Document mm6wvd5qQwvnxRbJRz0Dg00v0

FILE NAME: EPA National Emission Standards DATE: 1973 May 18 DOC#: EPA010 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Letter from Baltimore Dept of Health to EPA RE EPA Asbestos Regulations BALTIMORE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH D IVISION or AIR PO LLUTIO N AND IN D U STR IA L H YG IEN E M ARYLAND A VEN U E AND H ILLEN ROAD TOWBON. M ARYLAND 21204 [ D O N A L D J. ROOJ>. M.D.. M .P.Ii. UEPUrY STATE AND C DU NTT M^AI-t.l May 18, 1973 Honorable William D. Ruckelshaus Administrator Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Dear Mr. Ruckelshaus: We in Baltimore County have followed the development of National Emission Standards for Asbestos with great interest, and last November we sent you critical comments on a working document which we had received. We are pleased to see that a demolition regulation has been reinserted in the Stadards finally promulgated. But while we are happy to see that EPA has now promulgated Asbestos Standards, we find that in nearly every source category these Standards are weaker than the original proposed Standards of December 1971. EPA's proposed regulations would have prohibited visible emissions from dumps and storage areas near asbestos mills. The final version omits all dumping restrictions and says that measures taken to comply with Bureau of Mines and Occupational gaiety and Health Administration Regulations will prevent dumps from being major sources of asbestos emissions. We are convinced that the mill dumps will constitute a significant fraction of mill emissions to the ambient air especially at mills which are fitted with properly designed fabric filters. Water spray and burying techniques are available to reduce or remove hazards from these dumps. We are also dis appointed that the regulation makes no mention of asbestos dumps near manufactur ing facilities. ' Secondly, the promulgated Standards do not cover fabrication operations, such as building construction and ship repair. Unfortunately, these "minor sources" are actually very common, and involve the health and safety of over three million shipyard and construction workers and millions more who live near fabrication sites. One man who developed mesothelioma was a 30-year-old bookkeeper who grew up within several blocks of the Brooklyn Navy Shipyards. Another area of concern is with the word "friable" asbestos which never appeared neither in the original nor the two versions of intermediate proposals which we have studied. The term has a rather vague meaning and the failure to define it in this set of Standards will create unnecessary difficulties in the enforcement of the Standards. Since many hold that 85 percent of asbestos used is in "locked in" products, this effectively Honorable William D. Ruckelshaus May 18, 1973 ! page 2 removes many areas of asbestos use from controls. A cement shingle, for example, is non-friable, yet in demolition it is sure to break apart and cause dust. We do not believe the word friable belongs in these regulations. A provision requiring continual wetting down during demolition of those asbestos materials not required to be removed prior to demolition would certainly be worthwhile in any event. We are not in agreement with allowing small fractions (up to 1% dry weight) of asbestos to be intentionally added to enhance the effective ness" of certain sprayed materials. It is even questionable whether naturally occurring trace amounts in some products should be tolerated, since as you know, equivalent quality asbestos-free products have been commercially available since Boston and Chicago banned asbestos sprays in 1971. I hope you will take these points into serious consideration, and amend the regulations accordingly. ' Donald J. Roop, M M ) .,`M.P.H. Deputy Statte and Pr-Mvn -}-\r T lo a l f-Vi O f f-1 f DJR/BIC/mav e n d : 11/6/72 letter; W,,Phillips to Wm. D. Ruckelshaus DALTIMORE COUNTY UEPARTI3EHT OP HEALTH D IV ISIO N o r A IR r O L L U T lO H A IID IH O D r T R IA L IIYJIKNS MARYLAND AVCNUE AND HIU.CH lOAB TO W G O N i Ma A y LA H O ".IS.';4 donai. d j . reoi*. M.t.. u *'.u. O U r U r t tTT.i.rz: ANt* r o '. i f i r Y Hf.M -TH C f'J K H .r N6vember 6, 1972 ' Hr. William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 ^ Dear Mr. Ruckelshaus: ^ Recently we received a Draft of the hazardous air pollutant standard, as revised for final clearance in Washington. We are very disappointed with the ways in which the originally proposed asbestos standard has been weakened: especially, the deletion of regulationo governing construction and demolition, major sources of urban ano o i n c .asbestos. ' -F----A----B---R---ICATION . ' The standard for occupational exposure to asbestos recently promulgated by the Department of Labor is supposed to resu t i n control of`atmospheric emissions from fabricating operation.. ( tion) as it requires "use of the following work practices a pvndHCP or release asbestos fibers.ijijr.?:cess UDS ^ 3^;;c_ . 