Document R5ZodqKXmrjrqaGM1jvG7RYz

iii'mn/Mmmji rently working on projects to obtain the necessary licensing. Now the State has rescinded that order. By special notice the State will no longer require abatement contrac tors to show proof of a license in order to bid on State asbestos projects. At the same time, John Conrad, president of Global Consumer Serv ices, is attacking on another front. He has already paid the $1,500 filing fee with the U.S. Patent and TVademark Office to re-examine the patent. Like many others in the industry, Conrad insists that the negtive air technology is virtually public domain. Insisting that a patent is only good until challenged, Conrad had asked others to join him in the re-examina tion action and help share the costs. "There is a new U.S. Patent and TYademark Office procedure," he ad vised, "that allows businesses to challenge each other's patents without litigation, and although the process can be expensive for the challenged patent holder, the fee for requesting the re-examination is only $1,500. "Re-examination, if you.compare it with any legal procedure, is a bargain," Conrad said, "although it has its limitations. The requester, which would be a committee of con tractors, has few chances to argue his or her side; most of the debate is be tween the patent office and the original patent holder. But if the evidence is strongly in favor of the requester, Natale's patent could be overturned and determined to be void." If you are interested in participating with Conrad's move, you can get ad ditional information by calling toll-free 800-233-6228. FACT FILE #4__________ ______ _____________ __ ASBESTOS HAZARD EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACT C AHERA 1 usan Vogt, the U.S. Envir onment Protection Agency's deputy director for Tbx Substances, explained it at the Asbestos Abatement Council's recent World Congress. Furthermore, the EPA announced it with a series of public releases. Still the heads wagged. They are all certain that litigation will fly as sure as friable fibers. Still, EPA's effort is not entirely un precedented. Confronted with Con gress' demand for prompt regulations to flesh out the recently enacted As bestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA), the agency wants to enlist interested groups in a form of "consensus'-' process. What gets the wags shaking their head and looking for the emergence of the first lawyer is the immensity of the task. AHERA takes in more that 700;000 buildings in about 35,000 school districts. That's a lot of school boards and officials, teachers. students, contractors, design profes sionals, consultants, etc. In the face of EPA's regulation mak ing responsibility is the hard fact that school officials are starting to court the money it will take to abate the problem--and they don't like the totals. More and more, officials are leaning toward a procedure that will allow the asbestos to be maintained in place vs. the more expensive removal step. Industry followers point to the unions, environmentalists, etc. who can be expected to take ari opposite tack. For the most part, they want the asbestos removed and want little credence given to support any EPA leaning toward the idea that some forms of asbestos (ie., "white" or chrysotile asbestos) are not so dan gerous as other forms. "All forms of asbestos have the ability to kill," one union official said, firmly. "That means it should be removed." With this kind of expected polariza tion, EPA's opting for a "consensus" set of regulations seems the most pru dent course to follow. The question that many have is: what's the re sponse of the side that doesn't get its ambitions reflected in the final regs? Does that side head for the nearest courtroom? Certainly, they'll have that right, although Vogt ex pressed a hope that combatants won't follow that course. Congress caught on to the EPA's conduct in spurring school boards to take action against asbestos without providing the necessary guidance for the school board to follow. What resulted was a chaotic situation in which school districts took actions without knowing if they were correct, adequate, or even safe. There is mounting evidence that many of the removal strategies produced far more dangers than the existence of the asbestos in the first place. As a result. Congress has mandated some very strict deadlines and is holding EPA's environmental feet in the fire so that asbestos activity can be carried out in an organized, safe, and efficient way. Publication of proposals are se6 for April 20,1987. These are to include: 1) inspection; 2) assessment; 3) response "using the least burden some methods"; 4) implementation; 5) surveillance and reinspection; 6) maintenance; 7) transportation and disposal of wastes, and 8) the development of school management plans that can be approved by the states' governors. By April 30, 1987, EPA must also come up with a model accreditation program for asbestos workers so states, only a dozen or so who have such plans now, may enact the pro gram 180 days after the beginning of their next legislative sessions. The eight rules must be in final form by Oct. 17, 1987. By Oct. 12, 1988, laboratory accreditation for air sampling must be completed, and by July 9, 1989 the schools must be ready to begin implementing the program. 48 ASBESTOS ABATEMENT MARCH/APRIL 1987 GLEASON-001151