Texas Register, Volume 23, Number 49, Part III, Pages 12311-12450, December 4, 1998 Page: 12,370
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:
other than public buildings in Operations (295.60), since it ap-
plies to work practices.
Response: The department has limited 295.58, 295.59, and
295.60 to public buildings, in response to comments that they
should not apply to commercial buildings. The work practices
referenced in 295.57(d) are the work practices that are min-
imums for commercial buildings and are not to be considered
minimums for public buildings and are therefore not referenced
in 295.60. The minimum standards for work practices in a
commercial building are dependent upon the workers. The
EPA Worker Protection Rule applies for government employ-
ees, and the OSHA Construction Industry Standard applies for
other workers. No change was made as a result of this com-
ment
Comment Concerning 295.60(a), one commenter suggested
deletion of the requirement for the consultant to be a PE or
CIH to specify work practices that differ from the rules. He
suggested that the consultant work with the PE or CIH.
Response: The department agreed with a similar comment
regarding 295.60. The difference in this section over the earlier
comment is that here the PE or CIH is not concerned with
alterations to the building structure or systems, but with the
abatement procedures themselves. 29 CFR 1926.1101(g)(6)
requires a certified industrial hygienist or licensed professional
engineer who is also qualified as a project designer to evaluate
and certify that the method will provide adequate protection to
the employees and prevent asbestos contamination outside the
regulated area when "alternative control methods" are used.
Although such non-exempt individuals in the private sector must
be in compliance with OSHA, it is not a requirement of OSHA
to be a licensed consultant, rather that the person be "qualified"
as a project designer in accordance with AHERA and the MAR.
Because any such evaluation would be considered an action
that a designer is required to perform, as specified in the MAP,
the department is compelled to require that this person also be a
licensed consultant since this section applies to public buildings
and any person who is required to be accredited under the MAP
must also be licensed to work in a public building under TAHPA.
Comment Concerning 295.60(a)(2): One commenter sug-.
gested deleting "(project designer)" on the grounds that the li-
censed consultant is an accredited project designer.
Response: The department agrees and has removed this.
Comment Concerning 295.60(a)(2): Two commenters sug-.
gested that a mechanism be in place for timely response from
TDH regarding approval of project designs that vary from the
provisions set forth in the section.
Response: The TDH will seek to provide timely response to the
those who submit alternative project designs. If proper review
has been performed and has been certified in writing by a CIH
or PE in accordance with 29 CFR 1926.1101(g)(6) the time will
be kept to a minimum. No change was made as a result of this
comment.
Comment Concerning 295.60(a)(2), two commenters asked
for a definition of "non-standarcd".
Response: 29 CFR 1926.1101 provides great detail concern-
ing the requirements for critical barriers, additional barriers of
plastic sheeting, negative pressure enclosure, glovebags, HEPA
vacuums, wet methods, and respiratory protection. Subsection
(g)(6) requires that a certified industrial hygienist or licensedprofessional engineer who is also qualified as a project designer
evaluate and certify the method that will provide adequate pro-
tection to the employees and prevent asbestos contamination
outside the regulated area when "alternative control methods"
are used. Because of this requirement, the department requires
this certification. The department agrees that this might not
be clear to the reader and has added a reference to 29 CFR
1926.1101(g)(6) concerning alternative control methods.
Comment Concerning 295.60(d): One commenter suggested
that documentation of tear specifications should be kept on site
when using asbestos waste bags that are less than 6 mil thick.
Response: The department agrees that the documentation
should be readily available so that the contractor is able to
produce evidence that the material is in compliance. No change
was made as a result of this comment
Comment Concerning 295.60(d), two commenters said that
it is redundant to require sheeting to be placed over flooring if
it is to be removed.
Response: The department agrees that if flooring is removed
this would result in be covering the very material to be removed.
This section is patterned around the typical containment used
to remove fireproofing or decorative ceiling. For floor tile, the
consultant must consider whether there is a need to construct
an inverted containment. If the job is expected to produce a
large fiber release, an inverted containment would be required
to prevent fibers from contaminating the ceiling. No change was
made as a result of this comment
Comment Concerning 295.60(d), one commenter said that
the rules should be consistent, that the department needs
to make a decision concerning inverted containment when
removing floor covering. He indicated that the requirement for
an inverted containment differed from one region to the next,
Response: The judgments of TDH inspectors is based upon
their experience and may take into consideration the unique
characteristics of the specific project such as condition of the
floor tile or the ceiling material in the rooms. While there must
be critical barriers and negative pressure established to prevent
the migration of fibers from the regulated area, the need for
an inverted containment when removing floor tile is left to the
discretion of the licensed consultant However, the department
recognizes that sheet flooring with a friable backing needs an
inverted containment due to the high probability of the material
to release fibers No change was made as a result of this
comment.
Comment Concerning 295.60(d), several commenters said
that fire retardant polyethylene sheeting is three times the cost
of regular plastic sheeting. It was suggested that the rules
require fire retardant plastic sheeting only where a fire hazard
exists.
Response The department agrees and has changed the
requirement accordingly
Comment Concerning 295 60(d), several commenters said
that the department should add "as is feasible" concerning
addng viewing windows to the containment
Response: The department agrees and has added this qualifier
Comment Concerning 295.60(d),one commenter stated that
a second layer of plastic sheet on the walls is a waste of money23 TexReg 12370 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/m1/70/: accessed May 7, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.