RFM Inc.
Asbestos Compliance	10 Sins
For Facility Owners	White Paper

Asbestos management is one of the more confusing issues facing environmental, safety or facility managers today. Even seasoned personnel can make mistakes, and regardless of a facility’s size, asbestos has the power to steal from the bottom line if not managed properly. RFM recommends that facilities examine their current asbestos management program to see if it has any of 10 common errors all of which can be avoided by practicing preventive techniques. This article is intended to stimulate ideas on how to build an ongoing and continuous improvement program around asbestos management at your facility. It has been updated from a previous article written in 1992 and is based on my 15+ years of experience in the asbestos management field consulting for Fortune 500 companies as well as my experiences as the DuPont Company’s Corporate Asbestos Issue Manager.

Every facility should have a clear written policy that addresses asbestos straight out. Without one, a default policy may be in place which typically takes the form of money budgeted to simply peck away at asbestos removal during renovations or emergencies. This is the worst policy for managing this risk and certainly the worst for cost containment. If you fall into this category, you may well be spending money to remove asbestos that is not the top priority. Having an overall policy will bring focus to the issue. It will address management’s commitment to the safe handling of asbestos materials on site by all, employees, tenants, contractors and visitors. Ultimately, not having a written policy could open the door to costly errors which could even involve legal action. So what should be included in an asbestos policy? Items to consider in a policy are:

• An overall objective or guideline to be used as a measure of how a facility must implement the policy.

• Decide whether or not to include other respirable fibers materials - see discussion in Sin #4

• A clear definition of what constitutes an asbestos or respirable fiber material.

• A method to dispose of all unused asbestos materials in storage (such as floor tiles, gaskets, etc.)

• A method to select asbestos replacements, (e.g., based on suitability, followed by the relative health risk and then an evaluation of costs).

• Decide whether or not to make comprehensive site surveys mandatory versus simply inventorying the on site location of all asbestos containing materials and respirable fibers.

• Set a periodic schedule to formally inspect the integrity of suspect materials (it should be somewhere between once a year or once every 3 years.)

• Mandate that each site has a written asbestos Operations and Maintenance (O&M) guideline along with specific work procedures.

• Make certain that the asbestos policy is not in conflict with other organizational policies such as waste management policies, communication of chemical and biological hazards as well as other safety standards that may be in existence.

Finally, and perhaps more importantly, issue the policy from a well respected individual at a high enough level in the organization and make certain that it’s actually being implemented in the field. If a policy is not adhered to, then there is no reason to have one in the first place.

Sin #2: No Overall Corporate Direction

In this age of autonomy, the key is providing the right amount of overall guidance and uniformity as an aid to help individual facilities independently implement programs. Managers with responsibility for more than one location, should determine how each site actually manages asbestos in order to plan better for upcoming budget years. Significant cost savings can be generated by looking at issues such as reducing the number of abatement contractors, establishing annual agreements with air monitoring firms and laboratories analyzing bulk asbestos samples, locating safer and less costly landfills for disposing of asbestos and conducting surveys with a single provider which will help prioritize removal. People sharing their experiences, work procedures and training programs, can help a facility owner identify best practices and eliminate redundancies. Step back and take a fresh look at how individual facilities are managing the asbestos issue. You might be surprised what you learn and more importantly, what can be saved.

Sin #3: Regulatory Non-Compliance

Although the intention to comply with federal, state and local asbestos regulations is a given, actual compliance can be difficult due to the complexity of the requirements and the sometimes moving regulatory targets. Keeping tabs on current and pending regulations can be quite challenging, but an essential part of the task.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) asbestos National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) has specific notification requirements, procedures to follow and paperwork to fill out if asbestos is suspected in a building that is undergoing demolition or renovation work, (see 40CFR Part 61 SubPart M). Recently, EPA has been on the warpath in this arena in response to several incidents in which untrained homeless people, illegal immigrants and teenagers were hired to rip out asbestos. Be certain the 10 day advance notification requirements (stricter in some states,) for either asbestos renovation or demolition projects are always met for work that triggers the threshold amounts (again, stricter in some states) of 260 linear feet of asbestos on pipes (such as can be found in a pipe chase) or 160 square feet of asbestos containing materials (ACM) on other facility components such as a 10"x20" office area containing asbestos floor tile. In fact, most regulatory agencies prefer courtesy notifications for any asbestos project. Also, it’s important to remember for any demolition work, regardless if asbestos is present or not, notifications must be made, no ifs, ands or buts. EPA has also been cracking down to make sure asbestos materials are adequately wet during the actual work and are kept adequately wet prior to disposal.

