training and accreditation requirements.

Like SSSD, they are basic to determining the scope of the regulation,

and have been added for that reason.

B. Phased Implementation

EPA has decided that it is necessary to phase-in the MAP revisions

to achieve an orderly transition to the revised plan. Additional time

will be needed after the revised MAP has taken effect for States to

adopt accreditation plans no less stringent than the revised MAP, for

training course providers to modify their training courses in keeping

with upgraded MAP standards, and for individuals to obtain new or

additional training where applicable. For these reasons, the revisions

incorporate a timetable with two distinct deadlines; one that applies

to States, and another for accredited persons and training course

providers.

1. States. EPA believes that it is reasonable to allow States a

comparable amount of time to come into compliance with the revised MAP

as was allowed under the original MAP. Therefore, the requirement of

the original MAP, that each State must adopt an accreditation plan at

least as stringent as the EPA model plan within 180 days after the

commencement of the first regular session of the State's legislature

following EPA's adoption of the model plan, is carried over to the

revised MAP. When Congress originally enacted AHERA, it required States

to adopt such a plan, and established a deadline that was tied to the

timing of the first legislative session following completion of the

MAP. When it promulgated ASHARA, Congress did not modify TSCA section

206(b)(2) that requires States to have a plan at least as stringent as

the MAP (15 U.S.C. 2646(b)(2)). When Congress enacted ASHARA, it was

aware that States would need time to enact conforming State

legislation. It is reasonable to conclude that Congress intended to

allow States the same amount of time to adopt implementing legislation

to comply with the MAP revisions in ASHARA that it had originally

allowed for compliance with AHERA. The deadline for State revisions of

accreditation plans allows States the time that is needed to revise

State laws. When this deadline is combined with the other provisions to

phase-in the MAP revisions, EPA believes that there will be an orderly

transition to the expanded system of accreditation for schools, and

public and commercial buildings.

Some States already will have contractor accreditation programs

that meet or exceed the upgraded MAP requirements when the revised MAP

takes effect. These States are essentially unaffected by the revisions,

and may continue to operate as before. A second group of States will

not have accreditation programs in place that are as stringent as the

revised MAP when it first takes effect, but will have preexisting

accreditation programs that are in compliance with the original MAP.

These State programs may or may not be approved by EPA under the

revised MAP. Until such a State revises its program to comply with the

upgraded MAP standards, it will not have the authority to approve any

new training courses to provide training or accreditation that

satisfies the requirements of TSCA section 206(a) (15 U.S.C. 2646(a)).

In the interim, however, the State may continue to train persons and

issue the accreditation required by TSCA section 206(a) if the State

program otherwise complies with the minimum standards of the original

MAP. The State also may continue its approval of training course

providers, if the State issued the approval before the effective date

of the revised MAP, and the training provider is in compliance with the

self-certification requirements contained in Unit V.B. of the revised

MAP. This allows qualified training course providers to continue to

train and issue accreditation that satisfies TSCA section 206(a)

requirements.

Some States in the second group will revise their accreditation

program to be at least as stringent as the MAP within 180 days after

the commencement of the legislature's first regular session that is

convened after the effective date of the revised MAP. When such a State

achieves this program upgrade, it will regain the authority to approve

new training course providers.

Other States in the second group, however, may fail to meet the

deadline for achieving the necessary program upgrade. Beginning on

their respective deadline dates, these States will no longer have the

authority to train persons or issue accreditation that satisfies the

requirements of TSCA section 206(a), or to approve training course

providers to conduct TSCA training or issue TSCA accreditation. A

training provider that had been approved by such a State automatically

loses its State approval. A training provider that loses State approval

in this manner, however, will become EPA-approved if the provider has

self-certified and is otherwise in compliance with the revised MAP.

Finally, such a State automatically loses any EPA approval it may have

had. Once lost, a State would need to reapply for such approval under

the procedures outlined in Unit II of the revised MAP.

A third group of States will not have any accreditation program in

place when the revised MAP takes effect, or will not have a program

which is at least as stringent as the original or revised MAP. These

States are not in compliance with TSCA Title II, are not authorized to

train persons or issue accreditation that satisfy the requirements of

TSCA section 206(a), and may not approve training course providers to

conduct TSCA training or issue TSCA accreditation. EPA strongly

recommends that States apply for and retain EPA approval of their

accreditation programs for the purpose of substantiating their

compliance status under TSCA Title II. Substantiation of compliance

benefits all affected persons and organizations, including States that

may be considering reciprocal arrangements with other States.

2. Training course providers. The revised MAP stipulates that all

approved training course providers, whether approved by EPA or a State,

must self-certify that they have upgraded their approved training

programs to comply with the requirements of the revised MAP within 6

months of the revised MAP taking effect. The certification must be

received by EPA on or before October 4, 1994. This requirement applies

across-the-board to all initial and refresher training courses in all

five accredited disciplines even though actual curriculum modifications

are only required for the initial worker, contractor/supervisor, and

project designer courses. Self-certification is required for all

courses and all disciplines because all training providers must certify

that they not only comply with the prescribed training course

curricula, but with the new recordkeeping and certificate provisions of

the revised MAP as well. The self-certification process is to be

accomplished by submitting a written assurance to EPA that courses and

programs have been appropriately modified. The self-certification must

be signed by an authorized representative of the training provider, and

must include the following statement: ``Under civil and criminal

penalties of law for the making or submission of false or fraudulent

statements or representations (18 U.S.C. 1001 and 15 U.S.C. 2615), I

certify that the training described in this submission complies with

all applicable requirements of Title II of TSCA, 40 CFR part 763,

Appendix C to Subpart E, as revised, and any other applicable Federal,

state, or local requirements.'' The self-certification submission must

also include documentation adequately describing the course and program

modifications effected to achieve compliance with the revised MAP.

Training providers with multiple course approvals are encouraged to

certify all such courses through a single consolidated submission.

Complete duplicate copies of self-certifications must also be sent to

and received by any State approving offices as of the same deadline

date. Training courses that have not self-certified as of October 4,

1994, will no longer be approved, and must reapply through a State

Program which is no less stringent than the revised MAP to have their

approval status restored.

As was previously announced in the Federal Register (54 FR 38802,

September 20, 1989), EPA stopped accepting new training course

applications from providers for review and contingent approval as of

October 15, 1989. Since that date, all training courses without

approval have had to apply directly to State Programs with

accreditation plans no less stringent than the original MAP in order to

obtain the necessary approval. Once a training course has been self-

certified, a training provider may continue to offer that training

course pursuant to the revised MAP. If the course had initially been

approved by an EPA-approved State, and that State subsequently forfeits

its EPA-approved status, EPA will continue to recognize the training

course as being an approved course if it has been self-certified and

otherwise remains in compliance with the revised MAP.

3. Accredited persons. The revisions grandfather all persons who

possess valid accreditation as of the day before the date upon which

the revised MAP goes into effect. A person is considered to have valid

accreditation if they are in possession of an accreditation certificate

that has not yet expired. If a State allows a person with an expired

certificate to reinstate accreditation by completing refresher training

within the 12-month grace period, then such a person will also be

considered to have valid accreditation for purposes of grandfathering.

The person must successfully complete the necessary refresher training

course within 12 months of the date their certificate expires. Persons

who do not meet either of the above conditions do not possess valid

accreditation, and will not be grandfathered for purposes of

accreditation under the revised MAP.

Grandfathered persons will not have to repeat initial training in

order to perform work subject to accreditation, but will have to

continue to fully comply with all annual refresher training

requirements.

Persons who do not possess valid accreditation as of the day before

the date upon which the revised MAP goes into effect have two

alternative means of obtaining initial accreditation. A person may take

an upgraded training course, and obtain accreditation that complies

with the revised MAP. Alternatively, a person may take a course that

was approved under the original MAP and obtain provisional

accreditation. However, this person must then also complete the

upgraded training course for the same discipline within 6-months of the

revised MAP taking effect, on or before October 4, 1994, in order to

obtain accreditation that complies with the revised MAP and to continue

working beyond that date. This mechanism will ensure that all persons

who become newly accredited after the revised MAP takes effect will

meet the upgraded training standards within 6 months, while at the same

time, making it possible for all persons to acquire a provisional

accreditation and continue to work during the 6-month transition period

when training providers are upgrading their courses and programs.

From earlier consultations with training providers, EPA anticipates

that many, if not most, will have little or no difficulty transitioning

to the upgraded training course standards (OPPTS Docket No. 62107, Log

No. B2-002). For worker and contractor/supervisor courses, this

involves extending hands-on training from 6 to 14 hours. For the

project designer course, it involves revising instructional materials

as necessary to accomodate curriculum changes. For the inspector and

management planner courses, there are no required curriculum changes

per se. Because many training providers already comply with the new

recordkeeping and certificate requirements as a matter of standard

business practice, these adjustments are not expected to be burdensome.

Development and submittal of the self-certification letter, by design,

should also be a relatively simple task. In addition, EPA expects that

once the revised MAP has gone into effect, demand for the upgraded

training courses in favor of the original courses will provide

sufficient market incentive for a significant number of training

providers to self-certify quickly, thereby expediting an infrastructure

shift from the old courses to the new.

The examples below are intended to help illustrate how

accreditation will operate during the transition period.

a. Person ``A'' obtains initial accreditation as a worker 1-month

before the revised MAP takes effect. This person is then grandfathered

in when the revised MAP goes into effect 1-month later. The person must

then complete worker refresher training within 11 months after the

revised MAP takes effect in order to continue accreditation status

unbroken.

b. Person ``B'' is a non-accredited consultant who is awarded an

asbestos abatement contract 4 months after the revised MAP takes

effect. This person is able to find and quickly complete an upgraded

contractor/supervisor course, thereby obtaining initial accreditation.

This person has met the new training standards, and thus is unaffected

by the 6-month compliance deadline. The consultant must then satisfy

the refresher training requirement within 1-year of the initial

accreditation date in order to continue uninterrupted contractor/

supervisor work.

c. Person ``C'' is a non-accredited consultant who is awarded a

contract for project design 1-month after the effective date of the

revised MAP. This person is unable to find an upgraded training course,

so opts to take the old initial project designer training course and

begin contract work without undue delay. This person may begin work,

but must complete an upgraded project designer course within the 6-

month compliance deadline in order to continue working in an

uninterrupted manner. A consultant who does not complete the upgraded

training course by the compliance deadline must then stop work that

requires TSCA accreditation until obtaining upgraded accreditation.

The same transitional provisions apply to any person who seeks

initial accreditation after the revised MAP takes effect, including

inspectors and management planners. The revised MAP imposes certain new

requirements on all disciplines, specifically new recordkeeping and

certificate requirements. EPA has concluded that everyone who is

initially accredited after the revised MAP takes effect should be

subject to the same transitional provisions to insure that their

training and accreditation will be adequately documented as required by

the new rule, and that they will have certificates that contain all the

necessary information. Such uniformity will make the accreditation

requirements easier to comply with and enforce.

C. Distinct Training Disciplines

These MAP revisions reaffirm the principle that each of the five

accredited training disciplines in the MAP is distinct from the others.

Because each discipline reflects a different functional job role,

proficiency in any one of the five disciplines requires a different mix

of knowledge, skill, and ability. Even where training programs cover

common subjects, these same subjects need to be given a different

priority and emphasis depending upon the particular discipline a person

is being trained for. To ensure that each discipline receives adequate

training, the revisions have incorporated the following changed

requirements.

1. Each initial and refresher training course offered for

accreditation must be specific to a single discipline, and not combined

with training for any other discipline. The past practice of training

providers offering combined worker and contractor/supervisor training

is not allowed.

2. Workers are no longer permitted to ``upgrade'' their worker

accreditation to that of contractor/supervisor by completing only one

additional day of training. Separate initial training as a contractor/

supervisor is now required. Accredited contractor/supervisors, however,

may perform as workers without obtaining separate accreditation as

such. This is because contractor/supervisors have received more

training in the aggregate than workers to ensure that they can perform

their more complex job functions, and they must otherwise know how to

perform all of the various tasks which workers are normally called upon

to perform.

3. Persons completing initial training for accreditation as

contractor/supervisors are no longer permitted to work as accredited

project designers during their initial 1-year term of accreditation.

This dual-accreditation provision, found in section I.1.C. of the

original MAP, has been deleted from the revised MAP. Persons seeking

accreditation as contractor/supervisors must now complete the new 5-day

initial training for contractor/supervisors, and persons seeking

accreditation as project designers must now complete the new 3-day

initial training for project designers.

