Document JJvBD92z7noeYXdD5KY2ypLDZ

FILE NAME: EPA National Emission Standards DATE: 1973 Apr 11 DOC#: EPA008 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Letter to EPA from Center for Science in the Public Interest - Petition for Reconsideration and Amendment of the EPA's Emission Standard for Asbestos \ J L J ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE O p N FUND 1712 MStfeN STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036/202 833-1485 April 11, 1973 HoTi. -William-D.'Ruckelshaus' .* Adrai n i s t r a t o r Environmental Protection Agency Waterside Mall, Room 1101 401 M Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20460 Petit'on for Reconsideration and Amendment of the Environ mental Protection Agency's Emissuon Standard for Asbestos D e a r M r. R u ck e .lsh a u s : We congratulate you on the recent issuance of emission standards for the hazardous air pollutants asbestos, mercury and beryllium. 38 Fed. Reg. 8820 (April 6, 1973) While those long-overdue regulations should produce a vast improvement over present conditions, there are still, several matters which concern us and which, we believe, require reconsider ation and amendment by the Environmental Protection Agency if the public is to receive the protection which it deserves and which the law plainly requires. In particular, we are concerned about several provisions in the asbestos dust standard which seem to have been seriously compromised since 7, 1971. 36 Fed. that Reg. / standard 23239 1 was In first proposed on December most instances, there is no adequate explanation in your statement accompanying the new standard to justify these compromises. These include: 1/ Since we are still reviewing the beryllium and mercury emission standards, we have restricted this petition to the standard for asbestos. O FFIC FS IN. EAST SETAUKET, NY (MAIN OFFICE)', NEW YOfIK CITY (PROGRAM SUPPORT OFFICE); WASHINGTON, DC; BERKELEY, CALIF. This paper Is recycled to protect the environm ent. Hon. William D. Ruckelshaus April 11, 1973 Page Two .. ' 1) The exemption from regulation by EPA of all asbestos mines and mine roads, dumps and storage areas near asbestos mills, asbestos fabrication operations, and disposal of as . bestqs .collected during-demolition; . .. 2 ) -.The permission for. continued.use-.of spraying. ... materials containing up to 1% asbestos; nd ' ' 3) The unnecessary insertion of the term "friable" throughout the demolition regulations, 61.22(d). The following is a more detailed discussion of these issues: 1. EPA's proposed regulations in December 1971 would have prohibited visual emissions from asbestos mines and mine roads, from dumps and storage areas near asbestos mills, from all asbestos fabrication operations, and from disposal of as bestos collected during demolition. The final regulations omit all such restrictions on the assumption that measures taken tc comply with the regulations of other federal agencies particularly the Occupational Surety and Health Administration (OSHA), 29 C.F.R. 1910.23a, will prevent these sources of as bestos dimt from contaminating th >. air of the surrounding environment. This assumption, however, is no more than wishful thinking by EPA and produces a serious "regulatory gap" among those federal agencies with authority to regula :e asbestos, a gap which can only be detrimental to the public health. Both OSHA and the Bureau of Mines have issued standards for the protection of workers against occupational exposure to asbestos. 2/ These standards are based on a totally different concept than the EPA emission standard and, hence, cannot be equated or compared in any meaningful way. They depend almost 2/ The OSHA standard is under legal attack by both unions and environmentalists (Civil Action No. 72-1713, D.C. C i r . , filed July 29 ,- 1972), and OSHA itself is contemplating revision of the standard. Hon. William D. Ruckelshaus April 11, 1973 Page Three entirely on self-monitoring and voluntary compliance by employer with a threshold limit value (TLV) established by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, an industry- oriented group. The TLV for asbestos is 5 fibers greater than 5 microns in length per cubic, centimeter' of air- (5- fibers/cc) , ' averaged over an eight hour period. 3/ Various measures for achieving -these levels may be. required,, including supplying . . workers with respirators and protective clothing. And tem porary variances may be granted in the event the numerical standard cannot be met. - . This presents several problems. First, the medical community does not agree that the ACGIH standard of 5 fibers/ cc provid-s adequate protection against the increased risk of contracting cancer from breathing asbestos fibers. Certainly there is no agreement that such a level would provide, in the language of section 112 of the Clean Air Act, "an ample margin of safety to protect the public health," particularly from the danger of asbestos-induced cancers such as mesothelioma. 