Major revisions to the Occupational Safety Health Administration’s (OSHA’s) asbestos rules took effect in 1995 and there have been over 500 technical clarifications since then. OSHA’s Asbestos Construction Standard - 29CFR 1926.1101 is extremely prescriptive in nature and there were some drastic changes from the previous rule that are still confusing owners today as proven by some 3782 citations issued by OSHA from October ’95 to October ’98 totaling approximately $7.3 million in fines. One of the major changes was the elimination of the terms "large scale work" and "small scale/short duration activities" in exchange for a 4-tiered work classification system known as Class I-IV work activities. Here’s a quick way to remember these although somewhat simplistic:

• Class I: Friable stuff - Disturbance of thermal system insulation (TSI), such as pipes, ducts, valves or surfacing materials (sprayed on fireproofing on decks, beams, etc.)

• Class II: Non-Friable stuff (Everything else) - this includes applications such as floor tiles, transite, roofing, gaskets, etc.

• Class III: Small stuff - this covers maintenance and repair activities that generate no more than one standard waste bag (two thirds full).

• Class IV: Getting too close to stuff - Basically custodial or maintenance activities where someone may come in contact with asbestos but not disturb it, such as mopping floors or installing a smoke alarm close to the proximity of asbestos.

Other changes include the creation of a new term Presumed Asbestos Containing Materials(PACM). Essentially if TSI, surfacing materials or floor tiles date to 1980 or before, they must be presumed to contain asbestos unless bulk sampling data proves otherwise. This does not mean that any building built after 1980 can be assumed to be asbestos free - (see Sin #8). Other major changes owners need to be familiar with include the lowering of the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) to 0.1fibers per cubic centimeter (0.1f/cc) from 0.2f/cc, an increase in air monitoring requirements including the use of negative exposure assessments (NEA’s), new methods of compliance, medical surveillance changes and an increase in communication requirements on multi-employer worksites. For instance if there are any outside contracted businesses in a facility, such as a day care center or a cafeteria, they must be informed about any ACM that they may come in contact with and be told in advance when asbestos work activities are being done adjacent to their areas.

Most states have a state agency or department that control asbestos-related notifications, licenses, fees and enforcement. While many states pattern their requirements after EPA’s rules, some states have remarkable differences. For example, in the state of California, something is considered to be ACM if it is 0.1% by weight. Whereas everywhere else, the material is considered asbestos if it contains 1.0% by weight. Many large cities or counties also have asbestos regulations that differ from the federal or state rules or have their own notification forms. For example, the City of Philadelphia’s Bureau of Licenses and Inspections asbestos section has it’s own notification form to fill out prior to working in an area where ACM exists and they also require someone on the renovation project to hold an Asbestos Investigator’s license which is separate from the federal requirements.

The asbestos issue is bigger than just asbestos, it includes all respirable fibers. A respirable fiber, (i.e., a fiber that could lodge itself in the lungs) is less than 3 microns in diameter, greater than 5 microns in length and at least 3 times it’s diameter in size. They are durable in body fluids and have the ability to become airborne.

The most common asbestos replacement materials under scrutiny by the regulatory agencies are Refractory Ceramic Fibers (RCF’s), Mineral Wool and Fibrous Glass (commonly called Fiberglass). In the June 12, 1992 Federal Register (Vol. 57, No. 114,) OSHA proposed a new Permissible Exposure Limit of 1.0f/cc for these three materials. The proposed regulation, (which was part of OSHA’s PEL overhaul effort), was challenged in the courts and OSHA eventually was forced to go back to the drawing board. Currently OSHA has decided to focus on 20 of the most pervasive substances. While these 3 have not made OSHA’s top hit list, they will be on the final list. Although there are currently no specific OSHA limits governing occupational exposure to RCF’s, mineral wool or fibrous glass, these substances are covered by the agency’s 15 mg/m³ eight-hour (8 hr.) Time Weighted Average (TWA) limit for all inert dusts and particulates.