D. Increased Training Requirements

Section 15(a)(3) of ASHARA mandated that EPA, as a part of revising

its MAP, increase the minimum number of training hours, including

additional hours of hands-on health and safety training, required for

the accreditation of asbestos abatement workers in schools and public

and commercial buildings. EPA interprets the phrase ``asbestos

abatement workers'' to include both workers and contractor/supervisors.

These groups have the greatest need for additional hands-on training

because they either actually perform asbestos abatement work, or

directly oversee it at the job site. The revised MAP therefore

incorporates 1 additional 8-hour day of hands-on training for both the

worker and the contractor/supervisor disciplines. This has the effect

of increasing the worker course from a total of 3 days to 4 days of

training, with the hands-on training component increased from 6 hours

to 14 hours. Similarly, the 4-day contractor/supervisor course has been

upgraded to a 5-day course, with 14 hours of hands-on activity. These

training hour requirements not only fulfill the statutory mandate for

additional hands-on training for asbestos abatement workers, but also

ensure that training can be obtained within the practical limits of a

normal 40-hour, 5-day work-week.

The minimum training hour requirements for the other three

accredited MAP disciplines, that of inspector, management planner, and

project designer have not been altered. Congress only mandated

increased training for asbestos abatement workers, and the only

accredited disciplines directly engaged in hands-on abatement work are

the worker and contractor/supervisor. The project designer and

management planner courses do not include any hands-on health and

safety training component. Because inspectors likewise do not

participate in abatement, the existing 4-hour hands-on component for

inspectors is unaffected by the ASHARA mandate.

E. Expanded Project Designer Curriculum

The MAP revisions incorporate several additions to the mandatory

curriculum for accredited project designer training, but do not extend

the required length of this initial training program. These changes

relate only to the scope of training; they do not require an accredited

project designer to perform any particular work practices. Because of

concerns that project designs may sometimes be either inadequately

prepared and/or executed, the curriculum additions are aimed at both

clarifying and improving the effectiveness of the project designer's

functional role (see OPPTS Docket No. 62107, Log No. C1-030). Where no

written design plan exists, implementation can be prone to failure.

This may also occur where a project design has not adequately

considered all relevant facets of an abatement project. For these

reasons, the six new topics which have been added include: (1) The need

for and methods of preparing a written project design, (2) techniques

for completing an initial cleaning of the work area, (3) increased

emphasis on the rationale behind the establishment of functional

spaces, (4) the need for written diagrams and methods of diagraming all

containment barriers, (5) the need for a written sampling rationale for

air clearance, and (6) clarification of what constitutes a complete

visual inspection.

F. Deaccreditation of Persons and Withdrawal of Course Approval

The MAP revisions establish minimum national criteria for

suspending or revoking the accreditation of individuals as well as for

suspending or withdrawing the approval of training courses. Also

included are additional criteria that EPA may use, and States are free

to adopt, as well as the procedures that EPA will follow when

suspending, revoking, or withdrawing accreditation or approval. The

specified procedures are derived from those used for the suspension,

modification, or revocation of pesticide applicator certificates found

at 40 CFR 171.11(f). EPA believes that these procedures provide

adequate notice and process to affected individuals and training course

providers, while enabling the Agency to act more quickly than through

those procedures specified at 40 CFR part 22, which had also been

considered by the Agency. States, in initiating these kinds of actions,

would be bound by the requirements of their own State administrative

procedures.

The enumeration of criteria for suspension, revocation, or

withdrawal is not meant to be a complete list of enforcement actions

and choices available to EPA. Since the MAP is a regulation promulgated

under Title II of TSCA, persons violating the MAP may also be subject

to assessment of civil administrative penalties. The MAP revisions also

clarify that EPA may take independent actions against either training

entities or accredited persons, without reliance upon State enforcement

authority or initiative.

1. Deaccrediting persons. Four minimum criteria are established for

triggering deaccreditation actions by EPA or a State. They include: (1)

Performing work requiring accreditation at a job site without being in

physical possession of initial and current accreditation certificates;

(2) permitting the duplication or use of one's own accreditation

certificate by another; (3) performing work for which accreditation has

not been received; or (4) obtaining accreditation from a training

provider that does not have approval to offer training for the

particular discipline from either EPA or from a State that has a

contractor accreditation plan at least as stringent as the EPA MAP.

EPA may also suspend or revoke a person's accreditation if such

person has been found in violation of other asbestos regulations

administered by EPA. States may wish to adopt this criterion, or modify

it to include their own asbestos statutes or regulations.

In addition, the revised MAP identifies some of the situations when

a person who is performing an activity that requires accreditation will

be subject to civil penalties under TSCA. Examples include, but are not

limited to: (1) Obtaining accreditation through fraudulent

representation of training or examination documents; (2) obtaining

training documentation through fraudulent means; (3) gaining admission

to and completing refresher training through fraudulent representation

of initial or previous refresher training documentation; or (4)

obtaining accreditation through fraudulent representation of

accreditation requirements such as education, training, professional

registration, or experience. This list is not exhaustive, and there may

be other situations where persons may be subject to penalties under

TSCA by conducting work without the requisite accreditation.

2. Withdrawal of course approval. This new provision requires that

States have minimum criteria and procedures for suspending or

withdrawing approval from approved training courses. In pursuing

actions for withdrawal of approval of accredited training programs,

States should follow their own State administrative procedures. EPA may

directly pursue actions for withdrawal of approval of accredited

training programs without reliance on State withdrawal actions or

enforcement authority or actions. In taking such actions, EPA will use

the same procedures specified for the suspension or revocation of

accreditation, those found at 40 CFR 171.11(f), to suspend or withdraw

approval of a training course.

EPA continues to have the ability to withdraw approval of

accredited training programs if field site inspections indicate that a

training course is not conducting training that meets the requirements

of the EPA MAP. Similarly, the requirement that training course

providers permit EPA representatives to attend, evaluate, and monitor

any training course without charge to EPA is preserved.

EPA believes that training providers should understand the criteria

that the Agency will use to trigger a withdrawal action. Minimum

criteria which trigger the commencement of a withdrawal action for

withdrawal of approval of accredited training programs have been added

to the MAP, including: (a) Misrepresentation of the extent of a

training course's approval by a State or EPA; (b) failure to submit

required information or notifications in a timely manner; (c) failure

to maintain requisite records; (d) falsification of accreditation

records, instructor qualifications, or other accreditation information;

or (e) failure to adhere to the training standards and requirements of

the EPA or State MAP as appropriate.

EPA may also suspend or withdraw a training course's approval if an

approved training course instructor or other person with supervisory

authority over the delivery of training has been found in violation of

other asbestos regulations administered by EPA. An administrative or

judicial finding of violation, or execution of a consent agreement and

order under 40 CFR 22.18, constitutes evidence of a failure to comply

with relevant statutes and regulations. States may wish to adopt this

additional criterion, or modify it to include their own asbestos

statutes or regulations.

The formal procedures for withdrawing course approval do not apply

to training providers that fail to comply with the self-certification

requirements of the revised MAP and that do not upgrade their courses

within 6 months of the effective date of the revised MAP. EPA is

provisionally allowing training providers to continue to operate during

that 6-month period pursuant to approval granted under the original

MAP. A training provider that fails to comply with the self-

certification requirements within 6 months, however, automatically

loses its provisional approval by operation of law. No individual

notices or adjudicative process is required to effect the loss of such

provisional approvals pursuant to this rule.

G. Recordkeeping Requirements for Training Providers

The revised MAP imposes a variety of new recordkeeping requirements

on training providers that are necessary to strengthen compliance with

MAP training standards and to enable more vigorous enforcement of those

standards by both EPA and the States. Four different types of records

must be maintained: (1) Records documenting approved training course

materials (e.g., copies of student manuals, instructor notebooks,

handouts), (2) records demonstrating instructor qualifications (e.g.,

copies of resumes, approval letters, dates and names of courses

taught), (3) records documenting examinations (e.g., copies of tests

used, individual student scores, dates and locations of exams given),

and (4) records documenting accreditation certificates (e.g., to whom

conferred, for which disciplines, dates of issuance and expiration).

The revisions further stipulate that all such records must be retained

for at least 3 years, and that reasonable access to all such records

must be provided upon request to either or both EPA and the States.

H. Accreditation Certificates

The revised MAP stipulates that each accreditation certificate

issued by an approved training provider must now contain certain

additional items of information which had not been specified in the

original MAP. The new minimum certificate standard is intended to

enable quick identification of and contact with the training provider

that issued the certificate. The revised MAP specifically requires the

inclusion of the issuing provider's name, address, and telephone

number. This mechanism makes it possible for training providers,

regulatory agencies, and the general public to verify the accreditation

status of persons performing work subject to the MAP.

III. Responses to Comments

Comments on the various MAP changes being considered by EPA were

received from many affected interest groups, including States,

commercial buildings owners and managers, labor organizations, trade

associations, asbestos contractors and consultants, training entities,

power companies, universities, and federal agencies other than EPA.

These written comments may be found in the docket supporting this

action (OPPTS-62107). This Unit discusses EPA's responses to the

significant issues raised in the comments received.

Comments and responses have been organized in this Unit according

to the relevant sections of the May 13, 1992, Federal Register notice

(57 FR 20438) under which they were solicited.

A. Definitions

1. Public and commercial buildings. Many commenters urged EPA to

incorporate the NESHAP (40 CFR part 61 - National Emission Standards

for Hazardous Air Pollutants) definition of ``facility,'' so that

greater consistency might be achieved between the various EPA asbestos

rules. Although EPA is sympathetic to promoting regulatory integration

whenever feasible, the statutory language of TSCA section 202(10)

complicates this attempt. A regulated ``facility'' under the NESHAP

includes residential buildings of more than four units, whereas the

TSCA definition of ``public and commercial building'' includes

residential apartment buildings of 10 or more units. Because EPA's

mandate to issue and revise the MAP comes from TSCA, as amended by

ASHARA, the TSCA definition is controlling. EPA must use the TSCA

definition, even though it is less inclusive than NESHAP.

Other commenters suggested that the definition of the term ``public

and commercial building'' should include ACM that is located both on

the insides and the exteriors of buildings. EPA had earlier examined

this same issue when it promulgated the Schools Rule and the original

MAP pursuant to AHERA. At that time, EPA concluded that when AHERA used

the phrase ``in a school building,'' it meant the interior of the

building, not the exterior (52 FR 41835, October 30, 1987). EPA adopted

that interpretation in the Schools Rule which was in effect when

Congress amended AHERA by enacting ASHARA. EPA believes that Congress

intended the term ``in'' a public or commercial building to be given

the same meaning as ``in'' a school building in the Schools Rule.

Consistent with the approach incorporated in the Schools Rule, training

is required for work in interior areas only, except for exterior

hallways connecting buildings, porticos, and mechanical systems used to

condition interior space.

Several power companies and other industrial/manufacturing concerns

objected to the Agency's proposal to include ``industrial'' buildings

within the scope of the rule. They argued that the public generally

does not have access to these buildings, is therefore not exposed, and

that workers in these industrial buildings are already adequately

protected by the OSHA asbestos standards or the EPA Worker Protection

Rule. The accreditation requirements of the statute, however, clearly

extend to activities in industrial buildings. TSCA section 202(10)

defines ``public and commercial buildings'' expansively to mean ``any

building which is not a school building, except the term does not

include any residential apartment building of fewer than 10 units'' (15

U.S.C. 2642(10)) (emphasis added). The statutory definition includes

all buildings with only two express exclusions for school buildings and

residential buildings. Industrial buildings clearly do not qualify for

either exemption. Thus, they fall within the category of any other type

of building that is encompassed by the term ``public and commercial

building.'' Moreover, when Congress enacted ASHARA, it relied, in part,

upon EPA's assessment of risk in public and commercial buildings, an

assessment that included industrial buildings. EPA's 1988 Report to

Congress on Asbestos in Buildings specifically identified industrial

buildings as one of the types of structures included under the TSCA

definition of ``public and commercial buildings'' (Report to Congress,

page 2). Further, the inclusion of industrial buildings in the category

of buildings where training is required is consistent with the purpose

of ASHARA to protect workers as well as the public.