'ou yourself rejected the ACGIH/OSHA fiber-count approach, "because of the impossibility at this time of prescribing and enforcing allowable numerical concentrations or mass emission limitations known to provide an ample margin of safety." 38 Fed. Reg. 8820. Your statement accompanying the standards cites the gradient of effects observed ranging from those in workers with direct occupational exposure to those caused by resi dence in the neighborhood of asbestos sources. It is thea stated that this gradient "suggests that there are levels of asbestos exposure that will not be associated with any detectable risk". This is surely an unjustified conclusion. All such a gradient suggests is that greater exposure entails greater risk. To assume that a more complete definition of the dose-response curve would show that the risk would reach zero while exposure was still greater than zero is based on no more than speculation. Thus, even if the 5 fibers/cc levels were enforced by other federal agencies, there is no guarantee that persons living, working, or playing in the vicinity of the asbestos operations exempted by the EPA regulations will be afforded the degree of health protection mandated by section 112(b) 3/ By July 1, 1976, OSHA will require employers to meet a more stringent standard of 2 fibers/cc. Hon. William D. Ruckelshaus April 11, 1973 Page Four (l)(.B).of the. Act. 4/ Compliance with occupational standards promulgated under other statutes will not automatically result in compliance with the rigorous standards required by section 112 (b) (1)- (B).,-which- says-that'-the Administrator ."shal'l'.establish any such standard "at the level which in his "judgment provides an ample,margin p..safety to protect .the public,health from,- s u c h . - .'. hazardous air pollutant." (emphasis added) ' * Second, the Administrator has no inherent power to enforce standards promulgated by other federal agencies. Since there is no guarantee that these other agencies will enforce their stand ards (and to the extent that they do not), EPA's abandonment of its regulccory responsibilities to sister agencies could result in continoed risk to the health of persons in the vicinity of the exempted asbestos operations. In particular, where compli ance with the occupational asbestos standards is achieved through respirators, or where temporary variances are granted, there will be no one acting to protect the public health from asbestos dust emissions. Our concern is not. based merely on speculation. The history of compliance.with pre--existing occupational standards for asbestos dust is abyssmal. And, although OSHA has designated as bestos a "target" health hazard, OSHA has only about 50 trained hygienists capable of enforcing iv.s standard, and their responsi bilities extend to all workplace hazards throughout the nation, not just asbestos. Finally, the EPA standard does not require monitoring, even perijdically,'to determine whether exempted asbestos oper ations are in compliance with other agency regulations and whether they are contaminating the adjacent community environ ment. Thus EPA has not only relinquished its regulatory author ity to other agencies, it has precluded itself from even knowing, 4/ For example, EPA's conclusion that storage areas and dump sites at asbestos mills will not be major sources of asbestos emissions ignores documented cases of mesothelioma in persons playing on asbestos dumps in their youth, as well as studies showing that persons living near shipyards, near major asbes tos manufacturing facilities in urban areas where asbestos is used for construction purposes, have asbestos bodies (fibrous lumps) in their lungs when autopsied. Hon. William D. Ruckelshaus April 11, 1973 Page Five on ..the,basis of .actual monitoring, whether the exempted opera tions are continuing to be major sources of asbestos emissions. .Without such data there is no plausible basis to conclude that :;thes.e/-exempted ..operations-.will- n o t be. major sources ,of asbestos-. ' dus t . ' "...... ` ' . ` In short, we see ho basis in e.ither law or logic for E P A 1 abandonment of its regulatory authority to OSHA. Construction and demolition sites are also regulated under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, but EPA has developed overlapping and more stringent regulations where these operations are involved. The failure to do so with respect to asbestos mining and milling operations, fabrication operations, and disposal of asbestos wastes from demolition sites cannot be justified merely by a selective reference to the OSHA asbestos standards. Therefore, we request you Lo amend the standard to include regulation of these sources of asbestos. 