62CDOSU3TO liiults" [Culpilcisis OU2TS ] 1 "Fitting of hand-operated or power-operated tools with exhaust ventilation and dust, collection systems." [authors' emphasis] Comment: Only tools which would give rise to a 8-hour exposure come under .regulation. A power saw used 1-2 hours per aay would almost certainly require no dust controls, although it mig t genera ^ substantial bursts of asbestos fiber emission. , ' . 2, "...ventilating to reduce airborne entrainment of unbound, ^ asbestos-containing cement, mortar, coating, grout, plaster, or sinala Comment: The uncontrolled ventilation of a work area to the ambienu . . ri.;t'nl acement of a workroom contaminant at the expense of ambient c.i SnbfiodLo is an e n a b l e of vhore additional air pollntion regular, on are needed, not the reverse as the Draft claims. Mr. William D. Ruckelshaus November 6, 1972 page 2 3. "Wetting of asbestos-containing products prior to handling, ...except where wetting would impair the usefulness . [emphasis ours] Comment:- This is a plea for safe housekeeping masquerading as a regulation. Based on our experience with the construction industry, we expect this clause to effect minimal control of asbestos emissions u o u construction. . Lastly, it is -claimed that duplication of enforcement efforts oy EPA and 0S1IA would be wasteful of EPA resources. It is not mentioned than ^ every state in the union has an air-pollution agency funded by and ,^pon. ib.c to EPA. States and local subdivisions could effectively deal with asaes..os emissions from construction if they were armed with a federal law, J^st as many state industrial hygiene agencies are employing the_Occupa,ionul Saf y and Health Act. We would welcome such additional authority here an aealin^ with hazardous air pollutants. , DEMOLITION AID REPAIR ' ' "Comments" given as reasons for EPA_recommending that the standard be stripped of regulations applying tQ demolition and repair. 1. Difficulty of enforcement. Comment: Same as last comment on Fabrication, above 2. Improbability' that compliance is technically feasible Comment: Contradictory with "mechanism 2" below. 3. Endangermont of public health by forcing continued use of deteriorated structures beyond the time at which demolition would normal y be carried out. ' Comment: We seriously question whether modern building. and road builders would be deterred by haviug to ear:ry ouq d ^ o l i t i o a withou. af asbestos fiber. We also reiterate that Section 1-- causing visible emissio - of 1970 requires the EPA Administrator to establish of the Clean Air Amend; v pollutants "which in his judgment an ample nargm^ a standard for hazardo.1 ulic health." We do not believe the EPA^can toleiaue of safety to protect ti ros and still be in' conformance with Section 112. It visible emissions of-as is important to control -,molition as we are now`entering an era m which this will become a significant source of urban asbestos" if not controlled. Mr. William D. Ruckelshaus November 6, 1972 page 3 ' "In the absence of the proposed regulation, a number of mecl)jmisms would still be. available to limit asbestos emissions generated by repair and demolition operations." [emphasis ours] These are as follows: 1. Spray applied fireproofing and insulation matefials will be banned by this proposed standard partly because of the emissions they would later cause in demolition. ' Comment: These materials were used only since 1958 and have already been banned by numerous stale and local governments due to the extreme hazard attendant upon their use. It is unlikely that restrictions on the use or sprayed asbestos in construction will have significant impact on demolition emissions until at least thirty years hence. In the meantime, a great many buildings made with sheet asbestos insulation are going to be torn down. 2. "Reduction in asbestos emissions can be expected to result from the iinplementation of'local demolition regulations, for example that of Hew York City T.7Ivich requires the use of "...adequate wetting to lay dust... . Comment:* If New York City is protective the health of its residents by such an asbestos demolition regulation, how can the EPA decline to eA.io.nu such regulation, which it lauds, nationwide! In other words, even if a no visible-asbestos-emissions law were dedmecl unrealistic, why not at least propose a weaker law which EPA would consider realistic? 3. "In the case of repair operations, the Department of Labor ^ ^ regulations for exposure should provide a moderate degree of atmospheric emission control through the specification of required work practices. Comment: See above comments on the effect of Labor regulations on atmospheric emissions. 4 In summary we do not feel that the proposed EPA standard on asbestos complies with Section 112's requirement to provide "an ample margin of sa^ecy^ to protect the public health." We hope the final form published will loox moie like the original than the Draft just sent to Washington. ^ Very truly yours, . William L. Phillips, Director "* Division of Air' Pollution and Industrial Hygiene . Bureau of Environmental Services ULP/BIC/mav - ' ce: Jean J. Schuena.iian, Director Divxaior. of Control Programs-Development, EPA Don R. Goodwin, Director < _ _ Standards Development & Implementation Division, EPA