EPA has also been studying respirable fibers, specifically RCF’s. In the May 14, 1993 Federal Register (Vol. 58, No. 92), EPA announced the signing of an enforceable testing consent order among the three primary producers of RCF’s who agreed to perform workplace exposure monitoring. RCF’s are typically used in high temperature applications such as on boilers, in kilns and as gasket or packing around muffle furnaces or other equipment in labs. Approximately 720 personal air samples were collected in a variety of settings during this test. An interim report was issued to the EPA on January 2, 1995 with air monitoring data showing some very high fiber counts (or high concentrations of respirable fibers in the air) during manufacturing, fabrication, installation and removal activities. The EPA concluded from these tests that additional research would be required, however at this time, no additional studies have occurred or are planned. Many companies have adopted their own Acceptable Exposure Limits (AEL’s) for RCF’s. The DuPont Company currently has a 0.5f/cc AEL for RCF’s and has a mechanism in place to lower it at any time by watching the current thinking on this hazard. The American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), in their 6^th edition of "The Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices" published in 1998, have recommended a PEL of 0.1f/cc for RCF materials (the same regulated PEL for asbestos).

Recently, the 3 largest insulation manufacturer associations in North America, the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA), the National Insulation Association (NIA) and the Insulation Contractors Association of America (ICAA), endorsed a voluntary PEL (Permissible Exposure Limit) of 1.0f/cc for Fiberglass. On May 18, 1999, Charles Jeffress, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health applauded this action in a public announcement. In a signing ceremony at the Department of Labor, Mr. Jeffress said he was enthusiastic about the agreement and said "we (OSHA) will continue to monitor and track fiberglass exposures and conduct inspections." This is yet another sign that mandatory limits are getting closer. While these materials may not become the next asbestos, there is enough data to show exposure to them could be hazardous. A prudent facility owner might consider selecting non-respirable asbestos replacements such as foams, calcium silicates and fiber glass filaments. It is clear that potentially harmful exposure to asbestos replacement materials are not only drawing attention from OSHA and EPA these days, but from unions, associations, health scientists, the legal community, as well as international bodies such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO). While RCF’s, Mineral Wool and Fibrous Glass hazards are receiving more attention, RFM believes it is still a few years off before they indeed become regulated materials.

Sin #5: Thinking Lawsuits Only Happen To Others

For the past ten to fifteen years, companies in the asbestos industry have faced countless lawsuits by workers alleging that their exposure to asbestos caused them to contract life-threatening diseases. Most of these lawsuits have resulted in large, sometimes multi-million dollar verdicts and settlements against the manufacturers, distributors, suppliers and installers of asbestos products. Numerous asbestos industry defendants, most notably the Johns-Manville Company, have gone into bankruptcy as a result of repeated high compensatory and punitive damages awards. In more recent years, plaintiff attorney’s have begun to search for new theories of recovery. In a number of recent cases, plaintiffs have not only sued the "traditional" defendants but have added the businesses on whose premises the asbestos was installed. In these cases, plaintiffs have asserted the user’s liability based on a general negligence or "premises liability" theory.

In Smith v Abex Corp. et. al., (Case No. 939528 in the Superior Court of San Francisco), the first verdict in a premises liability case was awarded to August Smith who was dying of asbestosis from working over a number of years as a steamfitter in Bay Area refineries and power plants. The defendants remaining at trial were Armstrong Contracting and Supply (AC&S - the employer of Mr. Smith) and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E - a large public utility). Mr. Smith won the case and damages of $590,100 were assessed on the defendants. Workers compensation laws did not protect the employer in this verdict. This case set a precedent that property owners and employers are responsible for injuries caused by failure to warn employees or contractor employees about asbestos hazards or adequately implement control measures. Under the banner of "adequately implementing control measures," almost any organization could be put to the test in a court of law.

In another more recent case, Hochstrasser v Raybestos-Manhattan et. al., a wrongful death/mesothelioma (a malignant tumor of the pleura associated with asbestos exposure), case went to trial with Exxon as the sole defendant (all other defendants had settled). After a 4-week trial and a week of deliberation, the jury voted 9 to 3 that Exxon was not negligent in the management of its premises. Mr. Hockstrasser worked as an insulator for 37 years. His lawyers presented through discovery that Exxon knew about asbestos hazards as early as 1937 but did not adequately warn him about the hazard. The defense introduced articles from Mr. Hockstrasser’s union magazine stating asbestos exposure could cause asbestosis as early as 1930. Exxon also presented evidence that they had warned the contractor of the hazard. The jury concluded that Exxon had exercised due care.

In yet another relevant case in Louisiana, plaintiff attorneys are taking advantage of a state law in effect until 1976 which permitted injured workers to assert negligence claims directly against Corporate Directors and Officers for failing to provide a safe place to work. One trial in the early 90’s by three former refinery (Cities Services) employees sued several asbestos producers and the Insurance Company of North America (INA) - which was the insurer of 11 Cities Services executive officers. The plaintiffs settled with the asbestos producers but then proceeded to trial with INA as the only defendant. After a 2-week trial, a jury found nine of the eleven officers were negligent to provide a safe workplace in every year from 1945 to 1976 and awarded damages of $300,000 to each of the three plaintiffs. The case was appealed and the award was subsequently lowered to $135,000 per plaintiff.

