Texas Register, Volume 23, Number 49, Part III, Pages 12311-12450, December 4, 1998 Page: 12,371
12311-12450 p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
in light removal jobs and should be subject to the consultant's
discretion.
Response: The department disagrees. Two layers of plastic
sheeting on the walls are minimum standard practice and should
not be compromised solely for the purposes of cost savings.
In many cases two layers are necessary and appropriate to
contain fibers and facilitate clean up. In 295.60(a)(2) the
consultant may vary from the provisions of the rules in the
project plans. and specification if conditions warrant No change
was made as a result of this comment
Comment Concerning 295.60(e), one commenter asked what
is considered an air lock.
Response: The air locks are two layers of plastic sheeting
that are not taped together but form a double flap or barrier
between the clean room, shower room, equipment room and
work area. A true air lock would be an air tight room where a
person would transfer from a particular pressure environment
to a different pressure and would be brought to the pressure
of the new environment before opening the air tight door. This
type of system would be cost prohibitive and is why the typical
containment has this much simpler system. However the use
of the term airlock has been applied even though it is not a true
airlock but rather flaps of plastic that help to form a barrier to the
passage of asbestos fibers in the event power is lost and the
negative air machines no longer are able to provide the negative
pressure differential needed to ensure the fibers remain inside
the containment. This section was not open for comment. No
change was made as a result of this comment.
Comment Concerning 295.60(g), one commenter suggested
deleting references to OSHA if both English and Spanish signs
are required, because OSHA does not require the signs posted
in both languages.
Response: The department references OSHA for the purposes
of setting forth the specific information on the sign to be used
and its placement OSHA specifies a sign that bears specific
information, but does not specify that it must be in English.
In the interest of serving the public in Texas, which includes
individuals who may speak Spanish or English, the department
requires signs be posted in both languages. No change was
made as a result of this comment.
Comment Concerning 295.60(h), one commenter suggests
that TDH may accept some liability and limit enforcement action
on "approved" projects.
Response: The department has considered the comment and
made no change.
Comment Concerning 295.60(h), several commenters sug-
gested deleting the reference to 40 CFR 763.90(iX1).
Response: The department agrees and the reference was
deleted in the proposed 295.60(h). No further change was
made as a result of this comment.
Comment Concerning 295.60(i), one commenter suggested
that the phrase "acceptable for final clean air monitoring results"
be changed to "acceptable for final clearance air monitoring
results".
Response: The department agrees and has made appropriate
changes.Comment Concerning 295.60(j), one commenter suggested
that some discussion should be added that addresses how long
asbestos may be stored onsite.
Response: The department agrees. This subject had been
addressed in 295.43 and 295.45 and needs to be addressed
in this section. The new subsection (j)(4) has been added to
address the subject of storage of the asbestos containing waste
material.
Comment Concerning 295.60(j), one commenter said that the
rules should explain the process of bagging so that the reader
knows what is meant by the use of "double bagging".
Response: The department has added a description of the
procedures for double bagging in 295.60(j)(1).
Comment Concerning 295.60(j), one commenter wanted to
know whatthe tear resistance data meant. Several commenters
oppose the new language regarding rips and tears in asbestos
waste bags on the grounds that persons who handle the
standard six mil bags and tear them should immediately repair
them and clean the surrounding area using a HEPA vacuum, or
be subject to enforcement action. Additionally the commenters
state that the tear specifications for bags less than six mil
thickness are impractical to obtain.
Response: Some polyethylene manufacturers produce plastic
sheeting which is thinner than six mil but has a tear and
puncture resistance that is equal to or greater than the six
mil thick plastic that has been the common thickness material
used in abatements for years. The department has added this
material as an alternative to the six mil plastic to provide an
alternative that will still provide the same level of protection.
In the event of a tear and leakage of ACM, the requirement
to cleanup is intrinsic in the work practice standard, where no
ACM is allowed to accumulate on the floor and become dry.
The tear specifications were given to the department by the poly
manufacturers and the distributers that wish to sell this product.
Therefore, it should not be difficult to obtain polyethylene that
meets these specifications. No change was made as a result
of this comment.
Comment Concerning 295.60()(2): One commenter sug-
gested deleting the reference to O&M Supervisor, as the section
pertains to abatement, not O&M.
Response: The department agrees and has removed the
reference to O&M Supervisor.
Comment Concerning 295.600j)(2): One commenter sug-
gested that wetting the asbestos on the entire component may
damage the matrix and cause the ACM to become friable. The
commenter suggests that standard industrial practice is to en-
capsulate the ACM, then wrap the components in plastic.
Response: The department maintains that the standard is to
adequately wet the ACM; however, alternate work practices
may be specified by the consultant if equally protective of public
health and may be used after obtaining written permission from
the Chief of the Asbestos Programs Branch per 295.60(a)(2).
No change was made as a result of this comment.
Comment Concerning 295.60(j)(3): One commenter sug-
gested that dry removal be allowed per the OSHA exemption
when the temperature in containment is below freezing.
Response: The department maintains that the consultant may
specify alternate work practices which are equally protective ofADOPTED RULES December 4, 1998 23 TexReg 12371
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas. Secretary of State. Texas Register, Volume 23, Number 49, Part III, Pages 12311-12450, December 4, 1998, periodical, December 4, 1998; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth379980/m1/71/: accessed April 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.