Document RaMG0zvMvVoLJYEJvegk5pZ0E

PUBLIC NEARING RUPORT AND BASIS POR PROMULGATION N.J.A.C. 7:27-17 Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from Asbestos Surface Coatings Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Comments Received III. Evaluation of Testimony IV. Conclusions GAF 11359 I. INTRODUCTION On March 14,' 1977, the NVw Jersey Department of r.nvjronmcntal Protection, hereinafter referred to ns the Department, held a public hearing to receive comments on a proposed regula tion for the control of air pollution from asbestos. Seventeen witnesses appeared at the public hearing, and twelve written statements were received. The hearing record was closed on March 21, 1977. Tlic Department received strong support for the concept of eliminating and preventing the use of friable, spray-on, asbestoscontain in;:', surface coatings from New Jersey's buildings and structures. Several persons suggested modifications to the proposed rule, especially where it concerned the use of asbestoscontaining sprays for automobile undercoatings and for exterior asphalt roofing on commercial and industrial buildings. The Department intends to study these issues in greater depth before finally concluding this rulemaking. Therefore, further regulations may be adopted as a result of the Depart ment's continuing review of the issues raised in this hearing record. In response to the public testimony received, several changes from the original proposal were made. These are dis cussed in Part III, EVALUATION OF TESTIMONY, of this report. II. COMMENTS RECEIVED The following persons and organizations by their repre sentatives appeared at the March 24, 1977 public hearing and presented statements: City of Newark (John H. Weber); United States Environmental Protection Agency (Marcus E. Kantz); New Jersey Department of Health (Frank J. Marshall); Johns-Manvillc Corporation (William B. Reitze); Philadelphia Air Management Services (Norman Glazcr); Graduate students class in the Envi ronmental Science Curriculum, Cook College, Rutgers University (Thomas Hundt); Sierra Club (Diane Giaves); Delavarc-Karitan Lung Association (Mario Dunleavy); Asbestos Information Asso ciation/North America (Harrison B. Rhodes); Asbestos Workers l.ocal 32, Newark (James K. Manning); Rossnagcl and Associates (William B. Rossnagcl); Robert M. Sawyer, M.D.; E. R. Squibb 5 Sons (Richard E. Rosfjord); Francine ilasclkorn; Monscy Products Company (Joseph T. Mooney); Robert B. Fcuchtbaum, Esq.; New Jersey Citizens for Clean Air (Betty Greenberg). _ In. addition, the Department received written comments from the following: Insulation Contractors of New Jersey; The Flintkotc Company; CAF Corporation; Barry I. Castlcman; United States Mineral Products Company; General Motors Corporation; Ford Motor Company; Township of Mt. Olive, New Jersey; City of Elizabeth, New Jersey; Monsanto Industrial Chemicals CompanyUnited States Environmental Protection Agency. GAF 11360 HI. EVALUATION 01' TEST IMONY Nearly nil those who appeared at the March 14, 1977 public hearing, as well as those who submitted written comments, generally supported the concept of the Department's proposed ban on sprayon asbestos-containing surface coatings. Similarly, most of the persons who testified or commented in writing expressed concern over.the seriously adverse health consequences of exposure to asbestos and agreed that unnecessary exposure should be prevented and eliminated. Several witnesses indicated that the potential health consequences from asbestos exposure included asbestosis, a nonmalignant but potentially fatal scarring of the lung; mesothe lioma, a cancer directly associated with asbestos exposure; and increased risk of lung and intestinal cancer. One witness included psychiatric disorders caused by knowledge of exposure. One witness indicated that asbestos exposure from ceiling coatings occurs in three ways, in addition to the spraying operation: fiber fallout - caused, for example, by building vibration or air movement; impact release - caused by direct contact with the surface; and re-entrainment of accumulated fiber fallout from prior releases of fiber. Following is a discussion of the four main issues of concern to the persons who commented on the proposal. A. Existing Asbestos Surface Coatings Numerous witnesses expressed concern that while this regulation was an encouraging step and while it would prevent the spray-on application of asbestos and asbestos-containing materials on ceilings and walls in the future, by itself it would be insufficient to prevent continued exposure to asbestos for those persons who live, work or study in buildings where such coatings had been utilized in the past. Several persons suggested that a regulation which requires removal under certain circumstances was in order. Testimony was received which supported an indoor ambient air standard for asbestos as an appropriate criterion to govern removal decisions. The Department is engaged in two studies. One, commis sioned by the federal government and being carried out by the Mount Sinai School of Medicine Environmental Sciences Laboratory, will attempt to quantify asbestos exposure levels in New Jersey school buildings. The second, also being carried out by Mount Sinai, v'ill study asbestos exposure in a residential setting. These studios will provide much useful technical information and may lead to a regulation which requires corrective action for existing sprayed-un asbestos ceilings. 