If there are gaps in your current asbestos O&M Program, if you are not adequately communicating about the asbestos hazard on site, it’s not far-fetched to receive an invitation to court for negligence. While this new theory of premises liability remains unsettled, it may also signal a new chapter in asbestos litigation. It is indeed an issue to keep a watchful eye on.

Sin #6: Non-Computerized Management

A sound asbestos management program must start with a facility survey to identify the location and condition of all respirable fibers (especially asbestos) and provide the basis for a plan of action to deal with these materials. Any good database should allow an owner to keep track of survey information as it changes. It should also include items such as air sampling data during projects and alterations during renovations, basically information that’s uncovered during periodic reinspections and abatement projects. Most facility owners realize the importance of keeping good records, they are the first defense against liability. There are several asbestos management software programs on the market today, however, "let the buyer beware" is an axiom facility owners should take with these software products. Be leery of providers who have little or no "hands-on" asbestos survey experience. There are some asbestos management software providers who are solely software programmers. Ask who else is using the software, ask to see a demo, make sure the query fields are flexible enough to capture site specific information needs. Ask to see a copy of the inspection or assessment form. This is the key document that will be used to gather relevant data about the facility and should mirror the software program. Critical items that should be on any assessment form or in any database are:

• Appropriate fields in order to characterize a homogeneous area in the facility. This includes fields for the name of the building, the area or division, the floor or level, the function of the application being assessed (e.g., 30# steam line, chilled water line, etc.), the boundary or location and a description of the material type (pipe, valve, floor tile, ceiling tile, etc.) Decisions about nomenclature may well be the most important items to accurately describe.

• Determining people hours in various areas of the facility is another key factor to consider. It’s the only way to determine relative risk of the potential exposure to asbestos and other respirable fibers to the various constituencies on site.

• Condition of materials is another critical factor to capture. Most surveys describe conditions in 3 categories; minor damage, moderate damage and significant damage. Facility owners should consider broadening that range with something like the following: 0% damage, 1-4%, 5-9%, 10-14%, and 15-24% and 25>%. Consideration should also be given to adding a "special condition" category for those obvious badly damaged areas located during a survey.

• Other key elements that should be in any good database include characterization of potential for disturbance such as air movement, vibration, water exposure, accessibility, etc.

Some of these software programs require using existing blueprints which could become a career for someone to recreate or update. Some CAD (Computer-Aided Design) programs, while attractive, can be costly, time-consuming and consultant dependent to operate. Some programs have so many bells and whistles that at first glance it appears attractive, but are all the features really needed? If it’s too complex and time-consuming, you can bet there will be reluctance in using it. Regardless of these pitfalls, there are some products worthy of consideration. There is one software program that actually generates a prioritization number based on an algorithm that factors risk based on the type of fiber, the condition of materials and potential exposure to people. The bottom line is take the time to check out the validity of any asbestos management software program before it is purchased.

Sin #7: Trusting Bulk Sample Results

Since asbestos response actions are largely based on bulk sample results, it’s important to have great trust in the abilities of the lab(s) performing analysis. In recent years, labs performing Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) of asbestos bulk samples using EPA’s Interim Analytical Method (EPA 600/M4-82-020 Dec. 1982), have reduced in number as well as quality. In the mid to late 1980’s, at the height of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA), which required schools (Kindergarten through 12^th grade) to inspect for asbestos, labs flourished. In 1988, there were a little over 1100 labs providing PLM service. Today there are about 311 labs that are accredited to do asbestos PLM lab work. Many labs were forced to branch off into other areas such as lead and radon analysis to stay afloat. As such, there are far too few labs that are considered specialists in this area. During a 1996 National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program’s (NVLAP) round of proficiency samples, which operates under the jurisdiction of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), over 90 of the 300+ labs (approximately 27%) failed. And that number does not include the labs who passed but still received points for analytical and procedural errors. More recently in 1998, 21% of 311 labs missed a fairly simple asbestos floor tile sample in the spring round. As a follow up to this round, NVLAP sent out a ceiling tile sample that contained 4% asbestos and an anthophyllite (one of the 6 asbestiforms) sample. In this test, 29% of the 311 labs failed. And the one sample (the anthophyllite sample) was a reference sample that every lab has when they start in business. Both EPA and OSHA acknowledge the importance of selecting a lab that participates in either the NVLAP proficiency program or the American Industrial Hygiene Association’s (AIHA) lab proficiency efforts but it’s not mandatory. It’s important for owners to note, however, that accreditation does not necessarily mean quality. Both NVLAP and AIHA allow labs to miss a certain number of these proficiency samples and still remain accredited.

