Report of Findings and Recommendations on the Use and Management of Asbestos

February 10, 2003

Global Environment & Technology Foundation
7010 Little River Turnpike, Suite 460, Annandale, Virginia 22003

DRAFT REPORT OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE USE AND MANAGEMENT OF ASBESTOS

February 10, 2003

Section 5.0:
APPENDICES

Appendix A: The Asbestos Strategies Process

The key elements of the Asbestos Strategies process are shown in Table A.1. The Asbestos Strategies process began with a survey of the asbestos industry. GETF researched the issues and identified affected companies, communities, and organizations. GETF worked to develop a list of contacts that would be able to provide information on the state of asbestos oversight, outreach, and education, as well as other concerns. These contacts represented a range of sectors and perspectives. GETF was successful in involving more than 100 industry participants and experts, as seen in Table A.2.

GETF conducted interviews with almost 50 key stakeholders and experts over a period of two months prior to the focus group. These interviews were designed to provide GETF with information on the current needs in asbestos policy, to identify important issues to address in the focus groups, to identify areas for further research, and to direct GETF to additional contacts. GETF employed an interview template, tailored to the expertise of the interview subject. This provided consistency in answers and highlighted important points. This methodology is provided in Appendix E.

GETF followed the interviews with invitations to participate in the dialogue process. Invitees represented a cross-section of the groups dealing with asbestos, as seen below in Figure A.1. For those that could not participate at the meeting in Washington D.C., GETF welcomed participation through their web site.

The Asbestos Strategies focus group meeting was held on October 10, 2002, in Washington, D.C. Fifty-three attendees discussed a range of topics, starting with the issue categories that had been identified in the interviews. The purpose of the meeting was not to develop consensus on all issues. On areas where consensus existed, this was noted. On more contentious areas, GETF sought to identify the common ground and the points of dissension among the various sectors and groups.

A summary of this meeting was then compiled and distributed to participants (See Appendix F). Additional interviews and research were conducted after the meeting to clarify points of discussion and gain additional perspectives. GETF met with the Executive Board of the Environmental Information Association in November 2002.

This report has been developed based on the comments from the meeting, the interviews and on extensive secondary and expert research. The following table represents all of the organizations who were contacted by GETF prior to the stakeholder meeting in October 2002. The table indicates the extent of each organization’s involvement with the process. In some cases, GETF was not able to schedule an interview with a representative from an organization, or the organization elected not to participate.

TABLE A.1: Asbestos Strategies Contacts

After the stakeholder meeting, other contacts were recommended to GETF. The following table indicates these contacts.

Appendix B: Background on Asbestos Issues

Asbestos is a term used to describe a group of naturally occurring silicate minerals. Traditionally, regulated asbestos has included a group of five amphibole minerals and one serpentine mineral. The common mineral names for the amphiboles are crocidolite, tremolite, actinolite, amosite, and anthophyllite. The single serpentine variety is chrysotile. Asbestos has several properties that have made it commercially valuable. Its fibrous nature made it a good thermal and acoustic insulator, and able to be twisted and woven into cloth. Since asbestos is an inorganic mineral, it does not burn. When mixed with other materials it often adds strength, or imparts other desirable qualities.

Asbestos has been exploited sparingly throughout history, but its use became widespread during the later half of the 19^th century. Initially its use was primarily in making insulation for steam engines, locomotives and pipes. The raw fiber was mixed with plasters and cements, or woven into cloth used to reduce heat loss. Its uses were initially developed in Great Britain, but became widely used in the United States (U.S.) and other industrialized nations.

The locations of major deposits of asbestos mined commercially have been South Africa, Russia, and Canada. The vast majority of the asbestos used in the US originated in the chrysotile mines of Quebec. The mining and milling of asbestos was historically a dusty process.

Asbestos regulations and legislation were enacted throughout the 20^th Century, as seen in Table B.1. By the early 1900s, asbestos was recognized as a cause of occupational disease. The early association between asbestos exposure and asbestosis in the British asbestos textile factories lead to the first regulations. In 1931 Parliament passed legislation requiring dust control in asbestos textile factories and making asbestosis a compensable disease. The disease initially associated with asbestos was asbestosis. This is a scarring of the lung tissue that initially results in shortness of breath and can be fatal in advanced cases.

During the 1930s and 1940s the connection between asbestos exposure and lung cancer emerged. Case reports of mesothelioma among asbestos workers increased in the 1950s. By 1960 the connection between mesothelioma and asbestos exposure was established. Malignant mesothelioma is a cancer of the mesothelium, a thin lining covering the major organs of the body. If it originates in the chest cavity, it is called pleural malignant mesothelioma. In the abdominal cavity it is known as peritoneal malignant mesothelioma. The decade of the 1960s saw considerable interest and research on the asbestos related diseases. The work of Dr. Irving J. Selikoff and his colleagues described the incidence of disease among insulation workers in the building trades in 1964.

A common characteristic among the asbestos-related diseases is the long latency period between the initial exposure and the onset of disease. Asbestosis, lung cancer, malignant mesothelioma, and other asbestos-related maladies rarely occur in less than 10 years since first exposure. Neoplasms associated with asbestos often do not manifest themselves for 30 years or longer.

In spite of the recognized adverse health effects associated with asbestos exposure, its use in the U.S. accelerated throughout much of the 20^th century. In 1972, 770,000 short tons of chrysotile asbestos were used in the U.S., and much smaller quantities of other asbestos forms. This asbestos was used in construction (pipe and boiler insulation, asbestos cement pipe and boards, fireproofing, acoustical plaster, and other uses); floor tile; friction materials (brake and clutch linings); asbestos paper; felts; packing and gaskets; textiles; and other uses.

Prior to the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) in 1970 the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) had established an exposure limit for asbestos in occupational settings. The value was initially set as a maximum acceptable concentration (MAC) in 1946 of 5 million particles per cubic foot (mppcf). In 1948 the 5 mppcf MAC was changed to a threshold limit value (TLV) of an average concentration over an 8-hour day, referred to as an 8-hour, time-weighted average. The ACGIH retained this TLV of 5 mppcf until 1974 when it was reduced to 5 fibers per cubic centimeter (f/cc) expressed as an 8-hour, TWA. Since that time the TLV has been reduced repeatedly to 0.1 f/cc today. From 1972 onward the ACGIH has listed asbestos as a human carcinogen.

Many states adopted the ACGIH TLVs for the regulation of occupational exposures in the workplace during the 1950s and 1960s. State asbestos regulations were effectively replaced by federal OSHA regulations in June 1972 with the first permanent OSHA asbestos standard.

