Texas Register, Volume 23, Number 49, Part III, Pages 12311-12450, December 4, 1998 Page: 12,358
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:
regulations. The appendix is part of Subpart M and does not
need to be referenced specifically No change was made as a
result of this comment
Comment Concerning 295.33(a)(2), several commenters sug-
gested revising this to 40 CFR 763, Subpart E and Appendices.
Another commenter cited that the correct date for Subpart E is
October 30, 1987 and the correct date for Appendix C to this
regulation is February 3, 1994.
Response: By referencing the most current edition from the
Government Printing Office the putic was given an opportunity
to review, determine applicability, and comment on this federal
regulation. Further, by saying "as amended" the rules auto-
matically adopt any future amendments made to those federal
regulations. No change was made as a result of this comment
Comment Concerning 295.33(a)(9), one commenter recom-
mended adoption of the new standard dated January 8, 1998.
Response: The definition was marked for deletion under the
proposed rules. The reason for this deletion is that specific
work practices are addressed in 295.58, 295.59, and 295.60
and where a specific requirement from 29 CFR 1926.1101 is
needed, it is referenced in that section of the rule. No change
was made as a result of this comment.
Comment Concerning 295.33(c), one commenter suggested
replacing Texas Health Asbestos Protection Act with Texas
Asbestos Health Protection Act
Response: The department agrees and has made the appro-
priate changes to this section. The proper name of the act is
the Texas Asbestos Health Protection Act
Comment Concerning 295.34(a), several commenters sug-
gested that the requirement for building owners to notify all per-
sons in writing who are to perform any type of maintenance,
custodial, renovation, or demolition work (regardless of whether
or not their activity will disturb ACBM), of the presence and lo-
cation of ACBM will be a difficult and time consuming exercise
which serves no purpose. They suggested using the following
changed language: "Where asbestos-containing building mate-
rial (ACBM) may be disturbed by maintenance, custodial, ren-
ovation or demolition work, the building owner shall notify all
affected persons of the presence and location of the ACBM "
One commenter suggested that we add "occupants" to the list
of those persons which must be notified and that the notifica-
tion not be in writing. Two commenters suggest that 295.34(a)
appears to be more stringent than paragraph 295.34(b)(2) and
could cause enforcement conflicts. One commenter recom-
mended specifically adding the installation of utilities by outside
contractors such as telephone lines, computer lines, and tele-
vision cables, because it is an area that is often overlooked,
though it is implied in the rules. This would help building man-
agers in their duties by providing the additional guidance to the
building owners.
Response: The department agrees that informing all persons
in writing would be difficult to achieve and has modified this
requirement The building owner must notify and document
the method and date that notification was conveyed to the
person(s). The department stresses that building owners
must inform building workers about the location and physical
condition of the ACM that they might disturb, and stress need
to avoid disturbing the material. Occupants should be notified
for two reasons: (1) building occupants should be informed of
any potential hazard in their vicinity; and (2) informed personsare iess ikely to unknowingly disturb the material and cause
fibers to be released into the air. Building owners can inform
occupants about the presence of ACM by distributing written
notices, posting signs or labels in a central location where
affected occupants can see them, and holding awareness or
information sessions. To address the apparent conflict between
subsections (a)and (b), the department will consider a change
to paragraph (b) during later rulemaking changes. Since there
was not a proposed change to this section of the rules published
for public comment, the department is unable to address or
change this section at this time. Therefore, no change was
made as a result of this comment However, because there is
a requirement to notify in writing or document the discussion
(b)(2) does not relieve the building owner of this responsibility
to do it in writing. The department, nevertheless, will be mindful
of this comment in any future purposed rule amendments. The
last commenter makes a valid point, and the future changes will
include the requirement that the building owner notify anyone
who might disturb ACBM.
Comment Concerning 295.34(a), one commenter suggested
that changing the last sentence to read, ...abate all friable
asbestos-containing materials or any asbestos-containing ma-
terials which are disturbed by the renovation or demolition and
which may... " One commenter suggested changing the last
sentence to read, "Prior to initiating demolition or renovation
processes in a work area, building owners are required by 40
CFR Part 61, Subpart M to abate all friable ACBM or asbestos
containing materials which may become regulated asbestos
containing materials (RACM)." One commenter felt this state-
ment should be clarified to indicate that if disturbance of ACM
occurs during renovation or demolition, then the owner shall be
required to abate only the ACM that has been or will be im-
pacted by the renovation or demolition. One commenter stated
the last sentence is confusing, and asked if this statement re-
quires the building owner to remove all friable asbestos contain-
ing material, even if it will not be disturbed during the activity
The commenter also asked if non-friable asbestos containing
materials have to become friable before they are required to be
abated. One commenter felt that the last sentence should say
that the building owner is required to "clean up the area of dis-
turbance" instead of "abate.,,"
Response: The department agrees it is somewhat unclear and
has made the appropriate changes to clarify that ACBM in
public buildings must be abated in accordance with the TAHPR
and that RACM in a NESHAP facility must be addressed in
accordance with the NESHAP
Comment Concerning 295.34(c), one commenter stated that
the word "dismantling" is not defined in the regulation and
recommended that it be added
Response: Dismantling is a form of renovation activity, such
as removing a partition wall or suspended ceiling, in which old
materials are not replaced with new This will be considered
for later changes. No change was made as a result of this
comment
Comment Concerning 295.34(c), one commenter said that
the requirement to sample "all immediately surrounding areas"
should be changed to "those areas that could be disturbed"
Several commenters said that the requirement to sample "all
immediately surrounding areas" should be changed because it
is not defined well enough.23 TexReg 12358 December 4, 1998 Texas Register
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/m1/58/: accessed May 7, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.