In extending the MAP training and accreditation requirements to

public and commercial buildings under the ASHARA mandate, EPA

recognizes that the revised MAP will now apply to activities in

buildings that may be subject to the specific training requirements of

other Federal asbestos regulations. This includes the competent person

training requirements under the OSHA Asbestos Standard (29 CFR 1926.58)

and the EPA Worker Protection Rule (40 CFR 763.121), the on-site

representative training requirements under the asbestos NESHAP (40 CFR

61.145), and the training requirements for designated persons and

operations and maintenance personnel found in the Schools Rule (40 CFR

763.84- 763.92). EPA wishes to clarify that a person subject to the

accredited training requirements of the MAP will also remain subject to

the applicable training requirements of these other asbestos rules.

Compliance with the MAP does not automatically relieve a person of

responsibilities under other asbestos rules.

2. Friable ACM. Several commenters, citing the need for regulatory

consistency between schools and public and commercial buildings, urged

the Agency to preserve the concept of friable ACM which had been

applied in the Schools Rule. EPA agrees with this approach because it

is consistent with the statutory mandate and because consistency

between the Schools Rule and the MAP is desirable. Both rules must

comply with the same TSCA section 202(6) definition of friable ACM.

Thus, the Agency has incorporated that definition into the MAP. This

ties the definition to ACBM that is or may become friable.

3. Inspection. Among those commenting on this issue, most expressed

support for the broadest possible definition of ``inspection,'' that

would embrace all eight of the options outlined in the May 13, 1992

Federal Register notice (57 FR 20438). This expansive approach would

not only extend accreditation requirements to include general

environmental hazard assessments for insurance and real estate

purposes, but also would specifically extend those requirements to all

of the inspection-type activities required by other asbestos rules such

as the Schools Rule, NESHAP, the EPA Worker Protection Rule and the

OSHA Asbestos Standard. EPA believes that such an all encompassing

definition is not warranted based upon risk, and would therefore result

in unnecessary costs (see OPPTS Docket No. 62107, Log Nos. C1-025, C1-

035, C1-038). EPA has elected a more targeted approach which focuses on

both the object and the activity of inspecting for asbestos. The

statute limits the accreditation requirement to those persons who

``inspect for ACM in school buildings...or in a public or commercial

building'' (15 USC 2646 (a)(1)). EPA has adhered to this statutory

language, and required accreditation only for those persons who inspect

or reinspect specifically for ACBM. This would include, however, an

inspection undertaken pursuant to NESHAP (40 CFR 61.145(a)) in a

school, or public and commercial building, where the building owner or

operator is required to thoroughly inspect the building for the

presence of asbestos prior to commencing a demolition or renovation

activity. Similarly, inspections required by other regulations would

also be subject to accreditation, if the inspection, as defined in the

revised MAP, included a component that was specific to ACBM, and was

conducted within a school, or public and commercial building subject to

the revised MAP. This includes more general inspection-type activities

(e.g., environmental assessments) where asbestos is one of several

potential hazards or materials that are being looked for or examined.

Regardless of what other activities a person may be undertaking, if the

person is inspecting for ACBM in a school, public, or commercial

building, that person must be accredited to perform the asbestos

inspection component of that activity. Conversely, if a person is

performing an environmental assessment or building inspection that does

not include an asbestos inspection component, that person does not

require asbestos accreditation to perform that activity.

As described earlier in Unit II.A.3. of this preamble, other

specific exceptions to the inspection accreditation requirement

include; (1) persons performing periodic surveillance of the type

described in 40 CFR 763.92(b), (2) compliance-related inspections

performed by employees or agents of Federal, State or local government,

and (3) visual inspections of the type described in 40 CFR 763.90(i)

for purposes of determining the completion of a response action.

4. Response action. Commenters overwhelmingly supported a

definition for response action that would treat this term the same way

both for schools and for public and commercial buildings. EPA agrees

with this approach because it provides regulatory consistency between

the MAP and the Schools Rule. Because many of the same contractors will

be performing abatement work in both schools and public and commercial

buildings, the use of the same standard for both will further promote

comprehension of and compliance with the new accreditation

requirements. The definition in the revised MAP is therefore the same

as that which appears in the Schools Rule. Consequently, if a response

action were undertaken in a school, and the same activity was then

undertaken in a public or commercial building, both activities would be

considered response actions, and both activities would be required to

engage the services of accredited workers unless specifically excluded

under the exemption for small-scale, short-duration activities. It

should be noted, however, that there are other aspects relating to the

conduct of response actions which may be different for schools than for

public and commercial buildings. One example would be the requirements

found at 40 CFR 763.90 for air clearance at the completion of a

response action which are applicable to such activities in schools but

not in public and commercial buildings.

5. Small-scale, short-duration activities (SSSD). A majority of

commenters supported the extension of the existing Schools Rule

training exemption for SSSD work in schools to public and commercial

buildings (see 40 CFR 763, Appendix B to Subpart E). EPA agrees with

the use of this exemption in the revised MAP, because it both preserves

regulatory consistency and promotes compliance with the statute. Also,

absent such a threshold exemption, a great many persons involved in

operation and maintenance-type activities in buildings would have to be

specially trained, regardless of risk.

6. Major and minor fiber release episodes. A common theme among

those commenting on the prospective incorporation of an SSSD exemption

into the MAP was that this concept lacked clarity, and was therefore

difficult to interpret and apply. EPA is responding to this concern in

two ways. First, by using the existing SSSD exemption from the Schools

Rule, the MAP will apply the same accreditation exemption to all

buildings (schools and public and commercial buildings) and thereby

minimize any potential confusion among the regulated community.

Secondly, by adding the definitions of major and minor fiber release

episodes, the Agency is seeking to provide the clearest possible

meaning to this exemption while keeping it entirely within the

framework established by the Schools Rule.

B. Phased Implementation

1. States. Several State commenters expressed concern that an

allowance of 180 days following their next legislative session would

not provide them with sufficient time to upgrade their programs in

keeping with the increased training requirements of ASHARA. Although

EPA acknowledges the difficulties inherent with transitioning

established State programs, the changes were mandated by Congress when

it enacted ASHARA. Furthermore, the relatively short timeframes

established in ASHARA for EPA to implement these training mandates

clearly communicated a desire and intent for prompt action. For these

reasons, EPA believes that it is reasonable to allow States a

comparable amount of time to come into compliance with the revised MAP

as had been allowed for under the original MAP. This provides each

State with an allowance of 180 days following the convening of their

next regular legislative session to adopt a State accreditation plan

that is no less stringent than the revised MAP. For some States with

legislatures that meet every year, this means they will have a period

of time not less than 6 months in which to implement these changes. For

other States whose legislatures meet every other year, it means these

States might have as long as 30 months to effect the changes.

2. Training course upgrades. Most commenters supported the 6-month

compliance deadline for training course upgrades which EPA had

proposed. They also supported self-certification on the part of

training entities as an efficient and practical way of quickly

implementing the new standards. Other commenters, however, contended

that the 6-month deadline was either too short or too long, and

expressed concerns about the ability of EPA and/or the States to

properly audit these upgraded training programs. EPA considers the

course upgrades prescribed in the revised MAP to be fully achievable

within a 6-month timeframe. The revisions directly affect only 3 of the

5 basic courses, and none of the refresher courses. The initial worker

and contractor/supervisor training courses must each incorporate 1

additional day of hands-on training and the initial project designer

courses must expand their curriculum to incorporate the 6 additional

items specified in the revisions. The original training provider self-

certifications under ASHARA will be submitted directly to EPA's

Headquarter's Office in Washington, DC., so that this data can be

quickly compiled at the national level and integrated with existing

data bases. This simplified and centralized process expedites course

upgrades to ensure that the new training courses will be widely

available within a short period of time. EPA and/or the States may then

follow-up with field audits of these training programs as resources

permit.

3. Accredited persons. Most commenters expressed support for the

Agency's proposal to grandfather in all those persons who are in

possession of valid accreditation as of the day before the effective

date of the revised MAP. Many also suggested that everyone else should

be allowed more than 6 months to obtain valid accreditation based upon

the increased ASHARA training requirements. In contrast, a few

suggested that a transition period of less than 6 months would be

sufficient. Because of the fairly simple adjustments needed to upgrade

training courses, and because EPA is providing an expedited procedure

(through self-certification) for purposes of obtaining course provider

upgrade approval, the Agency considers the 6-month deadline for

obtaining new accreditation to be adequate. Persons who are already

accredited on the date the revised MAP takes effect are not directly

impacted by it. Upon reaching their annual expiration date, they will

take their annual refresher training course, as before, and their

accreditation will be extended for an additional year. Persons seeking

new accreditation on and after the effective date of the revised MAP,

however, will need to complete either an existing course that complies

with the original MAP and thereby obtain provisional accreditation, or

an upgraded course that complies with the revised MAP to obtain regular

accreditation. If a person takes an existing course, that person will

have to complete the upgraded training course within 6 months after the

revised MAP takes effect in order to sustain their accreditation and

continue working. This provision helps ensure that anyone needing to

obtain initial accreditation during the period of transition between

the original MAP and the revised MAP will have the opportunity to do

so.

Several commenters suggested that the MAP requirements for

refresher training should also be increased along with the basic

requirements. This might be accomplished by either extending the length

of mandatory refresher training, or expanding its curriculum, or both.

EPA does not agree with this position, however, and believes that

actual work experience is at least equivalent to requiring additional

hands-on training as a basis for reaccreditation. At the time of

refresher training, most accredited persons should have already

acquired on-the-job experience at least equivalent to what this

refresher hands-on training might otherwise provide.

C. Distinct Training Disciplines

While a majority of commenters agreed with the general principle of

separate training courses, many also believed that an exception should

be made in the case of combined worker/supervisor training. These

parties pointed to the common elements in the prescribed training

curricula for these two disciplines as the primary reason for allowing

joint training. In this view, workers and supervisors would attend the

same course, with the contractor/supervisors coming back for 1

additional day of training after the worker curriculum had been

completed. Although EPA permitted this accomodation for a period of

time under the original MAP, the Agency has now decided that, in light

of the Congressional mandate to strengthen and improve asbestos-related

training programs, contractor/supervisors may no longer obtain

accreditation by attending the same training course as workers with a 1

day add-on. Contractor/supervisors have markedly different job

functions and responsibilities than workers. While many training

elements are common to these two disciplines, each discipline requires

presentation at a different degree of complexity and level of detail,

depending upon whether a person is in training to become a worker, or

in training to become a supervisor. An on-site foreman, unlike a

worker, must know how each of the workers should perform his/her

individual assigned tasks, and must also comprehend the total job to be

done. As a result, a contractor/supervisor requires more in-depth

training on each of the training elements than does a worker. By way of

illustration, ``regulatory review'' is one curriculum training element

that is common to both the worker and the supervisor courses. Where a

worker must have a general understanding of the bounds established by

asbestos regulations, the supervisor, as the on-site person responsible

for regulatory compliance, must have a much greater depth of knowledge

regarding these rules and the methods of complying. If supervisors

attend the same training course as workers, and are provided the same

lecture on ``regulatory review,'' not only is it likely that the

workers in this class will get more regulatory training than they need

(and possibly less of something else more relevant to their jobs), but

more importantly, the supervisors will not get the right mix of subject

matter depth and breadth. EPA believes, therefore, that the best way to

ensure that contractor/supervisors receive the specialized training

they need is to keep their training courses separate and distinct from

those of workers.

EPA believes, however, that it is permissible to allow an

accredited contractor/supervisor to perform in the role of an

accredited worker without possessing separate worker accreditation.

Separate worker accreditation is unnecessary because the contractor/

supervisor must essentially know all that the worker knows and more,

and the contractor/supervisor has also completed more training than the

worker (5 days as opposed to 4 days).

The situation is different, however, with respect to dual

accreditation for contractor/supervisors and project designers. Because

these two training disciplines share little in common, EPA is now

eliminating the original MAP provision whereby persons completing

contractor/supervisor initial training could obtain dual accreditation

to work as both contractor/supervisors and project designers. After the

effective date of the revisions, all persons must take separate initial

and refresher training that is specific to their discipline in order to

obtain or retain valid accreditation.