So how can a facility owner find a quality lab? The first clue may well be how the lab prices it’s services. In today’s marketplace, an owner is paying too much per sample if it’s over $15 and too little if it’s lower than $9 per sample. There’s also a new pricing phenomenon called "layered pricing." Some labs are promoting $5 and $6 samples. Take the time to understand how the lab charges for layered samples before they are hired. Since most TSI materials come layered, it’s common to run into this situation. The norm is to find at least 2 layers (a cover and an insulation material). It is also fairly common to find 3 or 4 layers of materials on older piping. The fact is, there is no reason for any owner to be paying for bulk samples by layer, since a quality lab should always report and define asbestos containing layers within a total sample. There’s no doubt it’s a buyers marketplace for PLM lab service today. However, managers are doing themselves a great disservice if they are too price conscious.

Perhaps the best way to find a proficient lab is to directly test them. Send them a questionnaire asking for a copy of either their NVLAP or AIHA accreditation. But more importantly, ask for a copy of their last three proficiency rounds results. To remain NVLAP accredited, a lab must not fail any 2 out of 3 successive test rounds. Also, NVLAP uses a point system with zero points meaning excellence and 150 points equaling failure. AIHA uses a different point system ranking labs proficient or non-proficient based on test round performance. Ask about lab personnel. No lab is any better than it’s weakest microscopist. Make sure the person analyzing your samples has at least attended a course such as McCrone Institute’s Course 508A or equivalent. In order to analyze other respirable fibers, it’s wise for any microscopist to have also taken McCrone’s Advanced Course 508B or an equivalent course. Insist on a minimum of two years experience for anyone analyzing asbestos bulk samples. Also, owners should inquire to see if a lab has a written quality control program. A QC program should address many items including a sample log-in and chain of custody procedure, duplicate sample analysis procedures as well as recordkeeping and waste storage/disposal procedures to name a few. Ask the lab how many refraction of index liquids they have and how often they calibrate them. They should at least have the 3 main types of liquids (1.550, 1.605 and 1.680), however quality labs have a lot more and they calibrate them once every 200 samples or at least once a month. Lab tools and supplies should be checked often for contamination, at least every tenth sample and scope alignment checks should be done at least once a day or greater depending on how many different dispersion staining refractive index liquids are used. However, the only foolproof way to test a lab is to periodically send one’s own proficiency samples. This can best be done by purchasing known samples from various testing labs or by sending previous samples that have been taken on site that are known to be accurate. While finding an asbestos lab may be easier said then done, it is possible and worth the effort, especially in comparison to the consequence of errors. Maintaining consistent quality from a lab may be the most important item to track in an asbestos management program. Decisions made from wrong lab results may be the most costly of sins.

Sin #8: Letting Asbestos Sneak Back

Asbestos products are still being manufactured and sold today in the United States. In the November 5, 1993 Federal Register (Vol. 58, No. 213), EPA announced it’s asbestos manufacturing, importation, processing and distribution prohibitions. The agency’s action described in this issue of the Federal Register covers the regulatory status of asbestos containing products that were part of EPA’s original 3-staged ban and phase-out rule issued under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TCSA) on July 12, 1989. The key item in this Federal Register notice is that the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals partially overturned the rule. Essentially, EPA concluded that several asbestos containing product categories were not being manufactured, processed or imported on July 12, 1989 and thus are still subject to the ban. However, EPA also concluded as part of the same court decision that certain asbestos products were being manufactured on July 12, 1989 and thus are no longer subject to the ban. This means there are still some products that are allowed to be manufactured and could easily be installed in facilities today. The products that are still banned are; corrugated paper, specialty paper, commercial paper, rollboard, flooring felt and new uses of asbestos. The products that are no longer subject to the ban and could sneak back into a facility are; asbestos cement, asbestos clothing, pipeline wrap, roofing felt, vinyl asbestos floor tiles, asbestos cement pipe, millboard, automatic transmission components, clutch facings, friction materials, disc brake pads, brake blocks, gaskets, roof coatings and non-roof coatings. To make sure these products don’t sneak back into a facility. Managers need to have a method in place to check for these types of materials. Have engineering, maintenance and purchasing personnel scrutinize Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS’s) before products are bought. Most all domestic manufacturers no longer make products that contain asbestos because of the associated liability, however it is not uncommon for non-US manufacturers to still be using asbestos as binders in certain products. In addition, during the debate over EPA’s Ban and Phase Out ruling, domestic manufacturers created large inventories that can still be found today. The major application where it can sneak back in is in asbestos containing mastics on pipe elbows, valves and as adhesives underneath floor tiles.

