POB 1483, Baltimore, MD 21203-1483, 410-243-5864
WLA Home
Asbestos Watch
British Asbestos
Newsletter
News from India
Legal Information
Publications
News Reports
Paul Safchuck's Alerts
Jim Fite's Alerts
WLA Alerts & News
World Trade Center Health
Links
 

Report of Findings and Recommendations on the Use and Management of Asbestos

February 10, 2003

Global Environment & Technology Foundation
7010 Little River Turnpike, Suite 460, Annandale, Virginia 22003

DRAFT REPORT OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE USE AND MANAGEMENT OF ASBESTOS

February 10, 2003

Section 1.0:
SUMMARY OF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) calls asbestos a commercial designation for any mineral products composed of strong and flexible fibers, resistant to heat, corrosion, abrasion, and that can be woven. Despite all of these remarkable properties, known since the time of Aristotle, controversy has followed asbestos due to the equally numerous and well documented adverse health effects. Various federal and state agencies and private sector organizations grapple with continuing public health concerns, such as the legacy of the Libby, Montana vermiculite mine, possible asbestos risks from the World Trade Center collapse and other related issues. They also continue to address current developments regarding the safety and efficacy of substitutes.

Many Americans are under the impression that asbestos has been banned for years. However, the USGS estimates over 26 million pounds of asbestos was used in the U.S. during 2001. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has estimated more than 700,000 commercial and public buildings contain friable asbestos. Countless more homes, schools, and factories contain friable and non-friable asbestos. Enough asbestos cement pipe has been used in the U.S. since 1930 to circle the earth eight times.

Ultimately, the removal costs of asbestos from buildings may range from $50 to $150 billion, according to one widely quoted estimate from the journal Science. Over the past 30 years, billions of dollars have been invested in controlling exposure to asbestos. Regulatory actions, improved work practices, testing of bulk materials and air samples, and management or removal of asbestos have reduced asbestos exposure in the U.S. Development of alternatives has often enabled manufacturers to transition to effective substitutes. At the same time, massive litigation has provided some compensation to workers affected by asbestos exposure and has driven into bankruptcy dozens of companies that mined, manufactured, or used asbestos. Concerns continue about the presence and use of asbestos and potential remaining risks in management.

These issues and many like them are shaping public and business policy throughout the nation. Some of these concerns and economic and social costs are associated with a lack of quality information and inability to deliver that information adequately. For example, asbestos removal costs have come down since the mid-1980s. Many businesses are under the misconception that products they purchase no longer contain asbestos, incurring future liability when workers or others are exposed. Such quality information can reduce the costs associated with asbestos.

It is crucial for regulatory and advisory agencies to have the best available information in order to make the most effective use of limited resources. Agency budgets for oversight, outreach, and education are relatively small compared to the sums involved in control and abatement. However, a modest investment in effective oversight, outreach and education can have a strong potential to reduce exposure and avoid needless expenses later.

Therefore, the Global Environment & Technology Foundation (GETF) engaged more than 100 technical and policy experts and other key stakeholders from government, academia and the private sector to take stock of the recent experiences with potential solutions and options regarding the use and management of asbestos. This process — entitled Asbestos Strategies — was not intended to build consensus, but to focus on how oversight, outreach, and education will help promote innovative approaches and best management practices to effectively address and best manage costs and exposure risks associated with asbestos issues. GETF is a 501(c) (3) not-for-profit organization with expertise in stakeholder facilitation. A complete description of the process is contained in Appendix A.

This report reflects a fresh look at the current situation through research and by seeking and assessing the views of stakeholders with significant experience. Due to a limited budget and scope, it does not attempt to review the science of asbestos nor is it a comprehensive evaluation of the risk and risk mitigation issues associated with asbestos. It does, however, identify significant concerns and uncertainties many of which can be addressed by clearly stating what is known and not known. The recommendations here can serve agencies and interested institutions as a basis for action or for targeted further inquiry. Public concerns about remaining risk can be mitigated by clarification of information, and coordination among key federal and state agencies. With clearer information and rules, experts may determine that some questions require further research or regulatory action.

Summarized below are the top ten recommendations for policy makers suggested by key stakeholders to address issues surrounding asbestos. These recommendations primarily focus on the use of oversight, outreach, and education to achieve results. The recommendations are not ranked and are intended to be implemented concurrently, if possible. They are divided into short term recommendations to be implemented rapidly, and longer term recommendations that will require additional time and resources to implement. A number of scientific issues, including analytical methods, medical studies, mineralogical definitions, and risk assessment, remain to be addressed. A brief history of the science is described in Appendix B, "Background," and areas of needed research are highlighted in Appendix C, grouped and prioritized by topic area.

The full report summarizes the process used to identify asbestos issues today. It should be noted that asbestos has been studied more than any other hazardous material over the past 100 years. The scientific and medical literature contains thousands of articles addressing hundreds of issues surrounding asbestos. Major scientific conferences have been held on every continent but Antarctica. Yet with all the studies there remains disagreement on many fundamental issues regarding asbestos. It is unlikely these disagreements will be resolved in the immediate future. While disagreements do exist, there were issues identified by the Asbestos Strategies stakeholders where policy makers can have a positive impact.

The issues themselves are grouped into categories with a brief background discussion, the remaining issues identified, areas of future research needed, and recommendations to address many of the issues. The document provided a total of 22 recommendations that largely employ oversight, outreach, and education to address specific issues. The complete list of recommendations is contained in Appendix D.

TABLE 1.1: Top Five Short Term Recommendations

Action 1:

Update Existing Asbestos-in-Buildings Guidance

Description:

The EPA should update the "purple book" guidance document to make it the premier technical resource for managing asbestos in buildings and facilities. The revised document should be consistent with current federal regulations and good practices. The "purple book" was released in 1985. Up-to-date information will facilitate voluntary compliance with existing regulations, reducing asbestos exposure among contractors working on buildings.