D. Increased Training Requirements

EPA had solicited public comment on the number of additional hours

of training that would be appropriate for the revised MAP because

ASHARA had left this amount unspecified. Whereas commenters suggested a

variety of ways in which this might be accomplished, many expressed

support for EPA's proposal to require one additional 8-hour day of

hands-on training for the worker and the contractor/supervisor initial

training courses respectively. The length of all other training courses

is not affected by the revisions. There are a number of distinct

advantages to EPA's approach: (1) All MAP training courses would be

limited in length to no more than one 5-day business week, a period of

time adequate to accomplish the requisite training, (2) existing

training course materials would remain relevant and not require

extensive modifications, (3) additional hands-on training should

appropriately be given to those persons who actually perform hands-on

abatement work (i.e., workers and contractor/supervisors), and (4) the

addition of 8 hours of hands-on training (on top of 6 hours that are

already required) should be relatively simple for providers to achieve,

yet affords them a degree of flexibility in deciding how to go about

doing it (i.e., in selecting the particular hands-on activities to be

practiced or exercised).

Several commenters with experience in training, representing, or

employing asbestos workers agreed that 8 additional hours of hands-on

training for workers and contractor/supervisors was advisable. They

noted that the additional day of training was necessary to allow

workers to practice their jobs under actual working conditions, to gain

necessary experience in performing tasks such as erecting and

dismantling containment barriers, glovebagging, and scaffolding, and in

working inside containment areas, or while wearing personal protective

equipment, or in other common workplace situations (see OPPTS Docket

No. 62107, Log Nos. C1-016 and C1-020). Commenters also noted that the

additional day of hands-on training would help acclimatize workers

without risk of exposure, and also would eliminate complaints regarding

the need for on-the-job training (OPPTS Docket 62107, Log Nos. C1-020

and C1-064).

E. Expanded Project Designer Curriculum

A majority of commenters agreed with EPA's proposal to broaden the

prescribed project designer training curriculum to include six

additional lecture elements without extending the minimum required

length of the course. The six elements have therefore been added, and

include: (1) The need for, and methods of preparing a written project

design, (2) techniques for completing an initial cleaning of the work

area, (3) increased emphasis on the rationale behind establishment of

functional spaces, (4) the need for written diagrams and methods of

diagraming all containment barriers, (5) the need for a written

sampling rationale for air clearance, and (6) clarification of what

constitutes a complete visual inspection. These revisions have each

been incorporated as additions to the initial project designer training

curriculum. They will improve the effectiveness of the accredited

training programs, and thereby help to ensure that project designers

will be fully prepared to perform work in both schools and public and

commercial buildings.

F. Withdrawal of Accreditation and Course Approval

Broad support also was expressed for EPA's proposal to incorporate

minimum Federal criteria for proceedings relating to the

deaccreditation of persons and the withdrawal of approval from

accredited training courses, and to adopt standardized procedures for

such actions. These changes had been proposed to: (1) Promote greater

consistency and predictability nationwide, and (2) clarify the manner

by which EPA might directly deaccredit individuals or training courses

without reliance upon State authority or activity. The criteria have

therefore been promulgated as minimum Federal criteria which the States

must match or exceed in their own programs. The procedures govern EPA

activities only; the States being left free to adhere to their own

internal administrative procedures pursuant to State law.

G. Recordkeeping Requirements for Training Providers

Several commenters stated that a records retention period longer

than 3 years would be preferable for compliance verification purposes.

EPA, however, consistent with other TSCA recordkeeping requirements

(i.e., 40 CFR 704.11 and 761.180), regards a minimum 3-year retention

period as adequate for this purpose, and appropriate when consideration

is given to the costs associated with records maintenance. These 3

years are adequate to ensure that records will be available for anyone

who needs to verify either initial or refesher accreditation status.

Even if a person obtained initial accreditation, and then took

advantage of a full 12-month grace period before obtaining refresher

training, the 3-year retention requirement would ensure that the

training provider has the records to verify the initial accreditation.

A number of training providers also expressed concerns about

access; surmising that if their records were opened in an unrestricted

manner to the public, that such providers would become vulnerable to

burdensome or harrassing requests. They did not object, however, to

training provider records being open to EPA and the States (see OPPTS

Docket No. 62107, Log No. D1-001). EPA accepts this position, and it

has been incorporated into the revisions (see Unit I.F.6. of the

revised MAP). This would not preclude the public from seeking

information directly from the training provider through telephone

inquiries or requests, but would permit training schools to maintain a

measure of flexibility in responding to inquiries.

EPA also had asked for comments about whether training providers

should be required to verify the accreditation status of students

enrolling in their courses. In reply, several training entities

commented that this could present a significant burden that should not

be imposed (OPPTS Docket 62107, Log Nos. C1-019 and C1-041). After

considering this information, EPA agrees, and the revised MAP includes

a recommendation rather than a requirement that training entities

verify the accreditation status of students enrolling in their courses.

Regarding the more general question of whether or not recordkeeping

requirements should be imposed, many commenters acknowledged the need

for this action and expressed support for EPA's position.

H. Accreditation Certificates

While most commenters expressed support for EPA's proposal to

require additional training provider information on accreditation

certificates (i.e., issuer's name, address, and telephone number), a

few suggested that other items might be required as well, including the

name of the course instructor and the photograph, social security

number, and signature of the person to whom accreditation is being

conferred. The Agency does not consider these other items to be

necessary on certificates, because the same information is generally

available through other sources. The names of course instructors are

otherwise provided through the recordkeeping requirements contained in

the revisions, and personal identification items such as photographs,

social security numbers, and signatures are commonly available on the

professional licenses issued by State programs.

I. Miscellaneous

1. Project monitor training and accreditation. Several parties

indicated that EPA should expand the MAP to include mandatory

accreditation for a sixth training discipline, that of ``Project

Monitor.'' The functional role of a project monitor is often specific

to a particular response action; but generally might include: (1)

Monitoring a response action for compliance with contract/job

specifications and regulatory requirements, (2) performing visual

audits of a job site before, during and after a response action is

undertaken, and (3) performing air monitoring as a part of a response

action or for purposes of clearing a response action. Depending upon

the particular mix of activities undertaken by the project monitor,

this person might otherwise require accreditation, particularly if they

somehow become directly involved in conducting any part of the response

action. Typically, however, the project monitor is an agent or employee

representing a building owner or manager who is engaged to oversee a

contractor's performance of a response action in a school or public or

commercial building. These commenters argue that because such persons

are already widely used, steps should be taken to ensure a minimum

level of competency.

ASHARA did not grant the Agency a clear mandate to enlarge the

scope of federal accreditation to include additional training

disciplines. Furthermore, implementing this course would necessitate

more extensive changes to State programs and statutes, a consequence

which would hinder State efforts to comply with ASHARA. For these

reasons, EPA has incorporated a recommended training curriculum for

such persons into the revised MAP and is urging States to consider

adopting this curriculum for purposes of requiring project monitor

accreditation under State law or regulation. Such State laws would not

mandate that project monitors be used in every instance, but rather,

would require their accreditation whenever a building owner or manager

elected to employ the services of a project monitor. This curriculum

was developed in 1992 through a roundtable discussion which involved

numerous affected interests outside of EPA. The document which emerged

from this process, entitled Whitepaper on the Development and

Implementation of Asbestos Abatement Project Monitor Training (March

20, 1992), outlined a recommended 5-day training program. Even where

States choose not to require accreditation under their State Plans for

such persons, EPA recommends that training entities consider offering

this course, and suggests that professionals working in this capacity

seek out and obtain this or equivalent training.

2. Operations and maintenance training and accreditation. A few

commenters suggested that persons responsible for SSSD operations and

maintenance (O&M) activity involving ACBM should be subject to MAP

training and accreditation requirements. They noted that while

Sec. 763.92(a) of the Schools Rule requires school maintenance

personnel to take special ``awareness'' training, and, in some

instances, additional O&M training, the MAP would not require training

for all maintenance personnel in public and commercial buildings.

This difference in training requirements is based upon the

statutory training scheme that Congress established in Title II of

TSCA. Both the language of the statute, and the legislative history of

AHERA and ASHARA support EPA's decision not to require MAP

accreditation for all O&M personnel in public and commercial buildings.

When Congress enacted AHERA in 1986, it required MAP training and

accreditation for persons who conducted response actions, but excluded

certain types of O&M activities from the MAP training requirement (15

U.S.C. 2643(f), 2644(c), and 2646(a)(3)). It also required EPA to

promulgate rules to regulate O&M programs in schools, and required

local education agencies to develop and implement O&M plans, and to

provide for the education of service and maintenance personnel with

respect to asbestos-containing material.

EPA promulgated the Schools Rule pursuant to AHERA. The Schools

Rule does not require full MAP training and accreditation for all O&M

workers, but does require it for any person in a school who: (a)

Conducts a response action other than a SSSD activity (40 CFR

763.90(g)); (b) performs a maintenance activity that disturbs friable

ACBM, other than a SSSD activity (40 CFR 763.91(e)); or (c) conducts a

response action for a major fiber release episode (40 CFR

763.91(f)(2)(iii)).

In addition, the Schools Rule requires less extensive training for

O&M school employees that are not performing an activity that falls

within one of the three categories (40 CFR 763.92(a)). This last

category of O&M employee does not have to be accredited.

Subsequently, in 1988, Congress amended AHERA, and created a new

provision of TSCA, section 215, specifically to codify the O&M training

requirements of the Schools Rule (15 U.S.C. 2655). Now, TSCA section

215 requires ``proper training'' for school employees who conduct O&M

activities in a school (15 U.S.C. 2655(b)).

In 1990, Congress further modified TSCA asbestos training

requirements when it enacted ASHARA. Congress expanded the MAP training

requirements to cover persons working in public and commercial

buildings, but it did not require MAP training and accreditation for

all persons who perform O&M activities in such buildings. First,

Congress left intact the original language in TSCA section 206(a) that

exempts many persons who conduct O&M response actions from MAP training

and accreditation requirements in both schools and public and

commercial buildings (15 U.S.C. 2646(a)(3)). In the second place,

Congress chose not to expand the coverage of TSCA section 215 and

require limited training for O&M employees in public and commercial

buildings. Finally, unlike the original AHERA that governs schools,

Congress did not require EPA to promulgate rules regulating O&M

programs in public and commercial buildings, nor did it require

employers in such buildings to provide for the education of service and

maintenance personnel with respect to asbestos-containing material.

In keeping with these Congressional actions, EPA has not required

MAP training and accreditation for every O&M worker in public and

commercial buildings. Rather, the revised MAP requires MAP

accreditation where O&M workers are most at risk. O&M personnel must

obtain MAP accreditation when conducting a response action, including a

maintenance activity that disturbs friable ACBM, unless that activity

is a SSSD activity, or when conducting a response action for a major

fiber release.

3. Management plans for public and commercial buildings. A few

commenters, noting that ASHARA section 15(a) specifically omitted

management planners from the accredited disciplines being extended to

public and commercial buildings, suggested that management plans should

otherwise be required for such buildings. Although EPA, consistent with

its manage-in-place policy articulated in the ``Green Book'' guidance

(see Managing Asbestos In Place: A Building Owner's Guide to Operations

and Maintenance Programs for Asbestos-Containing Materials, EPA No.

20T-2003, July 1990), considers management plans to be helpful tools in

preventing asbestos exposures, the Agency is not requiring management

plans for regulated buildings in this revision. ASHARA did authorize

EPA to establish training standards for asbestos workers, but it did

not authorize the Agency to require public and commercial building

owners to conduct asbestos-related work in a particular fashion.

However, for those regulated public and commercial buildings where

asbestos-related problems are identified through inspections, EPA

strongly recommends that plans be prepared for how to address these

issues. EPA's Green Book should prove to be a useful reference in this

respect. The Agency would also suggest that accredited management

planners be engaged for purposes of developing such plans to ensure

their adequacy.

4. Use of accredited laboratories. Several commenters expressed

concerns about the prospective quality of analytical work to be

performed with respect to public and commercial buildings, noting that

EPA's announcement of additions and changes under consideration had not

mentioned the use of accredited laboratories for the analysis of bulk

and/or air samples taken from such buildings. TSCA section 206(d)

provides for the establishment of the National Institute of Standards

and Technology National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program

(NVLAP), and stipulates that only laboratories accredited under this

program will be allowed to conduct analyses of asbestos bulk and air

samples taken from school buildings under the authority of local

education agencies (15 U.S.C. 2646(d)). But Congress did not extend

this same requirement to the analysis of bulk or air samples taken from

regulated public and commercial buildings.

EPA strongly recommends that these samples be analyzed by NVLAP-

accredited laboratories because these laboratories have undergone

Federal evaluation and testing and have met stringent performance

standards. Further, EPA urges that asbestos abatement site air be

analyzed by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) prior to building

reoccupancy in a manner consistent with 40 CFR 763.90 (i)(3) and (4).

