Document 6RxkKm56e3731Y4EEawxgEn1E

FILE NAME: EPA National Emission Standards DATE: 1974 Apr 9 DOC#: EPA007 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Letter to US Dept of Justice from Environmental Defense Fund RE EPA Actions on Asbestos environmental defense O f S FUND U U 1525 18th STREET, NW, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036/202 833-1485 A pril 9, 1974 Patrick A. Malloy, Esq. U. S. Department of Justice Room 2631 Pollution Control Section Washington, D. c. 20930 Dear Pat; avHFHH P ro p o se. r o k - T jsrs 2 " .? " * pSollllSuttaTMn?t?s aaLsSbemstfoSsi,0".besrtyalnldi"um<,* afnodr mtehrecuhrayz.ardous air fo llo w in g i c t ? o L r derStanding th a t EM W il1 take the ( 1) aeK taiaard siirilar to that now applicable to rlalirtHI prevcn?SvTi?iUfaCtU^ln? Perations^ which emissions to the outside would air or S i l l \ USe 3Decifled ?as cleanina eguipment, will be recommended for the following sources: central fabricating shops for asbestos cement boards for the molten metal industry? marine industry, ventilation hoods, baking ' ovens, electric panels, and laboratory furni ture; asbestos cement building products; asbestos friction products. DC,it0u ( 2 ) A prohibition on the use of molded asbestos in sula tinq products will be recommended, with the possible exception of a snail number ot product Uoed in special applications, such as very high temperature insulation, where substitutes for asbestos are not available. It is assumed that an investigation of available substitutes v/ill be undertaken prior to reconmendina that this It will also ,nienClrUedcCodmmeinndetdhG that shotgurneguslhaetlilons. Scca-ionani3 ' ^ asPhalt .concrete plants which occasional!f use asbestos m special pre-paving Page two Mr. Malloy April 9, 1974 material be included under the existing manu facturing regulations. (3) Regulations covering the disposal of friable and dusty asbestos waste materials,from site of generation to ultimate disposal will be recom mended. In this connection, the term "friable materials" means materials that are easily crumbled or crushed into powder. The disposal standards to be recommended will apply to sources covered by the manufacturing recrulations, operations covered by the demolition regulations, and central fabricating shops. Transoortation of fabricating plant materials will not be included. The disposal regulations will consist of specified work practices, a standard of no visible emissions to the outside air, or a combination of these two requirements. ' . (4) Since tailings from asbestos mining and milling operations are acknowledged as a major source of asbestos emissions, a standard recruiting minimum emissions, use of specified control technology, or a combination of both will be proposed. A recommendation will also be made that public access to inactive waste piles from asbestos manufacturing operations be controlled by means of fencing and posting. (5) Active waste disposal piles resulting from asbestos manufacturing operations will be covered by the regulations to be recommended for disposal of wastes from asbestos manufacturing operations. (6) An emission standard covering emissions of mercury from sewage sludge incinerators will be recom mended. (7) According to a letter from Sims Roy to Dr. I.ucile Adamson, dated January 25, 1974, EPA is considering? setting a n e w source performance standard for mercury emissions from the chlor-alkali industry -which would prevent the future construction of a mercury cell type plant, although such regulation must await the results of an investigation presently under way to gather the necessary information to determine if such a standard is technically and economically feasible. Page three Mr. Malloy April 9, 1974 On the basis of the foregoing understanding, EOF is prepared to settle the case without the necessity of coing lnt,court. However, because of the nature of the adminis trative process which precedes the publication of nev? regu lations, we realise that EPA cannot guarantee that the final regulations will be as presently anticipated. For this reason we^/ill ask the court to retain jurisdiction over the suit pending publication of the new `regulations. If at that tine EDF is satisfied that they are consistent with our expectations based upon the forecroing statement of understanding, we will withdraw the suit. In the interim we will ask the court for a 90-day extension wending oublica- tion of the proposed regulations. " ` Sincerely yours, JMWidrf cc: Richard Denney 'Jacqueline M. Karren Washington Counsel