The first regulatory action of the new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under authority of the Clean Air Act was listing asbestos as a hazardous air pollutant. This occurred in March 1971. In April 1973 the EPA issued the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for asbestos. This standard required "no visible emissions" for milling and manufacturing asbestos products, and during demolition of buildings. The asbestos NESHAP had the effect of eliminating the spray application of friable asbestos-containing fireproofing in July 1973. Subsequent revisions to this regulation in 1975 and 1978 effectively eliminated the use of friable pre-molded pipe, boiler, turbine, and duct insulation; and the spray application of friable asbestos-containing materials for all uses in buildings.

The original EPA NESHAP definition of an asbestos material was "asbestos or any material containing asbestos". The 1975 asbestos NESHAP regulation redefined a friable asbestos-containing material to mean "any material that contains more than 1 percent asbestos by weight that can be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder, when dry, by hand pressure. This definition remained largely unchanged until the 1990 asbestos NESHAP revision.

In buildings, the EPA asbestos NESHAP addressed friable asbestos-containing materials (ACM) in buildings undergoing renovation or demolition operations. Non-friable materials were essentially exempt, as were buildings with four or fewer dwelling units. Renovation projects involving less than 160 linear feet or 260 square feet of friable ACM were exempt from the EPA Asbestos NESHAP regulations. Additional revisions to the asbestos NESHAP regulation attempted to clarify some regulatory language. The current revised 1990 version is discussed briefly in section 3.2.

The federal OSHA asbestos standard of 1972 has been revised on several occasions. In 1976, the planned reduction of the 8-hour permissible exposure limit (PEL) from 5 f/cc to 2 f/cc became effective. In 1986 separate standards for general industry, construction industry, and shipyards became effective with an 8-hour PEL of 0.2 f/cc and an excursion limit of 1 f/cc for 30 minutes. The 8-hour PEL was again reduced to 0.1 f/cc in 1994. The current OSHA standards for asbestos are discussed briefly in section 3.2.

The concern over the presence of asbestos in buildings began with friable ACM in elementary and secondary schools. In 1979 the EPA initiated a technical assistance program to help schools identify and control friable ACM. Under this program a guidance document was produced to assist schools. Congress passed the Asbestos School Hazard Detection and Control Act of 1980 giving the US Department of Education authority to implement a grant and loan program for schools. Funds for this program were never appropriated.

In 1982 the EPA promulgated the "Asbestos-in-Schools Rule" requiring schools to identify friable ACM in school buildings and provide notification to parents, teachers, and school employees. The Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act (ASHAA) of 1984 set up a loan and grant program to assist schools in eliminating asbestos hazards. This program was administered by the EPA and reauthorized under the Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Reauthorization Act (ASHARA) of 1990. In 1983, the EPA revised its primary asbestos guidance document (the "orange books") to address friable ACM in buildings beyond schools. This guidance document (the "blue book") was revised two years later in 1985. This revision is known as the "purple book" and it remains today the primary EPA guidance document for controlling friable and non-friable asbestos in schools, public and commercial buildings.

President Reagan signed the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) in 1986. The EPA issued the AHERA regulations in 1987 requiring schools to inspect, assess, and manage asbestos in their buildings. Each school was to produce an asbestos inspection report and a management plan describing how the asbestos would be managed. These regulations did not require asbestos be removed beyond what was already required in the EPA asbestos NESHAP regulations during demolition and renovation projects.

Other provisions of AHERA required the EPA to investigate what actions should be taken, if any, regarding asbestos in public and commercial buildings. The agency responded in several ways. It evaluated how well the AHERA regulations were implemented by schools. It co-sponsored the work by the Health Effects Institute — Asbestos Research on Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings culminating in a major published review and synthesis of the literature in 1991.

AHERA required the agency to study ACM in public and commercial buildings and report back to Congress its recommendations. The February 1988 EPA report to Congress recommended a series of studies and specifically called for delaying a regulatory response. The purpose for delaying a regulatory response was the concern that the available pool of trained personnel and laboratories might be overwhelmed due to the concurrent work in schools. The research was not conducted.

The agency did host a policy dialogue with stakeholders (1990) to consider actions relating to asbestos in public and commercial buildings. The agency subsequently issued the "green book" guidance document on the design and implementation of operations and maintenance (O&M) programs for the management of in-place ACM.

In 1989 the EPA issued regulations to ban some asbestos-containing products and phase out most others over a multi-year period. The "Ban and Phase-Down" rule was challenged in court and the regulation remanded to the agency. As a result, any asbestos-containing products then "in commerce" would not be banned. Those not in commerce would be banned. Those materials "banned" could not be sold. It did not affect such materials already installed, or in use.

AHERA also established the asbestos laboratory accreditation program under the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). This program accredits laboratories that perform bulk sample analyses by polarized light microscopy (PLM) and air sample analyses by transmission electron microscopy (TEM).

The AHERA regulations established the requirements for accreditation of individuals who (1) inspect for ACM, (2) develop management plans, (2) supervise response actions and (4) design response actions. There were also requirements for the training and certification of workers who perform asbestos response actions. The accreditation and certification requirements initially only applied to work in schools. These requirements, with the exception of the management planners, were extended to all buildings by ASHARA, effective November 28, 1992.

The EPA promulgated the Asbestos Worker Protection Rule in 1987. This rule was designed to extend coverage found in the OSHA asbestos standards to state and local employees not covered by OSHA. It applies to employees performing construction work, custodial work, and automotive brake and clutch work. The Asbestos Worker Protection Rule was revised in November 15, 2000, adopting the OSHA asbestos standards (29 CFR 1926.1101 and 29 CFR 1910.1001) and subsequent revisions to these standards.

Appendix C: Research Priorities by Issue Area

The focus of this report has been on asbestos issues and problems where oversight, outreach, and education can quickly have a positive impact. The process clearly indicated many issues requiring further research. These research priorities are grouped by issue area below, but should not be considered exhaustive by any means.