This position is in keeping with EPA's on-going activity in schools

where the allowance for the use of phase contrast microscopy (PCM) has

been greatly diminished. EPA strongly recommends that abatement site

air clearance samples collected from public and commercial buildings be

analyzed by TEM at NVLAP-accredited laboratories. EPA now considers the

technically superior TEM analysis to be both economical and widely

available. TEM is technically superior to PCM because it is capable of

measuring all asbestos fibers including those thin fibers not measured

by PCM; therefore, TEM is the more stringent analytical tool to be used

for analysis of airborne asbestos during abatement site air clearance.

5. Instructor qualifications. Some commenters were of the opinion

that EPA had not gone far enough in establishing minimum qualifications

for training course instructors. The original MAP stipulated that

instructors needed to have academic training or field experience in

asbestos abatement, yet allowed State programs to adopt their own more

stringent qualification standards. Since promulgation of the original

MAP, many States have elected to institute their own instructor

qualification requirements, a fact which would now complicate any

Federal effort to retroactively establish new minimum standards. EPA

considers this to be an issue best left to the States to decide. So

long as course instructors demonstrate relevant training and

experience, and the knowledge and ability to provide effective

instruction in the prescribed curriculum, EPA will continue to view

such persons as meeting minimum standards. States are encouraged,

however, to review this issue as they upgrade their programs in keeping

with ASHARA.

A related issue had also been raised independently by the General

Accounting Office (GAO) in a May 1991, Report to Congress entitled

``EPA's Asbestos Accreditation Program Requirements Need

Strengthening.'' In this report, GAO had recommended that EPA assess,

in conjunction with its MAP revision, the need for requiring

individuals working in the asbestos professions to meet

prequalification and experience standards. Although EPA responded to

this comment by reevaluating this issue and discussing it with affected

organizations, the fact that at least 17 States had already adopted

widely varying prequalification standards posed a potentially

significant obstacle (Source: State Asbestos Programs Related to AHERA;

A Survey of State Laws and Regulations. National Conference of State

Legislatures. September, 1992) (OPPTS Docket No. 62107, Log No. B1-

024). These States had established their own prequalification standards

for asbestos control professionals in response to EPA's earlier

recommendation (contained in the original MAP) that they should

consider doing so. Consequently, any action by EPA to retroactively

impose new Federal minimum standards would add to the cost and

difficulty of transitioning these State Programs into compliance with

the revised MAP. Such an outcome would not be helpful in promoting

ASHARA's objective to achieve a decentralized program administered by

the 50 States. For this reason, EPA decided not to require new minimum

prequalification standards in the revised MAP. Nonetheless, in support

of this goal, EPA has increased its experience requirements through

incorporation of an additional day of hands-on training in both the

initial worker and contractor/supervisor training programs, and is

renewing/continuing its recommendation that States adopt other

appropriate prequalification standards of their own.

6. Foreign language courses. Several commenters suggested the need

for specific requirements or accomodations for foreign language

courses, citing the significant numbers of non-English speaking persons

who are now seeking accredited training. EPA policy permits approved

worker training courses in languages other than English so long as the

course instruction, all of the course materials, and the course

examination are each presented in the same foreign language. Given the

lack of a uniform distribution of non-English speaking persons

nationwide, with different languages prevailing in different regions of

the country, the MAP will continue to allow States to adopt their own

standards and procedures in this regard to address their individual and

unique circumstances. EPA does, however, urge States to address these

issues, and to accomodate the needs of their respective non-English

speaking populations.

7. Standard forms. Some commenters remarked that the use of

standardized forms for purposes of inspection reports and management

plans would not only contribute to greater consistency and

professionalism among accredited persons working with these tools, but

might also facilitate the development of reciprocal arrangements

between State programs. EPA agrees with these comments, and has

incorporated specific recommendations into the training curricula for

both inspectors and management planners which are aimed at promoting

greater usage of standardized forms. EPA recommends that States

consider the utility of adopting requirements for the use of

standardized forms as an integral part of their asbestos regulatory

programs.

8. Federal recognition of State programs. Several State commenters

indicated that it is beneficial for a State to formally apply for and

obtain Federal recognition of its accreditation plan. TSCA Title II

specifically requires States to adopt accreditation plans that are no

less stringent than the MAP, but does not require them to obtain formal

EPA approval. Even though EPA approval is not statutorily required, it

is beneficial. Where a State adopts and implements an accreditation

program but does not obtain EPA approval, it is difficult for the

industry and other States to determine whether such a State program

complies with minimum Federal requirements and thus has the authority

to issue TSCA accreditation. Where a person obtains a license from an

unrecognized State, that person's credentials may not be readily

accepted by an employer, a contractor, or another State in which the

person might seek to find work, because absent EPA's approval, there is

uncertainty about whether such a person is properly accredited. In

contrast, EPA's approval of a State effectively resolves all of this

uncertainty. EPA agrees with these comments, and strongly recommends

that all States seek formal EPA approval of their accreditation

programs.

9. Grace period for accreditation reinstatement. Other comments

were received regarding whether there should be a ``grace period''

during which a person can complete refresher training within 12 months

of their certificate expiration date and have their accreditation

reinstated. Such a person would not be required to retake the full

initial training program for that discipline. Some States expressed

support for this approach, while one suggested there should be a

penalty for persons who fail to obtain their refresher training on-time

(i.e., before the certificate expiration date). EPA believes that the

12-month grace period is appropriate. If a person takes their refresher

training too early in their accreditation year, they are penalized

through a shortening of what would otherwise be a 12-month period. If

they are unable to enroll in a refresher course precisely when they

need it, at a location which is convenient, the grace period allows

them the opportunity to take the course at a later, more convenient

time. During the 12-month grace period, however, it should be

emphasized that the person is not accredited, and may not otherwise

perform the work that requires accreditation until they complete their

refresher training. EPA views this as being a sufficient penalty for

not obtaining the required refresher training in a timely manner.

Because the 12-month grace period has proven helpful to the industry,

and effective in preserving a sizeable, accredited workforce

nationwide, the Agency plans to not only continue this procedure, but

also to encourage States to adopt it for their programs as well.

Consequently, the revised MAP now contains a formal recommendation that

State programs take this approach.

10. Accreditation program adoption by the U.S. Department of

Defense. In commenting on EPA's proposed changes to the MAP, the

Department of the Navy noted that it operates its own in-house asbestos

training program which it believes complies with the accreditation

requirements of the MAP. For this reason, the Navy suggested that EPA

might formally review and approve the Navy's training program so that

Defense Department employees could become accredited through the

Defense program, and therefore not need separate accreditation from a

State.

ASHARA requires accreditation for all persons who perform certain

types of asbestos-related work in public and commercial buildings, and

defines that type of building very broadly. As a result, EPA has

concluded that Federal employees who perform inspections or design or

conduct response actions in government buildings must be accredited.

Under section 203(l) of TSCA, the Secretary of Defense is

authorized to act in lieu of a State Governor with respect to any

school operated under the Defense Dependents' Education Act of 1978 (20

U.S.C. 921 et seq.). This authority allows the Secretary of Defense the

opportunity to adopt its own accreditation program no less stringent

than the EPA MAP for the purpose of accrediting Defense Department

employees performing asbestos-related work in these schools. Although

this might be accomplished in cooperation with EPA, the statute does

not make the validity of the Defense Department's plan for schools

contingent upon EPA approval.

ASHARA, however, did not extend this accreditation authority given

to the Secretary of Defense to cover Defense Department employees

performing asbestos-related work in public and commercial buildings.

With respect to the Navy's in-house training courses, the Navy may

apply for approval of its training courses in the same manner as any

other training provider. This would permit the Navy to accredit any of

its employees who might complete these approved training courses.

However, because EPA is no longer accepting new courses for review and

contingent approval (see 54 FR 38802), only those States with

accreditation programs no less stringent than the MAP are in a position

to grant approval for such courses.

IV. Economic Impact

The regulatory impact analysis estimates the costs and benefits

attributable to this regulation. Because this regulation is an

amendment to a current regulation, the costs and benefits are

incremental, estimating the additional effect of the regulation with

respect to the current regulation.

The costs associated with this regulation are quantified; the

benefits are discussed in qualitative terms and are expected to be of

significant importance. EPA believes this rule achieves the benefits

mandated by Congress at a modest cost. The rule affects training

providers, asbestos workers, asbestos abatement and inspection

companies, building owners, general building workers and occupants,

State governments, and the Federal government.

The benefits associated with this rule involve reductions in

exposure to asbestos fibers due to the use of knowledgeable individuals

to work with asbestos and the use of safer work practices. The

increased training requirements are expected to increase the knowledge

of the trained individuals. The population most affected by this

regulation is the asbestos professionals engaged in inspections and

abatements, of which there are about 200,000 individuals who are

required to be trained under this regulation for work in public and

commercial buildings. These individuals are expected to benefit the

most from this regulation due to the amount of time spent working with

ACBM. EPA estimates that there are 0.4 to 1.2 million public and

commercial buildings with ACBM, in which there are between 14 and 43

million employees and workers who will gain a greater degree of

protection either through the use of trained contractors or their own

education. Other employees and building occupants will gain a greater

degree of protection through the use of appropriate and correctly

applied work practices.

The costs associated with this rule are well documented. Upgrading

courses, retaining records, and allowing access to records increase

costs for training providers. Most of these costs are passed through in

the form of higher charges for the courses that are offered. In the

first year, EPA estimates that the overall increase in course costs

would be between $2.3 million and $14.2 million. Training provider

burden for recordkeeping and allowing access to their records would be

$200,000 to $250,000 for the first year.

Training providers estimate that 70 percent of the asbestos-related

abatement work done in public and commercial buildings already uses

trained individuals. An analysis of the supply and demand of accredited

asbestos professionals in each of the four disciplines extended to

public and commercial buildings illustrates that the national supply is

sufficient to accommodate the anticipated demand. Early estimates of

supply and demand for project designers suggested a potential for

shortfall, and this conclusion provided a basis for delaying

implementation of this rule (57 FR 1913, January 16, 1992).

This rule requires the owners of public and commercial buildings to

utilize accredited workers to inspect for ACBM, and to design and

carry-out response actions with respect to friable ACBM, unless

exempted under the SSSD threshold. EPA believes that most building

owners will elect to hire outside contractors rather than train their

own people to comply with this requirement, resulting in an annual cost

of $2 million to $45 million for the estimated 374,000 to 1.23 million

buildings which will be affected.

Both State and Federal governments incur costs due to this rule.

For the first year, State governments incur a cost of just under $4

million, while EPA incurs a cost of between $70,000 and $130,000. These

costs are due to updating and reviewing State programs and reapproving

training courses.

Overall costs for the first year for this rule are estimated to be

between $8 million and $64 million. These costs are summarized below.

Discounting over a 20-year period at 7 percent yields a present value

cost estimate between $33 million and $458 million.

First Year Costs of the MAP Revision Interim Final Rule

(millions 1991 dollars)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Low

Cost Category Estimate High

Estimate

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incremental Course Costs 2.3 14.2

Building Owner Costs over SSSD Threshold 2.2 45

Training Provider Burden 0.2 0.3

State Regulatory Burden 3.6 3.9

EPA Regulatory Burden 0.1 0.1

TOTAL 8.4 63.5

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Agency's complete economic analysis is available in the public

record for this rule (OPPTS Docket No. 62107, Log No. B1-001).

V. Administrative Record

EPA has established an administrative record for this rule which

has been designated OPPTS Docket No. 62107, and is located at the

following address: Environmental Protection Agency, Rm E-G102, 401 M

St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. This record is available for review and

copying from 8 a.m. to noon and 1 to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays.

The record includes public comments and other information

considered by EPA in developing this rule. Any new comments received as

a result of this notice will be added to the existing docket for this

action.

VI. References

The following references have been included in the record:

(1) USEPA. ``Asbestos in Buildings: Simplified Sampling Scheme for

Friable Surfacing Materials,'' EPA/5-85-030a. October 1985.

(2) USEPA. Friable Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools:

Identification and Notification (40 CFR Part 763 Subpart F).

(3) USEPA. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants: Amendments to Asbestos Standard; Final Rule (40 CFR Part 61

Subpart M).

(4) USDOL. OSHA. Occupational Exposure to Asbestos, Final Rule (29

CFR 1926.58).

