Document mp4jBGaOM0joMD6o80MajDNN4

suDifci Attached Article AWT Bell Laboratories <we September 30, 1985 'o'- M. Glowatz, Jr. MH 77623 1F-106, X4143 J. Foster: The attached article appeared as a guest editorial in the September issue of the American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal. It makes interest ins reading and offers another viewpoint on managing the asbestos situation. MH-77623-MC-pkc Att. As above Copy to W. J. Schreibeis C. M. Wilkening 'Michael Glowatz, Jr. LLA 001931 L CIESTEDITOR/Al ^Asbestos in Buildings: To Remove, or Not to Remove, that is the Question? Asbestos. once considered a primarv adjunct to the (ire and lile let> o( s building. ha- become the object ol general concern because of its potential health cflects if inhaled into the bod) lime has not lessened the engineering attribute' of asbestos, but since exposure to asbestos has triggered a public health experience, it has subsequent!) become the object ol public scrutins lhe mere existenct of asbestos-containing materials in a building's construction and its associated "potential nsk-to human health has oiler caused various levels of panic and paranoia among thr building's occu pants This engendered concern most oltcn exists in the absence of ans real 01 potential exposure data Thr realit) of tho possible "ha/ard'lo human- is. m ms opinion, besond dispute lion. eithet las or scientific communities lhe unchecked irleasr ol asbestos-containing material into building air and subsequent generation ol respirable fibets could unquestiona ble create a health risk 1 It is m> considered opinion that ASBf S!Of> IN PLACE ISSAFI'Onls her asbestos is released into the "breathingjit"does it become a hazard Building owners, both public and private, have had then respon sibilities regarding asbestos-containing materials sptciftcallv out lined bs a number of legislative acts, litigations and news media concentrations lhe question of asbestos control and abatement boils down to alternatives It Removal or 2) Retention manage ment with diligent monitoring The former appears to protidr a "terminal" answer which mas not be full) realized for mans sears, the latter onl> creates the concern of continuing problems and an eventual need to remove thr asbestos Vknh this and a naive ignorance of the involved variables in m>nd. a building owner or school boaid would readilv opr for removal Ms concern arises wher. the qualits and experience of the currrnl rrmosa. contractor as well a' the latcsi "staie-or-thc-an* removal method- are weighed againsr the risk of fiber release in the budding Mv on-site experiences with these contractors and their removal methods throughout the l S have no: reinforced m confidence in either contractor ab.iirs to remove asbestos competentls or sate!) e-ptc.ars at the pre-en' stare of our kr.ruledge and technical ibiUrs to define "safe:) " At the expense ol future building eccupar:*- a-be>:o- terr.'s*' cortrurors tteat the retre-sa." of a-be-toas ar or-thvjob learrvng experience Vkhateve* mas be attained through thi "ieareiing curse"d.tr..n:'he* rapid!) withtht t:an'tr.r nature of the labo* poo; and jt"upersis;or. T he irve" of qualits m a contractot screw tend- to been1) shglttl) eiesatetf mthossjurisdic tions which require "training ~ Qualits control efforts are immediate!) compiomised bs nr qualits assessment techniques which, if adequate, are either unavailable or priced besond the limits of practical!)) Bs submit ting to "bureaucratic compromises'* in fiber-in-atr assessment, we find ourselves enjo>ing the "securtts" of negative results In light of the above considerations, the removal of asbestos from a building should be considered a "last resort ' The risk of removal deficiencies must be serious!) weighed against the "relief" of having the problem gone The obs ious deterioration of the asbestos-containing material is NOT a condition which can be ignored As the best asailable industrial hsgtcnr science dictates, these areas must be repaired, enclosed or removed. II removal is the onls option in these areas, strict vigilance must be the hex note Fibet release - at levels far greater than that ahead) existing m a subject building -- is a "given" in ans removal opeiation Thr qualitv of a removal project is not readilv discernible bs tedav's science and vinuallv invisible to the naked eve A poor Is managed projeci can. without doubt, leave a "lethal lrgac>"lor occupants of generalions to come I offer this caution to school and building owntts faced with asbestos-containing materials weigh sour options carefullv Although legislated mandates strong!) "suggest" removal as the ultimate solution, agencies are beginning to reverie then position as their experience with the consequences ol rtao*aI fonfies the validitv of the above argument * I am sure there are some compe tent. qualified and concerned contractors somrwhere. but f have not bet n fortunate enough to find them Luckitv. time is on our side 7be institution of an operations and maintenance connol program where asbestos-containing materials are srcurclv in place--can bus us the time we need to assess and improve our removal science and skills Ttunk twice before sou plunge into the pool of paranoia surrounding asbestos mama References 1 National Research Council: 4jSwfe fito-s Nc"- oceupahona' srea'fn R't*a Baa'd or Tonco'ogs and Envi ronments Hea'tr. Hazards Commiss c" on L*fe Science Nat'Ota'academy Press Wasnmgtd- OC I'MZ1 2 U.S. EPS' TSCa-Buiieh" Aasn.njrj- DC lOece-se1964, Kenneth & foherv. Ph D- P-- CIH Cf-muXinf Htalih irnirri. Piuuiin of TO\OS Corpora:ion LLA 001932