2- GAF 11361 would tie premature. The regulation adopted herewith is, in the Department's opinion, ;i 1 cj*ic;i 1 first step toward preventing unnecessary exposure to asbestos. Amendments. to tills lulc, 01 oflier regulations, way he adopted as further information becomes available. B. Scope of the Peculation The Department received sevcr.il .comments from manu facturers of spray-on coatings, who indicated that ccvtain apri 1ications of ashestos-containing materials should not be included in the proposed ban. These included asphalt-base materials used for automotive undercoatjngs and sound deadeners, commercial and industrial roofing materials and foundation coatings. The manufacturers indicated that the asbestos in V-heir products was generally so firmly bound as to be effectively immobilized and accordingly, in their opinion, did not constitute a risx to human health. This tcstimoi-, was supported by that of manufacturers of new motor vehicles who, along with the coatiiv.s producers, indicated that no commercially available substitutes were obtainable at this time. In developing the proposed regulation, the Department was attempting to deal with the use of asbestos as an interior surface coating in buildings and structures. The Department had become involved in two situations, one involving New Jersey school buildings and the second a residential building, where interior surfaces had been covered witli a friable asbestos material. The potential for adverse health consequences in those eases led to this regulation. Since the additional uses of asbestos-containing asphalt-base products were first addressed during this public hearing, further evaluation of those materials is needed. In response to the comments received, the Department has modified the proposed rule. The term "friable material" has been used to describe the type of spray-on coating banned by this rule and to distinguish such material from the products in which asbestos is . firmly bound. It should be noted, however, that the Department intends to study coatings of other types and their methods of application to determine if they should be regulated. Accordingly, amendments modifying the rule as adopted herewith may be promulgated. C. Testing Requirements Several manufacturers of surface coatings suggested that -the "provision of the proposed rule which permitted the Department to require a test report on any material being used in New Jersey was overly broad. Some of those supplying infor mation on this point indicated their belief that a specification sheet from the material manufacturer w'ould suffice. -3- GAF 11362 The Department , after consider inf, this testimony, has adopted a provision which would allow for the use of a manufac turer's certification where the Department determines, such certification is an acceptable alternative to actual testing. D. Exempt ion for Trace Amounts of Asbestos Some witnesses suggested that a total ban on asbestos- containing materials without some allowance for asbestos impuri ties in products such as paints vds overly burdensome and may, in fact, he impossible to achieve. The United States Environ mental Protection Agency suggested its limitation of 1.0 (by weight). Other persons'suggested that 1.0* was far too high an impurity standard when dealing with a carcinogen. It was recommended that the Department adopt a "zero engineering" standard. One person pointed out that asbestos quantities as low as 0. (by weight) was a specified ingredient in certain materials. After reviewing this issue, the Department agrees that some maximum asbestos content should be permitted in surface coatings in order to accommodate trace impurities which may he found in some eases. However, after considering the testimony and reviewing similar rules in effect in other states, it was concluded that the 1.0' standard suggested by KPA was excessive. Hence, this regulation excludes only those coatings in which the asbestos content is less than 0.25$ by weight. (See, for example, California Health and Saftey Code, Section 2SS10, Chapter 10.3.) IV. CONCLUSIONS The changes discussed above as veil as the addition of a definition of asbestos, will provide the Department with an initial mechanism for dealing with the complex and many-faceted asbestos exposure problem. By controlling the use of asbestos and reducing the public's exposure, this rule and the regulations which may follow as a result of the various studies prompted by this rulcma;: ng proceeding will begin to mitigate the health hazards associated with asbestos exposure for New Jersey's citizens. GAF 11363