(5) USEPA. Toxic Substances; Asbestos Abatement Projects; Final

Rule (40 CFR Part 763 Subpart G).

(6) USDOL. OSHA. Occupational Safety and Health Standards, Subpart

I, Personal Protective Equipment (29 CFR 1910.134).

(7) USEPA. ``Managing Asbestos in Place: A Building Owner's Guide

to Operations and Maintenance Programs for Asbestos-Containing

Materials,'' EPA/20T-2003. July 1990.

(8) USEPA. ``EPA Study of Asbestos-Containing Materials in Public

Buildings: A Report to Congress.'' February 1988.

(9) USEPA. ``Interim Rule to Revise the Asbestos Model

Accreditation Plan: Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis.'' July, 1993.

VII. Regulatory Assessment Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the

Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''

and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines a ``significant

regulatory action'' as an action that is likely to result in a rule (1)

Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or

adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities (also

referred to as ``economically significant''); (2) creating serious

inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned

by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of

entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy

issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or

the principles set forth in this Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, it has been

determined that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not

subject to OMB review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the

Administrator certifies that this revised rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses.

Virtually all of the States already have some type of asbestos

certification program now in effect. Nationwide, many thousands of

persons are presently completing accredited training programs each

year. A discussion of EPA's analysis of the economic consequences of

this interim final rule appears in Unit IV. of this notice.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

OMB has approved the information collection requirements contained

in the existing rule under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), and assigned OMB control number 2070-

0091. The information collection requirements included in this rule

that differ from those previously approved, have been submitted to OMB

as an amendment to OMB control number 2070-0091. Upon OMB's approval of

this amendment to the existing approval, EPA will publish a notice in

the Federal Register announcing such approval.

This collection of information requires training providers and

States to respond. For training providers, public reporting for this

collection of information is estimated to average 42 hours per

response. This includes the time for reviewing the regulation, making

required changes to training programs, preparing and submitting a self-

certification package, maintaining records, and providing access to

those records. There is no recordkeeping burden associated with

maintaining the records as their maintenance is usual and customary

business practice.

For States, public reporting for this collection of information is

estimated to average 402 hours per response. This includes the time for

reviewing the regulation, comparing the new requirements with the

current State program, completing any necessary regulatory or

legislative analysis, adopting new legislation or regulations,

preparing and submitting an application for program approval, and

implementing an updated State program. For States, there is no

recordkeeping burden associated with this collection of information.

Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of

this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this

burden, to Chief, Information Policy Branch (2136); U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency; 401 M St., SW.; Washington, DC 20460; and to the

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for

EPA.''

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 763

Environmental protection, Asbestos, Hazardous substances,

Incorporation by reference, Occupational health and safety,

Recordkeeping, Schools.

Dated: January 24, 1994.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

Therefore, 40 CFR part 763 is amended as follows:

PART 763--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 763 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605 and 2607(c). Revised subpart E also

issued under 15 U.S.C. 2641, 2643, 2646, and 2647.

2. Appendix C to subpart E, is revised to read as follows:

Subpart E--Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools

* * * * *

Appendix C to Subpart E - Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan

I. Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan for States

The Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan (MAP) for States has eight

components:

(A) Definitions

(B) Initial Training

(C) Examinations

(D) Continuing Education

(E) Qualifications

(F) Recordkeeping Requirements for Training Providers

(G) Deaccreditation

(H) Reciprocity

A. Definitions

For purposes of Appendix C:

1. ``Friable asbestos-containing material (ACM)'' means any

material containing more than one percent asbestos which has been

applied on ceilings, walls, structural members, piping, duct work,

or any other part of a building, which when dry, may be crumbled,

pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure. The term includes

non-friable asbestos-containing material after such previously non-

friable material becomes damaged to the extent that when dry it may

be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure.

2. ``Friable asbestos-containing building material (ACBM)''

means any friable ACM that is in or on interior structural members

or other parts of a school or public and commercial building.

3. ``Inspection'' means an activity undertaken in a school

building, or a public and commercial building, to determine the

presence or location, or to assess the condition of, friable or non-

friable asbestos-containing building material (ACBM) or suspected

ACBM, whether by visual or physical examination, or by collecting

samples of such material. This term includes reinspections of

friable and non-friable known or assumed ACBM which has been

previously identified. The term does not include the following:

a. Periodic surveillance of the type described in 40 CFR

763.92(b) solely for the purpose of recording or reporting a change

in the condition of known or assumed ACBM;

b. Inspections performed by employees or agents of Federal,

State, or local government solely for the purpose of determining

compliance with applicable statutes or regulations; or

c. visual inspections of the type described in 40 CFR 763.90(i)

solely for the purpose of determining completion of response

actions.

4. ``Major fiber release episode'' means any uncontrolled or

unintentional disturbance of ACBM, resulting in a visible emission,

which involves the falling or dislodging of more than 3 square or

linear feet of friable ACBM.

5. ``Minor fiber release episode'' means any uncontrolled or

unintentional disturbance of ACBM, resulting in a visible emission,

which involves the falling or dislodging of 3 square or linear feet

or less of friable ACBM.

6. ``Public and commercial building'' means the interior space

of any building which is not a school building, except that the term

does not include any residential apartment building of fewer than 10

units or detached single-family homes. The term includes, but is not

limited to: industrial and office buildings, residential apartment

buildings and condominiums of 10 or more dwelling units, government-

owned buildings, colleges, museums, airports, hospitals, churches,

preschools, stores, warehouses and factories. Interior space

includes exterior hallways connecting buildings, porticos, and

mechanical systems used to condition interior space.

7. ``Response action'' means a method, including removal,

encapsulation, enclosure, repair, and operation and maintenance,

that protects human health and the environment from friable ACBM.

8. ``Small-scale, short-duration activities (SSSD)'' are tasks

such as, but not limited to:

a. Removal of asbestos-containing insulation on pipes.

b. Removal of small quantities of asbestos-containing insulation

on beams or above ceilings.

c. Replacement of an asbestos-containing gasket on a valve.

d. Installation or removal of a small section of drywall.

e. Installation of electrical conduits through or proximate to

asbestos-containing materials.

SSSD can be further defined by the following considerations:

f. Removal of small quantities of ACM only if required in the

performance of another maintenance activity not intended as asbestos

abatement.

g. Removal of asbestos-containing thermal system insulation not

to exceed amounts greater than those which can be contained in a

single glove bag.

h. Minor repairs to damaged thermal system insulation which do

not require removal.

i. Repairs to a piece of asbestos-containing wallboard.

j. Repairs, involving encapsulation, enclosure, or removal, to

small amounts of friable ACM only if required in the performance of

emergency or routine maintenance activity and not intended solely as

asbestos abatement. Such work may not exceed amounts greater than

those which can be contained in a single prefabricated mini-

enclosure. Such an enclosure shall conform spatially and

geometrically to the localized work area, in order to perform its

intended containment function.

B. Initial Training

Training requirements for purposes of accreditation are

specified both in terms of required subjects of instruction and in

terms of length of training. Each initial training course has a

prescribed curriculum and number of days of training. One day of

training equals 8 hours, including breaks and lunch. Course

instruction must be provided by EPA or State-approved instructors.

EPA or State instructor approval shall be based upon a review of the

instructor's academic credentials and/or field experience in

asbestos abatement.

Beyond the initial training requirements, individual States may

wish to consider requiring additional days of training for purposes

of supplementing hands-on activities or for reviewing relevant state

regulations. States also may wish to consider the relative merits of

a worker apprenticeship program. Further, they might consider more

stringent minimum qualification standards for the approval of

training instructors. EPA recommends that the enrollment in any

given course be limited to 25 students so that adequate

opportunities exist for individual hands-on experience.

States have the option to provide initial training directly or

approve other entities to offer training. The following requirements

are for the initial training of persons required to have

accreditation under TSCA Title II.

Training requirements for each of the five accredited

disciplines are outlined below. Persons in each discipline perform a

different job function and distinct role. Inspectors identify and

assess the condition of ACBM, or suspect ACBM. Management planners

use data gathered by inspectors to assess the degree of hazard posed

by ACBM in schools to determine the scope and timing of appropriate

response actions needed for schools. Project designers determine how

asbestos abatement work should be conducted. Lastly, workers and

contractor/supervisors carry out and oversee abatement work. In

addition, a recommended training curriculum is also presented for a

sixth discipline, which is not federally-accredited, that of

``Project Monitor.'' Each accredited discipline and training

curriculum is separate and distinct from the others. A person

seeking accreditation in any of the five accredited MAP disciplines

cannot attend two or more courses concurrently, but may attend such

courses sequentially.

In several instances, initial training courses for a specific

discipline (e.g., workers, inspectors) require hands-on training.

For asbestos abatement contractor/supervisors and workers, hands-on

training should include working with asbestos-substitute materials,

fitting and using respirators, use of glovebags, donning protective

clothing, and constructing a decontamination unit as well as other

abatement work activities.

1. Workers

A person must be accredited as a worker to carry out any of the

following activities with respect to friable ACBM in a school or

public and commercial building: (1) A response action other than a

SSSD activity, (2) a maintenance activity that disturbs friable ACBM

other than a SSSD activity, or (3) a response action for a major

fiber release episode. All persons seeking accreditation as asbestos

abatement workers shall complete at least a 4-day training course as

outlined below. The 4-day worker training course shall include

lectures, demonstrations, at least 14 hours of hands-on training,

individual respirator fit testing, course review, and an

examination. Hands-on training must permit workers to have actual

experience performing tasks associated with asbestos abatement. A

person who is otherwise accredited as a contractor/supervisor may

perform in the role of a worker without possessing separate

accreditation as a worker.

Because of cultural diversity associated with the asbestos

workforce, EPA recommends that States adopt specific standards for

the approval of foreign language courses for abatement workers. EPA

further recommends the use of audio-visual materials to complement

lectures, where appropriate.

The training course shall adequately address the following

topics:

(a) Physical characteristics of asbestos. Identification of

asbestos, aerodynamic characteristics, typical uses, and physical

appearance, and a summary of abatement control options.

(b) Potential health effects related to asbestos exposure. The

nature of asbestos-related diseases; routes of exposure; dose-

response relationships and the lack of a safe exposure level; the

synergistic effect between cigarette smoking and asbestos exposure;

the latency periods for asbestos-related diseases; a discussion of

the relationship of asbestos exposure to asbestosis, lung cancer,

mesothelioma, and cancers of other organs.

(c) Employee personal protective equipment. Classes and

characteristics of respirator types; limitations of respirators;

proper selection, inspection; donning, use, maintenance, and storage

procedures for respirators; methods for field testing of the

facepiece-to-face seal (positive and negative-pressure fit checks);

qualitative and quantitative fit testing procedures; variability

between field and laboratory protection factors that alter

respiratory fit (e.g., facial hair); the components of a proper

respiratory protection program; selection and use of personal

protective clothing; use, storage, and handling of non-disposable

clothing; and regulations covering personal protective equipment.

(d) State-of-the-art work practices. Proper work practices for

asbestos abatement activities, including descriptions of proper

construction; maintenance of barriers and decontamination enclosure

systems; positioning of warning signs; lock-out of electrical and

ventilation systems; proper working techniques for minimizing fiber

release; use of wet methods; use of negative pressure exhaust

ventilation equipment; use of high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA)

vacuums; proper clean-up and disposal procedures; work practices for

removal, encapsulation, enclosure, and repair of ACM; emergency

procedures for sudden releases; potential exposure situations;

transport and disposal procedures; and recommended and prohibited

work practices.

(e) Personal hygiene. Entry and exit procedures for the work

area; use of showers; avoidance of eating, drinking, smoking, and

chewing (gum or tobacco) in the work area; and potential exposures,

such as family exposure.

(f) Additional safety hazards. Hazards encountered during

abatement activities and how to deal with them, including electrical

hazards, heat stress, air contaminants other than asbestos, fire and

explosion hazards, scaffold and ladder hazards, slips, trips, and

falls, and confined spaces.

(g) Medical monitoring. OSHA and EPA Worker Protection Rule

requirements for physical examinations, including a pulmonary

function test, chest X-rays, and a medical history for each

employee.

(h) Air monitoring. Procedures to determine airborne

concentrations of asbestos fibers, focusing on how personal air

sampling is performed and the reasons for it.

(i) Relevant Federal, State, and local regulatory requirements,

procedures, and standards. With particular attention directed at

relevant EPA, OSHA, and State regulations concerning asbestos

abatement workers.

