All Things Reg 8

IMPORTANT DATES AND DEADLINES:

Request for Party Status     November 17. 2020 by 11:59 p.m.
Status Conference                November 24 at 10:00 a.m.
Alternate Proposal               December 2, 2020 by 11:59 p.m.
Prehearing Statement         December 2, 2020 by 11:59 p.m.
Prehearing Conference       December 21, 2020 at 1:00 p.m.
Rebuttal Statement             December 28, 2020 by 11:59 p.m.

 Colorado Regulation 8, Part B Asbestos Proposed Revisions

CDPHE Reg 8 2ND REDLINE DRAFT

4.30.2020 Proposed Revisions 5 CCR 1001-10 
APCD Public Participation Tips

CDPHE Communication

CDPHE Update Revisions to AQCC Date Has Changed

 

WHAT IF?

proposed revisions to Regulation 8, a discussion of what if the proposed regulation becomes regulation

Number One
PROPOSED REVISION – “The innermost room must be large enough to accommodate the cleaning of bagged debris and the largest sized debris, all while maintaining closed flaps.” 
 
REQUIRED – If the project has piping that is being removed and for the sake of conversation are 20’ long, it will be required to construct an innermost chamber of the waste load-out which at a minimum will need to be 21’ deep. 
 
THINK ABOUT THIS! – Most project sites do not have the space capable of accommodating this proposed revision to the regulation. In order to remain compliant, the proposed regulation would require an adjustment to the materials to accommodate the waste load-out, resulting in additional costs and possible further exposure to asbestos for the employees adjusting the size of the waste to fit the space available for the waste load-out. Another possible outcome would be a requirement for a party to apply for a variance causing further delays and possible additional engineering controls mandated by the Division.
Number Two
PROPOSED REVISION – I.B.124. Work Area — The addition of the words “An exterior work area may be established under the provisions of a variance request.”.  
 
REQUIRED – This statement automatically requires the request of a variance when constructing any exterior containment, even when the exterior containment is constructed in compliance with the current regulations.  
 
THINK ABOUT THIS! -This step is unnecessary and extremely over burdensome. The addition of this step in the process will only delay projects, cause additional expenditure of limited resources, allow for further requirements to be included by the Division which can be extremely expensive and will result in no known improved protection of human health and the environment.

Number Three
PROPOSED REVISION –  I.B.69. Makeup Air Intake –The terms “a filtered, self-closing aperture” and “designed and Installed” imparts a concern as to what will the filter requirements will be and will there be some sort of additional mechanical requirements drafted by the Division in the form of a policy?  The definition provided is vague and can be interpreted in the future to require elaborate filtering and expensive mechanically operated closure systems. 

REQUIRED –  The provided definition seeks to prevent a perceived problem causing the release of asbestos from a work area due to the loss of negative pressure inside.  This is an occurrence which is extremely rare due to the existence of Americas modern electrical infrastructure.  Additionally, the temporary loss of negative pressure does not indicate all work areas will automatically become positive pressure.  What often happens is the work area becomes static allowing for the air to remain inside the work area as all the other engineering controls are still intact. 

THINK ABOUT THIS!Industry practice already makes allowances for a simple inexpensive flap over this makeup air location which will self-close upon the loss of negative pressure.  This form of requirement is overly burdensome and provides limited protection for a rare occurrence.