2. Another area of great concern is EPA's treatment of asbestos spraying materials. As originally proposed, the EPA standard would have prohibited the spraying of any product which contains asbestos on any portion of a building or in any area directly open to the atmosphere. And it would have required all other spraying of asbestos-ccncaining products to be equipped with fabric filters with an air-to-cloth ratio of -20:1. ............. . . . . .... The final regulations permit up to 1% asbestos to be intentionally added to spray products used for insulating or fireproof buildings, structures, pipes and conduits. They also relax t h e .requirements for asbestos-containing products sprayed for all other purposes, such as on .machinery and in asbestos fabrications operations. The justifications offered for this weakening of the standard for asbestos spraying are suspicious. All manufac turers of spray insulation materials, except one, have agreed that a "no-asbestos" standard is feasible, and they have taken responsible steps to comply with such a standard by substitut ing materials or using other control technology. This has re sulted in asbestos-free spray products being currently available Hon. William D. Ruckelshaus April 11, 1973 Page Six on the market. Only one company, W.R. Grace, the largest manu facturer of spray-insulatipn products in this country,.has con- . sistently resisted the no-asbestos standard. The 1% exemption appears to be tailored specifically to meet the needs and desires o f .th a t .company, and to keep 'the door open, for continued, use -of .. `spray products containing asbestos. Such favoritism is incon sistent with fairness in the application of /the law as well as 'with protection of the public health. Exemptions from public health standards should not be made on the basis of how big the manufacturer is; and when they are made, for good cause, they should be made openly as a natter of public record. Although there is no conceivable justification for per mitting c^en small amounts of asbestos to be added intentionally to spray materials, permitting trace amounts of asbestos which occur naturally in substances used for spray materials could possibly ue justified if there wera: (1) no available alterna tives and (2) the public health wo ild not arguably be compro mised. But neither of these conditions prevail. Asbestos free spray products are now on the market. ''That is more important, however, is that even 1% of the materials sprayed at major consto action projects can .result in a subot anti! amount of asbestos fibers entering the atmosphere. For example, .in Nev; York City, where major construction projects are commonplace, there is a blank>t prohibition against any spray products containing even trace amounts of asbestos. It is inconsistent and irresponsible for EPA, on the one-hand, to state that evidence is insufficient to -.estt.1ish . a safe exposure level for asbestos dust due to the absence of a clear dose-response relationship, and, on the other hand, to rely on the same inadequate evidence for the proposition that 1% asbestos spray products will not endanger the public health. This is particularly true where comparable asbestosfree products are available as substitutes. * Therefore, we request that 61.22 (e) of the regulations be amended to prohibit the continued use of spraying materials containing asbestos. 3. Our final request concerns the use of the "friable", which now appears repeatedly in the demolition regulations of the final standard, but which did not appear in the proposed standard. The word "friable" has a techni- term Hon. William D. Ruckelshaus April 11, 1973 Page Seven cal meaning in the asbestos industry and, if used in the EPA standard, it should be clearly defined so there will be no room for argument over its meaning,in this context. ffowever,"we" see ;ho reas'dn'for l'nse'rting 'the" term friable''' cit all, because all material containing asbestos should .be treated, with .utmost pare,-..particularly, during .demoli tion. ' ' v . ' ^ Asbestos manufacturers "claim'that 85' to 90 percent or all ciboestos used is non-friable or "locked in" and cannot erode, which would effectively remove much of it from the requirements of section 61.22(d) on demolition, For example, under industry definitions, the asbestos in cement shingles or plasterboard is non-friable, yet in demolition it is sure to break ape., t and cause asbestos dust to be released to the air. It is not clear whether the references to "friable asbestcs debris" in sections 61.22(d)(2)(i) and (iii) would include such materials. We think they clearly should include such materials, though it would be preferable to delete the term friable wherever it appears in these regulations. u V c . i r o f , v/p i 'r Inal the Leoti "friable" be deleted from the asbestos standard or, in the alternative, that it be defined to include al] materials containing asbestos which may break apart during normal use or demolition. ,, , We look forward to your earliest prompt reply to this .petition., as any decision, whether to- test, the a d e - . quacy of these standards in court must be made within 30 days from the date of promulgation of the standard, as provided by section 307 of the Clean Air Act. Sincerely, . $ CO'T/ // (Ah / Scott H. Lang ^ Washington Counsel Lucile F. Adamson, Ph.D. Staff Scientist Q iLiouir Albert Fritsch,TV!Center for Science in the Public Interest