(j) Establishment of respiratory protection programs.

(k) Course review. A review of key aspects of the training

course.

2. Contractor/Supervisors

A person must be accredited as a contractor/supervisor to

supervise any of the following activities with respect to friable

ACBM in a school or public and commercial building: (1) A response

action other than a SSSD activity, (2) a maintenance activity that

disturbs friable ACBM other than a SSSD activity, or (3) a response

action for a major fiber release episode. All persons seeking

accreditation as asbestos abatement contractor/supervisors shall

complete at least a 5-day training course as outlined below. The

training course must include lectures, demonstrations, at least 14

hours of hands-on training, individual respirator fit testing,

course review, and a written examination. Hands-on training must

permit supervisors to have actual experience performing tasks

associated with asbestos abatement.

EPA recommends the use of audiovisual materials to complement

lectures, where appropriate.

Asbestos abatement supervisors include those persons who provide

supervision and direction to workers performing response actions.

Supervisors may include those individuals with the position title of

foreman, working foreman, or leadman pursuant to collective

bargaining agreements. At least one supervisor is required to be at

the worksite at all times while response actions are being

conducted. Asbestos workers must have access to accredited

supervisors throughout the duration of the project.

The contractor/supervisor training course shall adequately

address the following topics:

(a) The physical characteristics of asbestos and asbestos-

containing materials. Identification of asbestos, aerodynamic

characteristics, typical uses, physical appearance, a review of

hazard assessment considerations, and a summary of abatement control

options.

(b) Potential health effects related to asbestos exposure. The

nature of asbestos-related diseases; routes of exposure; dose-

response relationships and the lack of a safe exposure level;

synergism between cigarette smoking and asbestos exposure; and

latency period for diseases.

(c) Employee personal protective equipment. Classes and

characteristics of respirator types; limitations of respirators;

proper selection, inspection, donning, use, maintenance, and storage

procedures for respirators; methods for field testing of the

facepiece-to-face seal (positive and negative-pressure fit checks);

qualitative and quantitative fit testing procedures; variability

between field and laboratory protection factors that alter

respiratory fit (e.g., facial hair); the components of a proper

respiratory protection program; selection and use of personal

protective clothing; and use, storage, and handling of non-

disposable clothing; and regulations covering personal protective

equipment.

(d) State-of-the-art work practices. Proper work practices for

asbestos abatement activities, including descriptions of proper

construction and maintenance of barriers and decontamination

enclosure systems; positioning of warning signs; lock-out of

electrical and ventilation systems; proper working techniques for

minimizing fiber release; use of wet methods; use of negative

pressure exhaust ventilation equipment; use of HEPA vacuums; and

proper clean-up and disposal procedures. Work practices for removal,

encapsulation, enclosure, and repair of ACM; emergency procedures

for unplanned releases; potential exposure situations; transport and

disposal procedures; and recommended and prohibited work practices.

New abatement-related techniques and methodologies may be discussed.

(e) Personal hygiene. Entry and exit procedures for the work

area; use of showers; and avoidance of eating, drinking, smoking,

and chewing (gum or tobacco) in the work area. Potential exposures,

such as family exposure, shall also be included.

(f) Additional safety hazards. Hazards encountered during

abatement activities and how to deal with them, including electrical

hazards, heat stress, air contaminants other than asbestos, fire and

explosion hazards, scaffold and ladder hazards, slips, trips, and

falls, and confined spaces.

(g) Medical monitoring. OSHA and EPA Worker Protection Rule

requirements for physical examinations, including a pulmonary

function test, chest X-rays and a medical history for each employee.

(h) Air monitoring. Procedures to determine airborne

concentrations of asbestos fibers, including descriptions of

aggressive air sampling, sampling equipment and methods, reasons for

air monitoring, types of samples and interpretation of results.

EPA recommends that transmission electron microscopy (TEM) be

used for analysis of final air clearance samples, and that sample

analyses be performed by laboratories accredited by the National

Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) National Voluntary

Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP).

(i) Relevant Federal, State, and local regulatory requirements,

procedures, and standards, including:

(i) Requirements of TSCA Title II.

(ii) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

(40 CFR part 61), Subparts A (General Provisions) and M (National

Emission Standard for Asbestos).

(iii) OSHA standards for permissible exposure to airborne

concentrations of asbestos fibers and respiratory protection (29 CFR

1910.134).

(iv) OSHA Asbestos Construction Standard (29 CFR 1926.58).

(v)EPA Worker Protection Rule, (40 CFR part 763, Subpart G).

(j) Respiratory Protection Programs and Medical Monitoring

Programs.

(k) Insurance and liability issues. Contractor issues; worker's

compensation coverage and exclusions; third-party liabilities and

defenses; insurance coverage and exclusions.

(l) Recordkeeping for asbestos abatement projects. Records

required by Federal, State, and local regulations; records

recommended for legal and insurance purposes.

(m) Supervisory techniques for asbestos abatement activities.

Supervisory practices to enforce and reinforce the required work

practices and discourage unsafe work practices.

(n) Contract specifications. Discussions of key elements that

are included in contract specifications.

(o) Course review. A review of key aspects of the training

course.

3. Inspector

All persons who inspect for ACBM in schools or public and

commercial buildings must be accredited. All persons seeking

accreditation as an inspector shall complete at least a 3-day

training course as outlined below. The course shall include

lectures, demonstrations, 4 hours of hands-on training, individual

respirator fit-testing, course review, and a written examination.

EPA recommends the use of audiovisual materials to complement

lectures, where appropriate. Hands-on training should include

conducting a simulated building walk-through inspection and

respirator fit testing. The inspector training course shall

adequately address the following topics:

(a) Background information on asbestos. Identification of

asbestos, and examples and discussion of the uses and locations of

asbestos in buildings; physical appearance of asbestos.

(b) Potential health effects related to asbestos exposure. The

nature of asbestos-related diseases; routes of exposure; dose-

response relationships and the lack of a safe exposure level; the

synergistic effect between cigarette smoking and asbestos exposure;

the latency periods for asbestos-related diseases; a discussion of

the relationship of asbestos exposure to asbestosis, lung cancer,

mesothelioma, and cancers of other organs.

(c) Functions/qualifications and role of inspectors. Discussions

of prior experience and qualifications for inspectors and management

planners; discussions of the functions of an accredited inspector as

compared to those of an accredited management planner; discussion of

inspection process including inventory of ACM and physical

assessment.

(d) Legal liabilities and defenses. Responsibilities of the

inspector and management planner; a discussion of comprehensive

general liability policies, claims-made, and occurrence policies,

environmental and pollution liability policy clauses; state

liability insurance requirements; bonding and the relationship of

insurance availability to bond availability.

(e) Understanding building systems. The interrelationship

between building systems, including: an overview of common building

physical plan layout; heat, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)

system types, physical organization, and where asbestos is found on

HVAC components; building mechanical systems, their types and

organization, and where to look for asbestos on such systems;

inspecting electrical systems, including appropriate safety

precautions; reading blueprints and as-built drawings.

(f) Public/employee/building occupant relations. Notifying

employee organizations about the inspection; signs to warn building

occupants; tact in dealing with occupants and the press; scheduling

of inspections to minimize disruptions; and education of building

occupants about actions being taken.

(g) Pre-inspection planning and review of previous inspection

records. Scheduling the inspection and obtaining access; building

record review; identification of probable homogeneous areas from

blueprints or as-built drawings; consultation with maintenance or

building personnel; review of previous inspection, sampling, and

abatement records of a building; the role of the inspector in

exclusions for previously performed inspections.

(h) Inspecting for friable and non-friable ACM and assessing the

condition of friable ACM. Procedures to follow in conducting visual

inspections for friable and non-friable ACM; types of building

materials that may contain asbestos; touching materials to determine

friability; open return air plenums and their importance in HVAC

systems; assessing damage, significant damage, potential damage, and

potential significant damage; amount of suspected ACM, both in total

quantity and as a percentage of the total area; type of damage;

accessibility; material's potential for disturbance; known or

suspected causes of damage or significant damage; and deterioration

as assessment factors.

(i) Bulk sampling/documentation of asbestos. Detailed discussion

of the ``Simplified Sampling Scheme for Friable Surfacing Materials

(EPA 560/5-85-030a October 1985)''; techniques to ensure sampling in

a randomly distributed manner for other than friable surfacing

materials; sampling of non-friable materials; techniques for bulk

sampling; inspector's sampling and repair equipment; patching or

repair of damage from sampling; discussion of polarized light

microscopy; choosing an accredited laboratory to analyze bulk

samples; quality control and quality assurance procedures. EPA's

recommendation that all bulk samples collected from school or public

and commercial buildings be analyzed by a laboratory accredited

under the NVLAP administered by NIST.

(j) Inspector respiratory protection and personal protective

equipment. Classes and characteristics of respirator types;

limitations of respirators; proper selection, inspection; donning,

use, maintenance, and storage procedures for respirators; methods

for field testing of the facepiece-to-face seal (positive and

negative-pressure fit checks); qualitative and quantitative fit

testing procedures; variability between field and laboratory

protection factors that alter respiratory fit (e.g., facial hair);

the components of a proper respiratory protection program; selection

and use of personal protective clothing; use, storage, and handling

of non-disposable clothing.

(k) Recordkeeping and writing the inspection report. Labeling of

samples and keying sample identification to sampling location;

recommendations on sample labeling; detailing of ACM inventory;

photographs of selected sampling areas and examples of ACM

condition; information required for inclusion in the management plan

required for school buildings under TSCA Title II, section 203

(i)(1). EPA recommends that States develop and require the use of

standardized forms for recording the results of inspections in

schools or public or commercial buildings, and that the use of these

forms be incorporated into the curriculum of training conducted for

accreditation.

(l) Regulatory review. The following topics should be covered:

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP; 40

CFR part 61, Subparts A and M); EPA Worker Protection Rule (40 CFR

part 763, Subpart G); OSHA Asbestos Construction Standard (29 CFR

1926.58); OSHA respirator requirements (29 CFR 1910.134); the

Friable Asbestos in Schools Rule (40 CFR Part 763, Subpart F);

applicable State and local regulations, and differences between

Federal and State requirements where they apply, and the effects, if

any, on public and nonpublic schools or commercial or public

buildings.

(m) Field trip. This includes a field exercise, including a

walk-through inspection; on-site discussion about information

gathering and the determination of sampling locations; on-site

practice in physical assessment; classroom discussion of field

exercise.

(n) Course review. A review of key aspects of the training

course.

4. Management Planner

All persons who prepare management plans for schools must be

accredited. All persons seeking accreditation as management planners

shall complete a 3-day inspector training course as outlined above

and a 2-day management planner training course. Possession of

current and valid inspector accreditation shall be a prerequisite

for admission to the management planner training course. The

management planner course shall include lectures, demonstrations,

course review, and a written examination.

EPA recommends the use of audiovisual materials to complement

lectures, where appropriate.

TSCA Title II does not require accreditation for persons

performing the management planner role in public and commercial

buildings. Nevertheless, such persons may find this training and

accreditation helpful in preparing them to design or administer

asbestos operations and maintenance programs for public and

commercial buildings.

The management planner training course shall adequately address

the following topics:

(a) Course overview. The role and responsibilities of the

management planner; operations and maintenance programs; setting

work priorities; protection of building occupants.

(b) Evaluation/interpretation of survey results. Review of TSCA

Title II requirements for inspection and management plans for school

buildings as given in section 203(i)(1) of TSCA Title II;

interpretation of field data and laboratory results; comparison of

field inspector's data sheet with laboratory results and site

survey.

(c) Hazard assessment. Amplification of the difference between

physical assessment and hazard assessment; the role of the

management planner in hazard assessment; explanation of significant

damage, damage, potential damage, and potential significant damage;

use of a description (or decision tree) code for assessment of ACM;

assessment of friable ACM; relationship of accessibility, vibration

sources, use of adjoining space, and air plenums and other factors

to hazard assessment.

(d) Legal implications. Liability; insurance issues specific to

planners; liabilities associated with interim control measures, in-

house maintenance, repair, and removal; use of results from

previously performed inspections.

(e) Evaluation and selection of control options. Overview of

encapsulation, enclosure, interim operations and maintenance, and

removal; advantages and disadvantages of each method; response

actions described via a decision tree or other appropriate method;

work practices for each response action; staging and prioritizing of

work in both vacant and occupied buildings; the need for containment

barriers and decontamination in response actions.