On the international front, the European Union recently announced a ban on chrysotile asbestos by the year 2005. Chrysotile is the last asbestiform currently permitted in Europe and the ban could spark a worldwide ban of all asbestos products. If this occurs, watch for manufacturers to crank up inventories in order to sneak in as much as they can before the ban takes effect. Facility owners who either believe they are asbestos free or removed asbestos may well have allowed some asbestos containing products to come back in over the years. The best policy to take on any unknown material where no MSDS is available is to test it. If a material is suspect, either treat it like it’s asbestos or test it before performing any work activity that involves that material. But remember, assuming a material is non-asbestos just because of when it was installed could indeed be costly in the long run.

Sin #9: Not Staying State-Of-The-Art

The term "state-of-the-art" has various definitions. Many have defined it as "compliance with government standards or regulations," or "industry custom," or even "technical feasibility." What’s of critical importance is how a court of law defines state-of-the-art. When it comes to asbestos and other respirable fibers, a general rule of thumb is if state-of-the art is not being practiced or "due diligence" is not employed, one may well be placing the organization in jeopardy.

Managing asbestos and other respirable fibers is indeed a living issue. New and pending regulations such as those mentioned in Sin #4 concerning asbestos replacements are occurring all the time. Staying in touch with these changes is a challenge but worth the investment in comparison to potential liability. If an asbestos coordinator hasn’t been appointed, even just making it a partial assignment, an opportunity has been missed to better manage this issue. If the proper training of this individual has not occurred, allowing them to follow the asbestos management industry or letting them build a reference library, you are probably not staying state-of-the-art. Many courts have used a state-of-the art claims against defendants for failure to have known or should have known about current accepted technologies. Ignorance is not bliss when it comes to knowing what’s state-of-the-art.

Sin #10: Not Being Personally Involved

As an owner or operator, the ultimate responsibility for managing asbestos and other fibers lies with the facility or safety manager as well as the facility’s top management. One of the biggest sins an owner can make is to hire any asbestos consultant or abatement contractor and simply wash their hands of the issue. Turning over the "keys to your kingdom" without the proper involvement can cause many headaches. In looking at many recent OSHA and EPA fines, it’s the owner who usually receives the bigger fine even when the contractor is the culprit. In Civil Action No. C-2-98-1020 lodged on October 5, 1998 in the case of United States v Cytec Industries, Inc. et al., claims against Cytec (the owner) and R. Baker and Sons All Industrial Services, Inc. (the asbestos contractor) were made for violations of the asbestos NESHAP as a result of an improper asbestos removal project in Marietta, Ohio. In the proposed settlement, Cytec and Baker agreed to achieve full compliance with the asbestos NESHAP; implement an asbestos control program as outlined in the consent decree; and pay civil penalties of $176, 135 (Cytec) and $49,518 for Baker. Needless to say, take time to check out backgrounds of the outside folks that are hired. Ask about their specific experience in your type of operation. Develop a screening questionnaire for asbestos consultants or contractors. Pilot a project in a part of the facility to test the contractor. All of this may take a little extra time but the cost benefits will be evident. Getting personally involved is the only way to stay accountable for this health and liability issue.

It is feasible to design a quality asbestos management program that will first and foremost protect the health and safety of anyone in the facility. It is also possible to do so in a cost effective way. By you making it a living issue, a facility’s asbestos management program should be able to stand up to any challenge, including the test of time.

About the Author: William A. Onderick is President of RFM Inc., a consulting firm formed in 1991 specializing in strategic asbestos management compliance for facility owners. Mr. Onderick is the former Corporate Asbestos Issue Manager for the DuPont Company. He spent nearly 10 years leading an internal effort in DuPont to manage the asbestos issue smarter. He is a frequent speaker and author on asbestos management and asbestos replacements offering both a facility owner and consultant’s perspective to the issue. For more information, he can be reached by phone at (800) 870-9161, by e-mail at rfmnet2@att.net or through RFM’s website at www.RFMnet.com.