Asbestos in Buildings:

1. Complete the studies indicated in the 1988 EPA Report to Congress, "EPA Study of Asbestos-Containing Materials in Public Buildings." This report described nine studies designed to fill information gaps about asbestos in buildings. To date, only the first of these nine studies, listed below, has been completed.
1. Evaluation of the Implementation of AHERA Schools Rule
2. Operations and Maintenance Procedures Efficacy
3. Long-term Efficacy of Asbestos Control
4. Problem Characterization Studies
1. Study 1: "Peak" Exposure Levels
2. Study 2: The Incidence of "Peak" Exposure Levels and Their Impact on Average Building Levels
5. Management Activities
1. Private Sector Asbestos Management Activities and State and Local Government Programs
2. Evaluate Impact of Private Sector/State and Local Asbestos Management Programs
6. Exposure-Risk Interpretation
7. Levels of Exposure
1. Prevalent Levels of Airborne Asbestos Fibers in Public and Commercial Buildings
2. Service Workers’ Exposure to Airborne Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings
3. Residential Apartment Buildings Exposures
4. Survey of Federally Subsidized Public Housing Units for Asbestos Extent and Air Levels
5. Prevalent Levels of Airborne Asbestos Fibers in Schools
8. Population Studies
1. Characterization of Populations Exposed to Airborne Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings
2. Survey of Populations Exposed to Airborne Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings
9. Development of a Decision Tool for Determining Whether a Response Action is Warranted for a Particular Building
2. Determine the reliability of measuring asbestos in various types of bulk materials at concentrations less than 1 percent by volume.
3. Evaluate the effectiveness of training provided to asbestos response action workers and building service workers, including those who do not speak English.
4. Evaluate the effectiveness of asbestos management programs in industrial settings. Based on this evaluation, prepare a guidance document for managing asbestos in industrial facilities.

Asbestos in Products:

1. A study should be conducted to determine the extent that asbestos-containing products are actually being manufactured, imported, exported, and distributed in the U.S. The study should identify who are the end users of the products, and the disposition of those products after use. The study should address the extent to which these products are available to consumers and local education agencies (schools). This study should be performed by the EPA, in conjunction with the CPSC, OSHA and the Department of Commerce. Following this, necessary risk-related analysis could be conducted.
2. A study should be conducted to determine the extent to which substitutes exist for asbestos known to exist in certain product categories. The study should consider the findings from the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Toxicology, Ecotoxicity and the Environment on the health risks of chrysotile asbestos and its substitutes. This study would be an adjunct to the one listed above.

Naturally Occurring Asbestos:

1. The extent of exposure and resulting health effects from mining, milling, manufacturing, distribution, and use of materials and products with less than 1 percent asbestos should be investigated. This study should include workers performing road cuts and some road building operations. The study may include other durable naturally occurring fibrous minerals or work that produces cleavage fragments of respirable size and similar composition and shape as asbestos minerals. This study would be conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), in conjunction with EPA, MSHA, OSHA and CPSC. A panel of experts could be engaged to provide peer review on this topic.
2. A study is necessary to develop an analytical protocol that will reliably measure naturally occurring asbestos in bulk materials at concentrations below 1 percent. Polarized light microscopy (PLM) has traditionally been used but is generally limited to providing reliable results at 1 percent or greater. This study would likely be conducted by NIST, in conjunction with EPA, USGS and MSHA.
3. A study led by the USGS in conjunction with mining interests could map likely locations of asbestos deposits. Much of the necessary research for this effort has been accomplished by various federal and state geological surveys. The information would be useful to the mining and quarrying industries, and road planning and construction.

Medical and Health Issues: There are many areas of additional research related to the health effects of asbestos. Many research studies are in progress worldwide. The listing of additional research needs here is far beyond the scope of this project.

Analytical Methods:

1. The application of PLM and/or TEM microscopy for determining asbestos in bulk materials at 1 percent or less. This research should include building materials, products, and asbestos as a contaminant. This research should be directed by EPA in conjunction with NIST and laboratories knowledgeable of such applications.
2. The use of TEM for exposure measurements as a supplement, or in place of PCM should be evaluated. Obtaining reliable measurements of low fiber concentrations in dusty atmospheres should be included. MSHA is considering TEM in their asbestos standard revision. The Health Effects Institute — Asbestos Research (HEI-AR) recommended OSHA consider TEM in the early 1990s. The research effort should be lead by EPA and NIOSH, in conjunction with NIST.

Appendix D: All Recommendations

The Asbestos Strategies process led to the development of a list of recommendations. These are not necessarily consensus opinions, but rather a collection of ideas gathered from the range of stakeholders and selected by GETF and industry experts. Many of these action items enjoy considerable support across the range of stakeholders. Some — such as revisiting a ban on asbestos — would be opposed by some stakeholders.

These recommendations are primarily for short-term action items. They are grouped by the issue that they address, and ranked by priority within each category. Undertaking the research items in Appendix C can highlight areas that require more focused action.

Develop and Provide Updated Information that is Consistent within and Among Agencies

1. The EPA should update the "purple book" guidance document to make it the premier technical resource for managing asbestos in buildings and facilities. The revised document should be consistent with current federal regulations and good practices. The "purple book" was released in 1985. This up-to-date information will facilitate voluntary compliance with existing regulations, reducing asbestos exposure among contractors working on buildings.
2. Training providers under the EPA model accreditation plan (MAP) and corresponding state plans should be audited with sufficient frequency to assure the training is provided, tests are conducted, records maintained, and certificates issued. The EPA should update the model training curricula. Updating the training will make the curriculum consistent with existing regulations and increase worker safety. The training providers should also be permitted to vary the course content in refresher courses.
3. Federal agencies should continue to actively participate and support the efforts of professional associations in the development, revision, and quality assurance practices relating to sampling and analytical methods for asbestos. The EPA, NIST and NIOSH should work together to accomplish this goal.
4. The EPA, in conjunction with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), should revise and update the Asbestos in Homes guidance document. This would help address the gap that currently exists in regulations affecting residential buildings.
5. A summary document of federal asbestos regulations should be prepared. This would be a valuable resource for the regulated community and the regulators. The document would be prepared by EPA and OSHA with input from the other federal agencies with asbestos regulations.
6. A companion summary document of state asbestos regulation summaries would also be a valuable education tool. This document should be developed by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). The NCSL has developed such documents in past years, but are no longer reflective of current state requirements.
7. The EPA and OSHA should employ education and outreach to provide reliable risk communication to the regulated community and the public. Following the World Trade Center attacks federal agencies may have underestimated the risks out of concern to control the public’s perceived risk. A backlash followed inside and outside some agencies, which may have overstated the risks.

