I Guess We’re On Our Own – More of the Story

This took me longer than I expected.

In a sense, what is different about Libby, Montana is the White House suppressing EPA’s actions to alert the general public about the asbestos hazards in vermiculite. Otherwise, it is simply another story about a company trying to cover up unpleasant news about some public or occupational health and safety hazard it has created, a scene that has become depressingly familiar these days.

The good news is that the hazards associated with asbestos, and the means for controlling them, are well understood. A lot of information is available that can be used in managing your risks from asbestos exposure. The Libby, Montana story has alerted us to the potential for exposure to tremolite in vermiculite products. Other than that, the story remains pretty much the same – asbestos is potentially present in a wide range of products and materials in the home and workplace, and there are several occupations and parts of the country associated with an increased health risk from exposure to asbestos.

From EPA’s asbestos web site, there is a fact sheet with some interesting tidbits. For example, there have been common misunderstandings about EPA’s 1989 bans on asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and products or uses. In 1991 the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated much of the so-called "Asbestos Ban and Phaseout" rule and remanded it to the EPA. Thus, much of the original 1989 EPA ban on the U.S. manufacturing, importation, processing, or distribution in commerce of many asbestos-containing product categories was set aside and did not take effect. Six asbestos-containing product categories are still subject to the 1989 asbestos ban. However,
EPA has no existing bans on most other asbestos-containing products or uses. The lists of product classes banned or still in commerce are presented in GETF’s report (see below).

EPA states that it does not track the manufacture, processing, or distribution in commerce of asbestos-containing products, and recommends that it would be prudent for a consumer or other buyer to inquire as to the presence of asbestos in particular products. Possible sources of that information would include inquiring of the dealer/supplier or manufacturer, refer to the product's "Material Safety Data Sheet" (MSDS), or consider having the material tested by a qualified laboratory for the presence of asbestos (as if people just “know” how to collect a bulk sample, submit it for laboratory analysis, select a qualified laboratory or interpret the results).

In other respects, EPA’s asbestos web site has a trove of information. The gem is a recent report published by the Global Environment and Technology Forum. There was a sense of hysteria about ACM in buildings in the 1980s, leading to premature and unwarranted abatement projects, which by the 1990s turned to complacency, resulting in some laxity in management programs. Based on interviews and meetings with various stakeholders, the GETF report found that:

The quality of work performed by people conducting response actions and managing asbestos in buildings may have declined during the past decade. This fact may not be universal across the country, or consistent by the types of facilities involved. Reasons expressed included less frequent enforcement of existing regulations; quality of training for asbestos workers, consultants, and regulatory personnel; misunderstanding of existing regulations; lack of independent oversight of projects in some states; and, conflicts among federal and state regulations.

The dilemma with asbestos is this: while it’s a known human carcinogen, the effects from exposure are delayed for many years. The magnitude of the risk with low environmental exposure levels is not known, and can only be calculated hypothetically. ACM that is not friable and in good condition has relatively little potential for human exposure. Proper techniques for managing ACM can reduce the risk of exposure. However, the costs of asbestos inspections, management, and control activities provide little tangible reward, since the outcome associated with effective management of ACM is – nothing (i.e. noone gets sick), and the outcome associated with failing to manage ACM properly isn’t discernable for decades, if at all. There’s a regulatory framework for asbestos, but it is seen as confusing, inconsistent and possibly a barrier to innovative solutions for managing asbestos. It isn’t readily apparent how effectively the regulations are being enforced.

So, as mentioned previously, we’re probably on our own. This means investing your hard-won time and money to deal with an issue that, in certain ways, is really the responsibility of someone else (government, building owner, facility manager, employer).

More on this later.