Document ReGvLVOLpYv7gmMY0qp1G1Yk

'* > o. w M-4 ._ - ... ' Table 2. Comparison of Asbestos Control Alternatives - Msthod Advantages Disadvantages Removal f r*1 ^ : -J Eliminates asbestos source Eliminates need for specie! operations and . maintenance program .:* *. v r. .. / 'f Replacement with substitute material may be necessary Porous surfaces also may require encapsulation Improper removal may raise fiber levels Appropriate applications Always Inappropriate applications Never 1 Uf ' . . ' /. V / " Enclosure . ' [4 * >- J; o i - * i;- .... , * *; " rj.:. * .. V; ,'j ;v V Reduces exposure in . the area outside the ' enclosure ' initial costs mey be lower than removal unless utilities need relocating or major changes Usually does not require replacement of material v-" '.v . '-Art' / !` r . \ . ? * ........... L' ----- y ,i -,r i ; Asbestos source remains and must be removedeventually fiber release continues behind enclosure Special operations program required to control access to enclosure for maintenance and renovation Periodic reinspection . required to check for , damage Repair of damaged enclosure necessary Fibers released in dry form during construction of enclosure- Long-term costs could be higher than removal When materials need to be isolated from building occupants (e.g., exposed pipe) Disturbance or entry into enclosed area unlikely Oameged or deteriorating materials causing rapid fiber release Water damage evident Oamage or entry into enclosure likely Ceiling to be enclosed is low General comments Containment barriers needed Worker protection required Wet removal is required for all types of asbestos, (amosite will not adsorb water or water with traditional wetting agents) Disposal may be a problem in some areas Unusual circumstances, complex surfaces, and the presence of utilities may require special removal techniques . Containment barriers needed Use of tools with HEPAfiltered vacuum attachments advisable Worker protection needed jr \ .3*`..XJis'ii'ii) GLEASON-001107