Lead Agency:

EPA

Supporting Agency:

OSHA

Action 2:

Encourage Voluntary Compliance with Existing Regulations

Description:

Regulatory agencies should encourage voluntary compliance with existing regulations and good practices for managing asbestos in buildings and conducting response actions. This may be accomplished through a series of asbestos awareness seminars directed at the regulated community (building owners, contractors and consultants). The seminars should be sponsored by EPA and OSHA, and hosted by the resident state asbestos authority. Joint sponsorship would be extremely valuable. Such seminars should be held in conjunction with national or regional meetings of professional/trade associations such as the Environmental Information Association (EIA) to encourage participation by the target audience. Voluntary compliance will increase worker and building occupant safety, reduce asbestos exposure, and decrease costs associated with liability.

Lead Agency:

EPA

Supporting Groups:

OSHA, EIA & State Regulators

Action 3:

Clarify the Asbestos Definition to Address Asbestos Contamination in Vermiculite and Other Minerals

Description:

The Libby vermiculite situation should be considered an important lesson, but not be treated as a typical case. The definition of "asbestos" should be clarified to include all asbestiform amphiboles, in addition to currently regulated amphiboles and chrysotile. An evaluation by EPA, OSHA and MSHA will be needed to determine procedurally how this should be accomplished, and what consequences such a clarification might have, if any, on other industries. This definition would enable federal agencies to reduce the risk of exposure from minerals such as winchite and richterite.

Lead Agency:

EPA

Support Agencies:

MSHA, OSHA

Action 4:

Consider a Federal Legislative Ban on Asbestos

Description:

As one option, an outright legislative ban on the production, manufacture, distribution and importation of products with commercially-added asbestos should be considered. We cannot conclude that a ban is the only effective approach but rather that the process of reviewing information concerning the ban will be useful in assessing next steps. Such legislation would eliminate remaining products by a specified date, and installation of those products by a later date. Jurisdictional issues could be addressed in congressional legislation that might not be achievable by individual agency rule-makings. Exceptions may be necessary for a small number of applications for which substitutes may not be available, and for research purposes. Stakeholders at the focus group meeting did not universally support this option. Implementing regulations, and perhaps the enabling legislation itself, would likely be challenged in the courts.

Lead Agency:

Congress

Supporting Agencies:

EPA, OSHA, Dept. of Commerce

Action 5:

Develop A National Mesothelioma Registry

Description:

A national mesothelioma registry is necessary to facilitate epidemiology studies to evaluate the effects of asbestos exposure. Many countries and some states have established mesothelioma registries. The establishment of such a registry would likely be performed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in conjunction with state public health departments. An accompanying effort to connect interested parties with the best experts and data would improve research and treatment of asbestos-related disease.

Lead Agency:

CDC

Supporting Agencies:

State Public Health Departments

TABLE 1.2: Top Five Long Term Recommendations

Action 6:

Update Asbestos Model Training Curricula

Description:

The EPA should update the model training. The training providers should also be permitted to vary the course content in refresher courses. Updating the training curricula will make it consistent with existing regulations and increase worker safety.

Lead Agency:

EPA

Supporting Agency:

OSHA

Action 7:

Enforce Existing Asbestos Regulations

Description:

The EPA and OSHA should focus on more predictable and consistent enforcement of existing regulations, which may offer greater benefit than committing scarce resources to new rule-making efforts. This recommendation can be implemented immediately; however, such an effort must continue into the long-term. Consistent interpretations and streamlining across agencies will lead to increased compliance and potential reduced liability for businesses.

Lead Agency:

EPA

Supporting Agency:

OSHA

Action 8:

Reduce Unintended Asbestos in Products

Description:

Reduction of naturally occurring asbestos in products could be achieved by a program set up by a consortium of mining concerns to develop a sampling and analytical protocol to analyze bulk materials at the mining stage for chrysotile and all asbestiform amphibole forms of asbestos. Oversight of such a program may be provided by EPA and MSHA, with technical assistance by NIOSH and NIST. This program would assist the mining and quarrying industry in avoiding unwanted asbestos in their product. The program would provide a degree of assurance to users of these raw materials that they are not contaminated with asbestos.

Lead Agency:

EPA

Supporting Groups:

Mining Industry, MSHA, NIOSH, NIST

Action 9:

Address Asbestos-Containing Products in Commerce

Description:

A coordinated effort to educate consumers, employers and building owners about products with commercially-added asbestos is necessary. Such a program would assist the target audience make an informed decision about which products are legally available with commercially added asbestos. This education and outreach effort would be performed by EPA, OSHA and CPSC. These agencies would need to perform research into which products actually have commercially added asbestos, which do not, and which are to be phased out voluntarily by manufacturers.

Lead Agency:

EPA

Support Agencies:

CPSC, OSHA

Action 10:

Partner with State Agencies in Support of Asbestos Training

Description:

Training providers under the EPA model accreditation plan (MAP) and corresponding state plans should be audited with sufficient frequency to assure the training is provided, tests are conducted, records maintained, and certificates issued. This action will increase worker safety and the effectiveness of abatement efforts. Reducing the incidence of training fraud will provide greater security to building occupants and owners. Such partnerships will provide better coordination among federal and state agencies.

Lead Agency:

EPA

Support Groups:

State Regulators, Training Providers, OSHA

BACK TOC NEXT

For more information about the White Lung Association and its programs, please contact Jim Fite, jfite@whitelung.org
Page maintained by Cyndi Norman, webmaster@whitelung.org of Clarity Consulting / Last Modified: 3/27/03