(f) Role of other professionals. Use of industrial hygienists,

engineers, and architects in developing technical specifications for

response actions; any requirements that may exist for architect

sign-off of plans; team approach to design of high-quality job

specifications.

(g) Developing an operations and maintenance (O&M) plan. Purpose

of the plan; discussion of applicable EPA guidance documents; what

actions should be taken by custodial staff; proper cleaning

procedures; steam cleaning and HEPA vacuuming; reducing disturbance

of ACM; scheduling O&M for off-hours; rescheduling or canceling

renovation in areas with ACM; boiler room maintenance; disposal of

ACM; in-house procedures for ACM--bridging and penetrating

encapsulants; pipe fittings; metal sleeves; polyvinyl chloride

(PVC), canvas, and wet wraps; muslin with straps, fiber mesh cloth;

mineral wool, and insulating cement; discussion of employee

protection programs and staff training; case study in developing an

O&M plan (development, implementation process, and problems that

have been experienced).

(h) Regulatory review. Focusing on the OSHA Asbestos

Construction Standard found at 29 CFR 1926.58; the National Emission

Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) found at 40 CFR part

61, Subparts A (General Provisions) and M (National Emission

Standard for Asbestos); EPA Worker Protection Rule found at 40 CFR

part 763, Subpart G; TSCA Title II; applicable State regulations.

(i) Recordkeeping for the management planner. Use of field

inspector's data sheet along with laboratory results; on-going

recordkeeping as a means to track asbestos disturbance; procedures

for recordkeeping. EPA recommends that States require the use of

standardized forms for purposes of management plans and incorporate

the use of such forms into the initial training course for

management planners.

(j) Assembling and submitting the management plan. Plan

requirements for schools in TSCA Title II section 203(i)(1); the

management plan as a planning tool.

(k) Financing abatement actions. Economic analysis and cost

estimates; development of cost estimates; present costs of abatement

versus future operation and maintenance costs; Asbestos School

Hazard Abatement Act grants and loans.

(l) Course review. A review of key aspects of the training

course.

5. Project Designer

A person must be accredited as a project designer to design any

of the following activities with respect to friable ACBM in a school

or public and commercial building: (1) A response action other than

a SSSD maintenance activity, (2) a maintenance activity that

disturbs friable ACBM other than a SSSD maintenance activity, or (3)

a response action for a major fiber release episode. All persons

seeking accreditation as a project designer shall complete at least

a minimum 3-day training course as outlined below. The project

designer course shall include lectures, demonstrations, a field

trip, course review and a written examination.

EPA recommends the use of audiovisual materials to complement

lectures, where appropriate.

The abatement project designer training course shall adequately

address the following topics:

(a) Background information on asbestos. Identification of

asbestos; examples and discussion of the uses and locations of

asbestos in buildings; physical appearance of asbestos.

(b) Potential health effects related to asbestos exposure.

Nature of asbestos-related diseases; routes of exposure; dose-

response relationships and the lack of a safe exposure level; the

synergistic effect between cigarette smoking and asbestos exposure;

the latency period of asbestos-related diseases; a discussion of the

relationship between asbestos exposure and asbestosis, lung cancer,

mesothelioma, and cancers of other organs.

(c) Overview of abatement construction projects. Abatement as a

portion of a renovation project; OSHA requirements for notification

of other contractors on a multi-employer site (29 CFR 1926.58).

(d) Safety system design specifications. Design, construction,

and maintenance of containment barriers and decontamination

enclosure systems; positioning of warning signs; electrical and

ventilation system lock-out; proper working techniques for

minimizing fiber release; entry and exit procedures for the work

area; use of wet methods; proper techniques for initial cleaning;

use of negative-pressure exhaust ventilation equipment; use of HEPA

vacuums; proper clean-up and disposal of asbestos; work practices as

they apply to encapsulation, enclosure, and repair; use of glove

bags and a demonstration of glove bag use.

(e) Field trip. A visit to an abatement site or other suitable

building site, including on-site discussions of abatement design and

building walk-through inspection. Include discussion of rationale

for the concept of functional spaces during the walk-through.

(f) Employee personal protective equipment. Classes and

characteristics of respirator types; limitations of respirators;

proper selection, inspection; donning, use, maintenance, and storage

procedures for respirators; methods for field testing of the

facepiece-to-face seal (positive and negative-pressure fit checks);

qualitative and quantitative fit testing procedures; variability

between field and laboratory protection factors that alter

respiratory fit (e.g., facial hair); the components of a proper

respiratory protection program; selection and use of personal

protective clothing; use, storage, and handling of non-disposable

clothing.

(g) Additional safety hazards. Hazards encountered during

abatement activities and how to deal with them, including electrical

hazards, heat stress, air contaminants other than asbestos, fire,

and explosion hazards.

(h) Fiber aerodynamics and control. Aerodynamic characteristics

of asbestos fibers; importance of proper containment barriers;

settling time for asbestos fibers; wet methods in abatement;

aggressive air monitoring following abatement; aggressive air

movement and negative-pressure exhaust ventilation as a clean-up

method.

(i) Designing abatement solutions. Discussions of removal,

enclosure, and encapsulation methods; asbestos waste disposal.

(j) Final clearance process. Discussion of the need for a

written sampling rationale for aggressive final air clearance;

requirements of a complete visual inspection; and the relationship

of the visual inspection to final air clearance.

EPA recommends the use of TEM for analysis of final air

clearance samples. These samples should be analyzed by laboratories

accredited under the NIST NVLAP.

(k) Budgeting/cost estimating. Development of cost estimates;

present costs of abatement versus future operation and maintenance

costs; setting priorities for abatement jobs to reduce costs.

(l) Writing abatement specifications. Preparation of and need

for a written project design; means and methods specifications

versus performance specifications; design of abatement in occupied

buildings; modification of guide specifications for a particular

building; worker and building occupant health/medical

considerations; replacement of ACM with non-asbestos substitutes.

(m) Preparing abatement drawings. Significance and need for

drawings, use of as-built drawings as base drawings; use of

inspection photographs and on-site reports; methods of preparing

abatement drawings; diagramming containment barriers; relationship

of drawings to design specifications; particular problems related to

abatement drawings.

(n) Contract preparation and administration.

(o) Legal/liabilities/defenses. Insurance considerations;

bonding; hold-harmless clauses; use of abatement contractor's

liability insurance; claims made versus occurrence policies.

(p) Replacement. Replacement of asbestos with asbestos-free

substitutes.

(q) Role of other consultants. Development of technical

specification sections by industrial hygienists or engineers; the

multi-disciplinary team approach to abatement design.

(r) Occupied buildings. Special design procedures required in

occupied buildings; education of occupants; extra monitoring

recommendations; staging of work to minimize occupant exposure;

scheduling of renovation to minimize exposure.

(s) Relevant Federal, State, and local regulatory requirements,

procedures and standards, including, but not limited to:

(i) Requirements of TSCA Title II.

(ii) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,

(40 CFR part 61) subparts A (General Provisions) and M (National

Emission Standard for Asbestos).

(iii) OSHA Respirator Standard found at 29 CFR 1910.134.

(iv) EPA Worker Protection Rule found at 40 CFR part 763,

subpart G.

(v) OSHA Asbestos Construction Standard found at 29 CFR 1926.58.

(vi) OSHA Hazard Communication Standard found at 29 CFR 1926.59.

(t) Course review. A review of key aspects of the training

course.

6. Project Monitor

EPA recommends that States adopt training and accreditation

requirements for persons seeking to perform work as project

monitors. Project monitors observe abatement activities performed by

contractors and generally serve as a building owner's representative

to ensure that abatement work is completed according to

specification and in compliance with all relevant statutes and

regulations. They may also perform the vital role of air monitoring

for purposes of determining final clearance. EPA recommends that a

State seeking to accredit individuals as project monitors consider

adopting a minimum 5-day training course covering the topics

outlined below. The course outlined below consists of lectures and

demonstrations, at least 6 hours of hands-on training, course

review, and a written examination. The hands-on training component

might be satisfied by having the student simulate participation in

or performance of any of the relevant job functions or activities

(or by incorporation of the workshop component described in item

``n'' below of this unit).

EPA recommends that the project monitor training course

adequately address the following topics:

(a) Roles and responsibilities of the project monitor.

Definition and responsibilities of the project monitor, including

regulatory/specification compliance monitoring, air monitoring,

conducting visual inspections, and final clearance monitoring.

(b) Characteristics of asbestos and asbestos-containing

materials. Typical uses of asbestos; physical appearance of

asbestos; review of asbestos abatement and control techniques;

presentation of the health effects of asbestos exposure, including

routes of exposure, dose-response relationships, and latency periods

for asbestos-related diseases.

(c) Federal asbestos regulations. Overview of pertinent EPA

regulations, including: NESHAP, 40 CFR part 61, subparts A and M;

AHERA, 40 CFR part 763, subpart E; and the EPA Worker Protection

Rule, 40 CFR part 763, subpart G. Overview of pertinent OSHA

regulations, including: Construction Industry Standard for Asbestos,

29 CFR 1926.58; Respirator Standard, 29 CFR 1910.134; and the Hazard

Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1926.59. Applicable State and local

asbestos regulations; regulatory interrelationships.

(d) Understanding building construction and building systems.

Building construction basics, building physical plan layout;

understanding building systems (HVAC, electrical, etc.); layout and

organization, where asbestos is likely to be found on building

systems; renovations and the effect of asbestos abatement on

building systems.

(e) Asbestos abatement contracts, specifications, and drawings.

Basic provisions of the contract; relationships between principle

parties, establishing chain of command; types of specifications,

including means and methods, performance, and proprietary and

nonproprietary; reading and interpreting records and abatement

drawings; discussion of change orders; common enforcement

responsibilities and authority of project monitor.

(f) Response actions and abatement practices. Pre-work

inspections; pre-work considerations, precleaning of the work area,

removal of furniture, fixtures, and equipment; shutdown/modification

of building systems; construction and maintenance of containment

barriers, proper demarcation of work areas; work area entry/exit,

hygiene practices; determining the effectiveness of air filtration

equipment; techniques for minimizing fiber release, wet methods,

continuous cleaning; abatement methods other than removal; abatement

area clean-up procedures; waste transport and disposal procedures;

contingency planning for emergency response.

(g) Asbestos abatement equipment. Typical equipment found on an

abatement project; air filtration devices, vacuum systems, negative

pressure differential monitoring; HEPA filtration units, theory of

filtration, design/construction of HEPA filtration units,

qualitative and quantitative performance of HEPA filtration units,

sizing the ventilation requirements, location of HEPA filtration

units, qualitative and quantitative tests of containment barrier

integrity; best available technology.

(h) Personal protective equipment. Proper selection of

respiratory protection; classes and characteristics of respirator

types, limitations of respirators; proper use of other safety

equipment, protective clothing selection, use, and proper handling,

hard/bump hats, safety shoes; breathing air systems, high pressure

v. low pressure, testing for Grade D air, determining proper backup

air volumes.

(i) Air monitoring strategies. Sampling equipment, sampling

pumps (low v. high volume), flow regulating devices (critical and

limiting orifices), use of fibrous aerosol monitors on abatement

projects; sampling media, types of filters, types of cassettes,

filter orientation, storage and shipment of filters; calibration

techniques, primary calibration standards, secondary calibration

standards, temperature/pressure effects, frequency of calibration,

recordkeeping and field work documentation, calculations; air sample

analysis, techniques available and limitations of AHERA on their

use, transmission electron microscopy (background to sample

preparation and analysis, air sample conditions which prohibit

analysis, EPA's recommended technique for analysis of final air

clearance samples), phase contrast microscopy (background to sample

preparation, and AHERA's limits on the use of phase contrast

microscopy), what each technique measures; analytical methodologies,

AHERA TEM protocol, NIOSH 7400, OSHA reference method (non

clearance), EPA recommendation for clearance (TEM); sampling

strategies for clearance monitoring, types of air samples (personal

breathing zone v. fixed-station area) sampling location and

objectives (pre-abatement, during abatement, and clearance

monitoring), number of samples to be collected, minimum and maximum

air volumes, clearance monitoring (post-visual-inspection) (number

of samples required, selection of sampling locations, period of

sampling, aggressive sampling, interpretations of sampling results,

calculations), quality assurance; special sampling problems, crawl

spaces, acceptable samples for laboratory analysis, sampling in

occupied buildings (barrier monitoring).

(j) Safety and health issues other than asbestos. Con

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.