Support State Enforcement and Encourage Voluntary Compliance

1. Regulatory agencies should encourage voluntary compliance with existing regulations and good practices for managing asbestos in buildings and conducting response actions. This may be accomplished through a series of asbestos awareness seminars directed at the regulated community (building owners, contractors and consultants). The seminars should be sponsored by EPA and OSHA, and hosted by the resident state asbestos authority. Joint sponsorship would be extremely valuable. Such seminars should be held in conjunction with national or regional meetings of professional/trade associations such as the Environmental Information Association (EIA) to encourage participation by the target audience. Voluntary compliance will increase worker and building occupant safety, reduce asbestos exposure, and decrease costs associated with liability.
2. The EPA should partner with one or more local organizations to inform stakeholders and to encourage voluntary compliance with both federal and local regulations. Similar efforts appear to have been successful with groups such as the EIA, individual state agencies, local building code inspectors, fire departments, and other groups. This recommendation would be implemented in concert with the above recommendation.
3. The EPA and OSHA should focus on more predictable enforcement of existing regulations, which may be more beneficial than committing scarce resources to new rule-making efforts. Consistent interpretations across agencies will lead to increased compliance and reduced liability for businesses.
4. Federal and state agencies should provide additional training to their personnel responsible for asbestos. These personnel would be better equipped to provide guidance and assistance to the regulated community. These agencies should use these personnel to increase enforcement of existing regulations. Federal agencies could be tasked to ensure that this training is supported by consistent messages from those agencies.
5. Federal and state agencies should communicate among themselves before issuing communiqués to the public. This may reduce confusion among building owners and others attempting to comply with regulations. A web-based electronic distribution mechanism for such information should be established to assure rapid communication.

Address Products in Commerce with Commercially Added Asbestos

1. As one option, an outright legislative ban on the production, manufacture, distribution and importation of products with commercially-added asbestos could be considered. We cannot conclude that a ban is the only effective approach but rather that the process of reviewing information concerning the ban will be useful in assessing next steps. Such legislation would eliminate remaining products by a specified date, and installation of those products by a later date. Jurisdictional issues could be addressed in congressional legislation that might not be achievable by individual agency rule-makings. Exceptions to such a ban may be necessary for a small number of applications for which substitutes may not be available, and for research purposes. Stakeholders at the focus group meeting did not universally support this option. Many stakeholders indicated that implementing regulations, and perhaps the enabling legislation itself, would likely be challenged in the courts.
2. A uniform labeling requirement for all products with commercially-added asbestos should be established through rule making. Labels should include the word "asbestos" and be a specified minimum size. The EPA would likely be the lead agency for such a rule making, but would need to coordinate their efforts with other agencies having jurisdiction over products with commercially-added asbestos. This option would need to be implemented with the following recommendation.
3. A coordinated effort to educate consumers, employers and building owners about products with commercially-added asbestos is necessary. Such a program would assist the target audience make an informed decision about which products are legally available with commercially added asbestos. This education and outreach effort would be performed by EPA, OSHA and CPSC. These agencies would need to perform research into which products actually have commercially added asbestos, which do not, and which are to be phased out voluntarily by manufacturers.

Address Naturally Occurring Asbestos in Products

1. Reduction of naturally occurring asbestos in products could be achieved by a program set up by a consortium of mining concerns to develop a sampling and analytical protocol to analyze bulk materials at the mining stage for chrysotile and all asbestiform amphibole forms of asbestos. Oversight of such a program may be provided by EPA and MSHA, with technical assistance by NIOSH and NIST. This program would assist the mining and quarrying industry in avoiding unwanted asbestos in their product. The program would provide a degree of assurance to users of these raw materials that they are not contaminated with asbestos.
2. The Libby vermiculite situation should be considered an important lesson, but not be treated as a typical case. The definition of "asbestos" should be clarified to include all asbestiform amphiboles, in addition to currently regulated amphiboles and chrysotile. An evaluation by EPA, OSHA and MSHA will be needed to determine procedurally how this should be accomplished, and what consequences such a clarification might have, if any, on other industries. This definition would enable federal agencies to reduce the risk of exposure from minerals such as winchite and richterite.
3. A labeling provision should be considered for products having naturally occurring asbestos as a contaminant. Existing regulations may be sufficient for products found to contain more than 1 percent asbestos. A label may be appropriate for products containing greater than 0.1 percent asbestos by volume, if feasible. Products consistently found to contain asbestos at a level below 0.1 percent through a testing program may be exempt from labeling, or have a label with different wording.

Support the Medical Community

1. A national mesothelioma registry is necessary to facilitate epidemiology studies to evaluate the effects of asbestos exposure. Many countries and some states have established mesothelioma registries. The establishment of such a registry would likely be performed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in conjunction with state public health departments.
2. There is a need for an inventory of significant health-related research to ensure that interested parties can access experts wherever they are located. The CDC should lead this effort. In conjunction with the mesothelioma registry, this would improve research and treatment of asbestos-related disease.
3. The relationship of fiber size and shape to disease is being considered by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). This agency convened a panel of experts on October 29-30, 2002 to consider the health effects of asbestos and synthetic vitreous fibers and the influence of fiber length. This effort should continue to be encouraged.
4. The EPA is currently reviewing the need to revise its risk assessment methodology for asbestos. The agency is currently convening a panel of experts to consider whether this methodology can be used to support decisions about asbestos contaminated sites. This panel is scheduled to meet during January or February 2003 in San Francisco, CA.

For the recommended options, the EPA should establish working groups composed of representatives from government agencies and other stakeholders identified as critical to the success of the project. Listed below are some of the key groups that may be valuable participants.

• Federal government agencies (EPA, OSHA, MSHA, CPSC, NIOSH, NIST, NIH, CDC, ATSDR)
• State government agencies involved with asbestos
• Local government agencies involved with asbestos
• Professional associations (EIA, ASTM, AIHA, NIBS, BOMA, NCSL)
• Current asbestos product manufacturers (AIA)
• Mining and mineral processing companies and/or associations
• Representatives of organized labor
• Other groups or individuals having special expertise in the specific recommended proposed solution

Appendix E: Asbestos Strategies Stakeholder Interview Findings Outline

Purpose

The purpose of this document is to summarize the findings of a series of one-on-one discussions with key public and private stakeholders with an interest and expertise in asbestos policy and related issues. These findings provided data points to guide the development of the agenda for the Asbestos Strategies focus group meeting.

Summary of Findings

In general, the findings are as follows:

• Regulatory approaches across agencies need to be more consistent.
• Communication and cooperation will be important:

1. Within federal agencies;
2. Among different federal agencies;
3. Between federal and state agencies; and,
4. Between the public and private sectors.

