Document vBgRkga5v1DNw9OKYndYNoyjR

4A/THE DETtnn NfWS/Sundoy. June 9, 1985 EPA revises asbestos removal guide By Michael J. Bennett News apewiai Writer . WASHINGTON - The Environ mental Protection Agency (EPA) is sending school administrators a new guidance book that sharply reduces its emphasis on removing asbestos from school buildings. "The presence of asbestos in a building does not mean that the health of building occupants is endan gered." says a final draft of the revised publication, which goes into the mail this week. "If asbestos-containing material remains in good condition and is unlikely to be disturbed, expo sure will be negligible." The federal agency now discourag es routine removal and urges educa tors "to ensure the abatement activity itself does not create a hazard." "The concept is the same, It's Just more ' dearly stated." - SUSAN VOGT EPA asbestos task force member Many school boards have inter preted the first version of the 200page book, circulated since 1983, as recommending prompt removal of as bestos from classroom buildings. The mineral has been used widely for insulation, fireproofing and soundreduction. Inhalation of ita miproiconic fibers is linked to lung cancer and other long-term diseases. A 1982 EPA RULE, enforced with fines, requires all schools to inspect for asbestos. "The agency has determined that exposure to asbestos in school buildings poses a significant hazard to public health," the rule says. It doesn't require removal of any material, but community concern of ten has led to that cuu; ieu,cd>. The agency wants to make clear that "there's no urgency" to rip out intact asbestos, explained Susan Vogt of the EPA asbestos task force. Its new guidance book was written at the insistence of the House Appro priations Committee as a condition for release of 850 million in federal funds to help schools with asbestos problems. Three Michigan districts will share $900,000 of that aid, it was announced Thursday. Although EPA's revised language appears to contrast with its original advice, Ms. Vogt insisted: "The con cept is the same, it's just more clearly stated." The free publication will be mailed first to the 341 school systems getting federal grants and loans. Others will start receiving it next month. The House committee insisted on a revised book because many promi nent scientists complained that the EPA had vastly overstated potential asbestos dangers and was encouraging a remedy that could make the prob lem worse. The controversy was de tailed in a Detroit News aeries in March. THE NEW EDITION of the EPA book states: `Asbestos is an extremely emotional issue. The im portance of a well-planned communi cation program cannot be overem phasized." The guidance material no longer states, as the original version did, that "EPA and the scientific community believe that any level of exposure to asbestos involves some health risk, although the exact degree of risk cannot be reliably estimated." Both editions note that forecasts of potential health effects among building occupants have been drawn from disease levels among workers exposed to very high levels of the mineral. The new edition still con tains these sentences: "Prevalent levels ofairborne asbes tos inside buildings may be 10 to 100 times higher than outdoor levels. However, these indoor levels are typi cally 10,000 to 100,000 times lower than levels in asbestos industry work- Elaces where asbestos-related diseases ave been well-documented." But the new book omits a third sentence that said: "When asbestoscontaining materials are damaged, peak levels inside buildings may ap proach historic workplace levels." Instead, the book acknowledges that removal itself can create such "peak levels" and dangers. It recom mends: "The only time abatement (primarily removal) should be consid ered is when it becomes necessary as part of building renovation or mainte nance." _ The 1983 edition said schools should adopt `an effective strategy to correct asbestos exposure problems," with the emphasis on removal as the "only permanent solution." The 1985 rewrite proposes that school boards first ask: "Is abatement necessary? When should abatement be done? What abatement method should be used?" ALCOAO 000008349