Document wqMnXDbo7rde778G7YvRJ30eD

FILE NAME: Drywall Spackling Compounds (DWSC) DATE: 1977 Aug 26 DOC#: DWSC064 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Letter from The Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission y/5 ('2 / - 7 ? y / (Tloss PIRG 233 N. Pleasant St., Amherst, Ma. 01002 (413)256-6<134 120 Boylston St., Rm. 320. Boston, Ma. 02116 (617)423-1796 August 26, 1977 <J"V Secretary Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington, D.C. 20207 ^ -> ^3 Dear Sirs: The Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group (Mass PIRG) is a non-profit student organization devoted to issues of public concern. PIRG was designed to generate research, legislation and social action in areas such as the environment, health and safety, civil rights and consumer protection. Each year students at 19 colleges and universities in Massachusetts support PIRG through voluntary contributions on their tuition bills. Unless the Consumer Product Safety Commission acts now, many of the 40,000 students who support Mass PIRG will be threatened by the continued use of products which release respirable asbestos. Most of these citizens have yet to reach the age of twenty-five, and they want to protect themselves from cancer. Your proposed rule (Federal Register, 42^38782-38791) would help do this. Mass PIRG regrets that the Commission voted not to regulate respir able free-form asbestos under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act which would have allowed all such products in distribution to be recalled. Nevertheless, on behalf of Mass PIRG, I value the oppor tunity to comment on the regulations proposed under the Consumer Product Safety Act. A ban on asbestos-containing consumer patching compounds used to join or repair interior walls and ceilings is in the public interest. The documented health effects of long-term low level exposure to asbestos, as well as brief, highly concentrated exposure - both of which are associated with the use of these products - far outweigh the minor economic dislocations which would result from a prohibi tion on these applications. As Mr. Barry Castleman pointed out in his oral presentation before the Commission on August 15, 1977, this use of asbestos is a minor source of income for only one company, Union Carbide. The $10,500 per year income, or 7i per shareholder, gained from this product is dwarfed by the tremendous potential for human disease associated with its continued use. A ban on asbestos-containing spackling and patching compounds should cover the entire market. The Commission's research indicates that m assachusetts Public Interest Research Croup, Inc. Page 2 August 26, 1977 Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission even those products which are intended solely for industrial appli cation are likely to ultimately enter the consumer environment. Therefore, it is prudent to ban all such applications. A partial ban would be unenforceable. Regarding a reduction of the amount of asbestos contained in such products from 3 to 1 percent, it has not been demonstrated that this would eliminate the excess risk to consumers. Only a total ban would suffice. The proposed ban on artificial emberizing material is also in the public interest. It is ironic, and frightening, that such a trivial use could justify the introduction of such a harmful substance into our environment. When the final rule is promulgated, Mass PIRG stands ready to assist the Commission in educating the general public in the proper way to safely remove such material from fireplaces in their homes. In drawing up the guidelines, we suggest that the Commission work closely with businesses which install and maintain gas-burning fireplaces, as they are likely to be most familiar with the extent of use of this product. Mass PIRG supports the time-frame proposed by the Commission for ban ning asbestos-containing emberizing material, however, we question the 30 day delay for the spackling and patching compound regulation to take effect. All such products sold and used within 30 days of publi cation of the ban will continue to expose consumers beyond the effec tive date through re-entrainment of the asbestos fibers in the indoor environment. As noted in the proposed rulemaking, asbestos-free sub stitutes are being used now by consumers. Thus, the prohibition should take effect immediately upon publication in the Federal Register. The Commission's stated intention to evaluate the use and possible dan gers of asbestos in other consumer products is laudable. Reports by investigators indicate that other products abailable to consumers may release airborne asbestos fibers: vinyl-asbestos floor tile - Murphy, et al, Am. Rev. Resp. Pis., 104; 576-580 (1976) and asbestos garmentsGibbs, Ann. Occup. Hyg., 18^:143-149 (1975) . The International Agency for Research on Cancer, in its recent publication. Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man, Asbestos: Volume 14, voices concern over the use of asbestos wallboard by "do-it-your self" home repairmen (p.39). Additionally, the potential for fiber release from widely used textured paints which contain asbestos ought to be investigated. In sum, I urge you to change the proposed rulemaking so that the ban on asbestos spackling and patching compounds will take effect immedi ately upon publication. Also, I hope to be able to work closely with Commission staff in alerting the general^public to the necessary pre cautions in removing artificial emberizing material which contains asbestos. Finally, I urge you to eagerly pursue the investigation of Page 3 August 26, 1977 Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission other possible asbestos hazards from consumer products. Sincerely, Kenneth Z. Silver Research Associate/Amherst KZS:mh ends. 77