• Setting guidelines, definitions, and standards is most appropriately done at the federal level; enforcement and cleanup may be done at the federal or state level; education and outreach can be a joint project of federal, state, and NGO’s. Respondents had different opinions as to precisely how these tasks would be broken down.
• Education is a critical need. The federal government is seen as the best source for information on health risks. Uninformed actions in response to a perceived risk (e.g., ripping out in-place asbestos) may have a greater health risk as well as an economic cost; education can prevent this.
• Risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis are important components of a federal strategy. Health risks from asbestos need to be considered at the population level and in the context of other health risks. The risk of alternatives needs to be considered and the potential benefits from using asbestos, if any, need to be weighed.
• Formally approved analytical methods for asbestos are important and will provide a sound scientific basis for further action.
• Different forms of asbestos have varying levels of health risks; other minerals not classified as asbestos may have similar risks. It may or may not be useful to develop different standards for different materials, but this is an issue worth considering. The definition of asbestos may need some adjustment.
• Voluntary programs may or may not be effective. The NAIMA/OSHA agreement is seen by some as a good example of such a program.
• Among the scientific community, there is a need for better cross-discipline communication.

Background

Asbestos is a major issue in environmental policy, as various federal and state agencies and private sector organizations grapple with continuing public health concerns, such as the legacy of the Libby, Montana vermiculite mine, possible asbestos risks from the World Trade Center collapse and other related issues. Under the Clean Air Act and Toxics Substance Control Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has certain oversight responsibilities over the manufacture, management and use of asbestos to address such public health concerns. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) also has oversight authority relating to the estimated 1.3 million employees in construction and general industry who face significant asbestos exposure on the job.

The Global Environment & Technology Foundation (GETF) — a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization with a proven track record in stakeholder facilitation — is engaging interested parties to compile innovative approaches, best management practices, and lessons learned relevant to the use and management asbestos. This process will facilitate a coordinated approach among federal agencies, other policy leaders and private sector organizations based on input from key stakeholders. GETF will develop a series of initial recommendations and options provided by the focus groups and other stakeholder input.

Objectives

This process is designed to take stock of the recent experience with potential solutions and options regarding the continued and future use of asbestos. Therefore, the objectives are to:

• Offer recommendations and options on effective asbestos oversight, outreach and education approaches; and,
• Provide an opportunity for key stakeholders to share their knowledge on barriers, incentives, lessons learned, and best practices as they relate to asbestos use and management.

In achieving these objectives, GETF will:

• Bring diverse stakeholders together around a common environmental objective;
• Showcase solutions; and,
• Facilitate a dialogue to discuss policy and regulatory issues and the need to communicate about stakeholder responsibilities and what roles solutions play in improving the current policy environment.

The Interview Process

GETF conducted interviews with key stakeholders and experts over a period of two months. These interviews were designed to provide GETF with information on the current needs in asbestos policy, to identify important issues to address in the focus groups, to identify areas for further research, and to direct GETF to additional contacts.

GETF followed the interviews with invitations to participate in the dialogue process. For those that could not participate at the meeting in Washington DC, GETF welcomed participation through the web site.

Methodology

GETF employed an interview template, tailored to the expertise of the interview subject. This provided consistency in answers and highlighted important points. The questions were:

1. What is the history of your or organization's involvement with asbestos?
2. Have you been involved with asbestos oversight, outreach and education? If yes, who provided the oversight, outreach and education?
3. What role do you think federal and state agencies and private sector organizations ought to play with oversight, outreach and education?
1. Do you think the federal government should develop a targeted strategy for asbestos oversight, outreach and education?
2. What should the elements of the strategy include (e.g., policy, legislation, voluntary programs, alternatives to asbestos use, partnerships, incentives, new regulation, new or improved opportunities for information exchange on asbestos issues)?
3. Of these ideas, if given limited resources, where should federal and state agencies and private organizations invest their resources in oversight, outreach and education? Why?
4. What obstacles do you think federal and state agencies or private sector organizations would find in implementing these suggestions?
5. Are there issues we should be aware of regarding the current or potential actions for oversight, outreach and education?
4. Do you have any examples of successful asbestos approaches, technologies, management, lessons learned, substitutes, oversight, outreach and education efforts or programs?
5. Who else should be interviewed? Who is a resource?
6. Who ought to be at the focus group meetings for direct dialogue and discussion on asbestos use, policies, education and outreach?
1. Who should be invited to the cross-sector issues meeting that will convene a senior level advisory group from all the identified sectors (e.g., manufacturers, associations, users, federal, state and local government, etc.)? The purpose of this group is to help identify who ought to be invited to subsequent meetings and to promote the outcome of the process.
2. Who should be invited to the meeting on products in commerce (e.g., representatives of asbestos products manufacturing, distribution and importation communities such as roofing and insulation manufacturers, brake manufacturers, etc.)?
3. Who should be invited to the meeting on products in use, including stakeholders who currently use asbestos-containing products (e.g., truck manufacturers, nurseries) and those with a legacy of asbestos use (e.g., schools, construction and commercial building community and others)?
7. What suggestions do you have to make this process a success?

Findings From the Interviews

Industry

Individual businesses were generally reluctant to participate. In many cases, their lawyers advised them not to participate in interviews or meetings due to ongoing litigation. Trade associations were more likely to participate in interviews and some were willing to participate in meetings. Some businesses were willing to recommend academic experts for us to contact; in some cases, the research work of these experts may be financially supported by a business or trade association. Industry frequently cited a need for consistency of regulations, risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis, and a consistent mineralogical definition of asbestos. Developing and communicating accurate scientific information was seen as a key federal role.

Businesses are, of course, concerned with asbestos liability. One concern expressed was the extent to which asbestos liability rested with the retailers of asbestos-containing products and how much with the manufacturers. Conflicting accounts dispute the use of asbestos in brakes (whether new or remanufactured) and the health impacts on mechanics.

Academic, medical, and research

Academic experts were very willing to contribute to this process and some were able to attend the meeting. These experts have specific areas of focus on which they are extremely well-informed. Some suggested developing a more specific mineralogical definition of asbestos, while others suggested expanding the focus to include all fibers with similar properties. Some suggested developing different exposure standards for different forms of asbestos, and some believed that is not important. Some of these experts focused on risk assessment and considered that to be a priority area. Some experts focused on naturally occurring asbestos and considered this to be a priority area. Epidemiologists, toxicologists, geologists, and microscopists were all seen as important categories of academic experts to contact.

One academic expert did not consider there to be a significant health risk from asbestos anymore; in this expert’s opinion, asbestos was no longer used in products (so replacements were not a need), naturally occurring asbestos would be avoided by miners, and adequate regulatory mechanisms were already in place.

Federal and state agencies

Representatives from federal and state agencies were willing to contribute to the process, but in many cases were not be able to attend the meeting due to lack of funding. These contacts expressed a range of views on past and current EPA activities regarding asbestos. Most agreed on the need for a consistent federal policy and that EPA needs to be a partner with the states during implementation. Each state had very different approaches to addressing the asbestos issue and cited a range of possible best practices, including Maine’s "One-Stop" system or Wisconsin’s outreach to the fire department and building industries. Education/outreach and monitoring were seen as key needs, in particular with regard to appropriately managing in place. Funding is a major barrier to further state action.

Appendix F: Meeting Summary

Purpose and Direction of This Process

The Global Environment & Technology Foundation (GETF) convened a cross-sector focus group to discuss innovative approaches, technologies, best management practices, lessons learned and substitutes associated with the use of asbestos. The focus group brought together interested parties from federal and state regulatory agencies, industry, trade associations, unions and other key private sector organizations.

The meeting opened with a review of the background, purpose, and direction of this dialogue process. GETF emphasized that the goal of this meeting was to understand views and identify priorities today, not reach consensus or make definitive recommendations. GETF conveyed a desire to ensure that all views are heard. Additional interviews with key stakeholders, small meetings of key stakeholders or additional focus groups (of this group or a subset of this group) were identified as possible next steps.

GETF will be collecting and working with various stakeholders to develop the draft findings/recommendations document. When complete, this document will take stock of the recent experience with potential solutions and options regarding the continued and future use of asbestos. The report will develop a sense of issues potentially warranting further analysis and will be based primarily on stakeholder input. Specifically, the report will:

• Offer recommendations and options on effective asbestos oversight, outreach and education approaches;
• Provide an overview on barriers, lessons learned, incentives, and best practices as they relate to asbestos use and management;
• Develop for policymakers views regarding information gaps to help them determine where further analysis would add value; and,
• Offer examples of innovative approaches, best management practices, and lessons learned for asbestos-containing products currently sold and existing products in use that contain asbestos.

The report will be published by the end of February, and all stakeholders who participated in this process will have an opportunity to review the report. All issues brought forward by stakeholders through the Asbestos Strategies process will be noted and included as part of the final report.

Concern was expressed that the dialogue on asbestos is often affected by an emotional perception of asbestos risk and by gaps in accessible and reliable information. A number of participants suggested that regulation be based on quantified risk.

Participants noted that, while it is generally good to foster discussion and get more information, such processes are often used to prevent moving forward. Some participants expressed concern over revisiting and undermining issues that have been settled.

Many participants expressed interest in hearing about the innovative approaches used by other agencies, whether federal or state.

Discussion of the Issues

Based upon a number of interviews and other research, the team identified categories of current issues relevant to asbestos management. Set forth below are the categories and issues addressed by the focus group.

The following were the key issues discussed during the focus group related to asbestos response alternatives:

• Participants discussed several options for the title of this category. "Abatement" was seen to be often interpreted as meaning "removal" in exclusion of other options. "Hazard control" includes both removal and also management in place, and "response alternatives" is also an inclusive term.
• Participants expressed the opinion that, although management in place is often seen as the safer and cheaper alternative, this is not necessarily true due to the costs of operations and maintenance over a building’s lifetime including demolition and the hazards presented by demolition. It was suggested that, in some situations, management in place may be the more costly alternative. Participants suggested that in each case facility owners should have information regarding the economics of a good oversight and management program.
• It was noted that the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) spells out the required actions for schools, but that more flexibility exists when managing asbestos in other buildings. Building owners have flexibility in how they choose to manage asbestos in non-school buildings as long as they comply with the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), the regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), state and/or local regulations, and the accreditation provisions of the Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Reauthorization Act (ASHARA). Participants explained that since no agency has the money to treat every building as a school, they focus on the hazards. Participants also suggested that the management approach embodied by AHERA is inadequate for many facilities such as industrial plants. For non-school buildings, it is important and possible to employ risk assessment that is more cost-effective than AHERA, focusing on hazards. There was some disagreement on this, since AHERA only requires sampling to determine that a material is not asbestos.
• It was noted that, in a prior lawsuit, regulations were sought to extend the inspection requirement to public and commercial workplaces, and a series of cross-sector policy dialogue meetings took place. Participants noted that a settlement was reached, and new regulations enacted, but that enforcing these regulations remains an area of concern. [Clarification: the policy dialogue meetings did not produce an agreement. The settlement between the plaintiffs and EPA was addressed through OSHA rulemaking. The new rule promulgated was that, although inspections would not be required for every workplace, there would be a presumption that certain categories of surfacing material, thermal insulation and flooring material are presumed to contain asbestos and must be handled as such, unless the employer conducts a bulk sample to determine that the material does not contain asbestos. This was included in the 1994 updates to the OSHA construction and general industry standards. Some time later, the same provision was extended to public-sector workplaces by inclusion in the EPA Worker Protection rule.]
• It was suggested that, to prevent the disturbing of asbestos in place, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and OSHA should require labeling every instance of in-place asbestos. Participants asked if this was already an OSHA requirement. Others suggest that in part, it is, but is not enforced. [Clarification: OSHA currently requires all asbestos-containing materials, or certain materials presumed to contain asbestos to be labeled, if feasible; in some applications, labeling is not considered to be feasible.]
• Participants expressed concern that public agencies are constrained by the legal obligation to accept low bids and even commercial owners find it difficult to justify placing quality above cost.

The following were the key issues discussed during the focus group related to asbestos in products:

• Participants expressed concern that EPA and OSHA do not provide sufficiently clear and accessible information about what kinds of building materials and other products may contain asbestos. Some participants noted that a significant number of products in the marketplace still contain asbestos and may not adequately disclose that fact. Other participants disagreed with this statement. The question was raised whether any agency has reliable information on where asbestos exists in commerce and how one could define which products are hazards. In response to this, participants noted that there had been some work at EPA in tracking the usage of asbestos-containing materials (ACM), but that this effort had been largely abandoned as its findings were not replicated elsewhere.
• Questions were raised about what is an appropriate threshold for "asbestos-containing material" and what that threshold means in terms of corresponding risk. Several participants asked if the 1% limit was reasonable. It was noted that products that contain less than 1% asbestos can still create a significant airborne exposure hazard.
• Some participants disputed the statement that asbestos is no longer used in consumer products. It was claimed that asbestos is still used in products, which may be mislabeled or misleading. A need for more information was identified, and it was suggested that the information should be made public regarding which products contain asbestos.
• Participants asked whether any federal agency had direct jurisdiction over the monitoring of asbestos in products, and if asbestos-containing materials are being imported.
• It was suggested that workers and members of the public are unknowingly buying products that contain asbestos. The question was raised, how can workers safely deal with the product if they don’t know it contains asbestos? There was some discussion about whether a threshold level of asbestos content can or should be set.
• Several participants suggested that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is part of the reason that asbestos-containing products are coming back into the United States, due to the provisions by which industries can file suit against environmental regulations and laws that they feel are unreasonable restrictions on free trade. Other participants suggested that products are not being reintroduced, but simply never were removed from the U.S. market in the first place.
• The use of "chrysotile" on labels was identified as an example of misleading or inadequate labeling, since most consumers don’t know that chrysotile is a form of asbestos. There seemed to be broad support for more clarity on labels.
• The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) was identified as having responsibility for tracking products with asbestos. It was noted that CPSC has a list of banned products and works with the U.S. Customs Service to control imports of hazardous products.
• It was noted that some uses of asbestos have been banned and that others have not. Statistics cited indicate that even the legal uses are declining, down to 9000 tons (down from 800,000 tons). Of that, 90% is roof coatings, brakes (for another 2 years), and gaskets (primarily for petrochemical industry).
• Some participants suggested that the "unintentional" products (those to which asbestos has not been added by design) should be considered a separate class from the "intentional" products and that to lump those products in with traditional asbestos-containing materials is probably not appropriate.
• Some participants questioned if, given the decline in the use of asbestos in domestically-manufactured products, EPA should revisit the ban. This would have a tremendous positive economic impact since the NESHAP rule could be changed: if asbestos were banned, it was said, agencies and private building owners could be more certain that new buildings would not have ACM, and could save money on inspections for asbestos.

The following were the key issues discussed during the focus group related to education, outreach, and oversight:

• Many participants agreed that one goal of this process should be to provide immediate advice for EPA on how to use their limited resources regarding education, outreach, and oversight.
• It was noted that workers who renovate, repair or demolish buildings are not given proper training, and that owners, contractors and workers need education. Several participants also noted that some of these workers are immigrants, and education/outreach is needed to inform the workers of their rights. Participants stressed the need for this education as well as product labels to be available in the native languages of immigrant workers.
• Comments indicated that the Environmental Information Association (EIA) has conducted a cooperative effort among the agencies, educators, and regulated community over the past seven years. This process, including ongoing seminars, has kept a lot of owners out of trouble and regulators in compliance. It was suggested that EPA can support efforts like this — not necessarily through funding, as the abatement contractors benefit enough that they are willing to support it — but through participation. EIA has employed this process through local partners in Florida, New Mexico, Utah and Arizona.
• Participants observed that training fraud is an issue, especially worker training fraud. Solutions suggested included more prosecutions and more training record audits.
• Insurance companies and lending agencies were identified as key stakeholders able to influence the behavior of building owners. Compliance with existing regulations could be encouraged through a cooperative agreement with insurers and lenders.
• Most participants agreed that the existing guidance material needs to be updated by EPA, since the most recent guidance material is now over 12 years old.

The following were the key issues discussed during the focus group related to needed state actions:

• It was stressed that every state has NESHAP-designated agencies. Participants suggested that U.S. EPA ought to support those agencies in oversight and enforcement of AHERA and the Model Accreditation Plan (MAP). [Clarification: States can apply for authority over AHERA and MAP, and if they do not, these programs are enforced by federal agencies. So far, 39 states have MAP authority and 9 have AHERA authority. Authority over these programs is not usually vested in the NESHAP-designated agency. The comment was directed at including AHERA and MAP authority under the NESHAP agency and not under a separate agency.]
• It was noted that NESHAP neither establishes a numerical risk threshold nor sets a specific air standard. NESHAP deals with work practices and how abatement is actually done. Participants identified the need for inspections, enforcement, outreach, and communication, as well as for adequate workers doing an adequate job. [Clarification: NESHAP does require "no visible emissions" during building demolition and renovation operations. A risk assessment was performed before the standard was promulgated, and during the various revisions. Since the standard is promulgated under the authority of the Clean Air Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act there must be a showing of significant risk, and the agency is permitted to regulate both the outside air (no visible emissions) and work practices (wet methods, etc.).]
• It was suggested that owners have to take more responsibility over who they hire, and that owners need incentive to support oversight. It was suggested that EPA and/or the states should start taking NESHAP enforcement actions against building owners, to encourage building owners to be more involved in the demolition and renovation process. To date, it has been EPA’s policy to take action only against contractors.
• Some participants expressed the view that NESHAP rules are relatively well-designed and effective, but they are not enforced at a federal or state level. The EIA effort described above is aimed at encouraging compliance with NESHAP, and aiding enforcement. Participants noted that some areas of the NESHAP rules still need modification. Rules regarding demolition were seen as one example of an area for improvement.
• Inadequate or questionable enforcement of existing training rules was identified as an area of concern, with increased enforcement as a possible solution.
• Participants discussed innovative approaches in various states and regions:

• It was noted that, in the Southwest, the Environmental Information Association has served as a platform that is independent of the regulating community and regulated community. In this 7-year cooperative effort among the agencies, educators, and the regulated community, ongoing seminars and education efforts have worked to keep facility owners, contractors, and state regulators in compliance with federal requirements. This effort is funded by local asbestos abatement contractors.
• Participants spoke positively of the NESHAP program in Michigan. This program provides outreach, oversight, and education, and is entirely funded by a 1% surcharge on asbestos removal fees.
• Participants also cited the NESHAP program in Wisconsin as a positive case. It was noted that, in the last five years, fire departments were not complying with the requirements regarding asbestos. The NESHAP agency explained the rule to them and held statewide meetings on asbestos, bringing in the contractors, building inspectors, fire departments, and others. The result has been an increase in notifications of asbestos hazards.

The following were the key issues discussed during the focus group related to needed federal actions:

• Aggressive enforcement of existing laws and regulations was seen as important. This was highlighted as one of the most important issues for worker protection.
• Voluntary consensus standards were seen as an effective complement to regulation.
• Some participants advocated filling definitional and other gaps in existing regulations. This would involve clarifying the definition sections of NESHAP, AHERA, OSHA, according to already published letters of intent. Others cautioned against "clarifying" the regulations in such a way as to weaken them.
• Concern was expressed over the fact that OSHA was not present at the meeting. It was clarified that OSHA had participated in earlier interviews. Their absence was still noted as significant, and there was strong support for federal initiatives to visible demonstrate coordination across all relevant agencies.
• The question was raised as to whether or not the various federal agencies should employ different standards since they regulate different environments (i.e., mines, workplaces, schools).
• It was also noted that resources are very limited and must be focused on activities offering the greatest public benefit.
• Education and outreach is seen by most participants as lacking, although most believe this is where federal agencies can get the most "bang for the buck."

The following were the key issues discussed during the focus group related to the forms of asbestos:

• Participants discussed whether or not it was appropriate to treat the various forms of asbestos differently due to the varying levels of health risks posed. Some suggested that the best solution may be to do nothing — creating several sets of standards might not be worth the cost and complication. Others recommended further research into the toxicity of different forms and of different fiber shapes within each mineral type.
• It was asked if there should be a more inclusive definition of hazardous durable fibers. Concerns were again raised about whether change would exacerbate rather than reduce confusion. This was countered by the comment that the durable fibers involved in the Libby situation were arguably not covered by existing official definitions of asbestos.

The following were the key discussion points during the focus group related to medical issues:

• Participants supported the idea that early recognition of illness is a problem that must continue to be addressed. A need was seen to be able to assess the disease both in individuals and in populations.
• It was noted that the medical community does not always know if they can achieve early detection of mesothelioma or asbestosis with Computerized Axial Tomography (CAT) scans. Needs were identified for determining if early detections can be achieved, if there are effective medical options such that early detection can benefit the workers, and if early detection leads to workplace interventions. Needs were also seen for conducting more epidemiological studies, and developing a better medical monitoring program, including clarification of mesothelioma in International Classification of Disease (ICD) codes. A clearinghouse for medical information was suggested, possibly a mesothelioma registry as exists in other countries.
• It was recommended that OSHA should require a licensed physician certified in occupational disability medicine to sign off on the workers’ physicals.

The following were the key issues discussed during the focus group related to naturally occurring and contaminant asbestos:

• Participants generally agreed that current regulations do not sufficiently address most of the asbestos in Libby, Montana. This was seen as a matter of definitions or semantics — comments indicated that the minerals present in Libby are closely related to regulated forms of asbestos (tremolite).
• It was stated that a range of unresolved issues exist with naturally occurring asbestos or asbestos as a contaminant in other mineral products. For example, it is not possible to manage 20% of the state of California because it has naturally occurring asbestos — another approach is needed. The question was raised if there were examples of the issue being successfully addressed. Some said that there is no mechanism to handle naturally occurring asbestos in large geographic areas; others noted that California has in fact addressed this, but some did not feel the solution in that case was a good model to replicate. The California approach needs further evaluation.
• Many participants agreed that asbestos in building materials should not be the sole focus of this process.
• It was noted that mineral industries such as the vermiculite industry often include many small companies. These companies are affected by the perception that their output contains asbestos, and are in the difficult and costly position of trying to prove a negative. Further, it was noted that the vermiculite industry would look for some level of certainty as to how agencies or legislation will ultimately require assessment and control of the presence of fibrous structures. Participants noted that there are six types of federally-regulated asbestos; beyond these, they noted, many other substances can be present in a mineral ore, and the level of risk from those other structures is not quantified. A need for more data on this was recognized, as the unknowns have a profound economic effect on the whole minerals industry.
• Participants asked if it would be possible and reasonable to expand the list of materials that are assumed to be non-asbestos-containing. A question exists regarding the cost of obtaining the evidence to support such an expansion and whether the reported problems created by the status quo justify those costs.
• It was stated that existing methods were developed for commercial asbestos products, and that agencies do not really have adequate methods to analyze naturally occurring asbestos. Naturally occurring asbestos was cited as being harder to manage, as it is in soils or large-scale areas. More information was seen as necessary to understand the hazards and what kind of response is indicated.
• Participants noted that secondary exposure (e.g., clothing taken home) and dust from uncontrolled demolitions remain other possible pathways for asbestos exposure.
• Participants were interested in the assertion that asbestos as a contaminant is not a problem because mining companies will avoid asbestos deposits. This was seen as positive if it signals a willingness to consciously and diligently avoid asbestos deposits.

The following were the key issues discussed during the focus group related to risk assessment:

• Participants suggested that risk is a factor not only of fiber type (whether it is classified as one of the six or another mineral) but also of fiber shape, size, and solubility.
• Some commented that the presence of asbestos cannot be eliminated and that it is necessary to identify some level of acceptable risk. Other participants questioned the feasibility of doing this.
• Other participants expressed the view that the risk of asbestos can be entirely eliminated, by substitution of new materials or completing the ban on asbestos.
• There was considerable discussion as to whether we should consider the actual exposure (based upon fiber count in the air) or the potential risk (based on the condition of the material and asbestos content of the material). This appears to be a fundamental question to be addressed.
• Participants suggested that if there is a potential for exposure, it is important to deal with this issue before it becomes an airborne measurable amount and presents an actual risk, but others noted that asbestos content within a material does not necessarily correspond to asbestos exposure.
• Participants noted that risk assessment presupposes that we have good data, and questioned if this is a valid assumption. To aid in the discussion, GETF asked if there are important uncertainties that should still be addressed.
• It was noted that background levels of asbestos exist, and Japanese studies were cited for more information. Therefore, there has to be an unreasonable risk level established in order for us to take action. It was noted that we cannot have an "everything is asbestos" definition, nor can we have a "one particle is too many" standard.
• Participants explained that risk assessment can be conducted in terms of health risk; or rate of exposure; or hazard assessment; or the rate of disease among exposed individuals.
• Some saw the public as generally unable to judge risk accurately, and advocated increased education about what the risk is in cases where there is potential asbestos exposure.
• The question was raised as to what should be said regarding risk when scientific certainty is lacking. In particular, the obligation of federal agencies was questioned. Participants noted that resolving this question should be considered a long-term goal, but that thinking about it should shape our decisions.
• Participants questioned the need for determining precise risk relationships. The opinion was expressed that if we had more accurate data and could determine exactly what level of exposure was associated with what risk, better decisions could be made related to risk management. Several participants, however, cautioned that given that people are still being exposed to asbestos, it is irrelevant to try to figure out exactly what the safe level is.
• One question raised that may require some discussion is "What mineralogical characteristics are associated with risk?"
• Some indicated that there may be merit in convening a neutral panel of scientific experts simply to review the state of the science on asbestos risk and identify priority issues for further analysis.

The following were the key issues discussed during the focus group related to various analytical techniques:

• There was considerable discussion over the proper analytical techniques to use — Phase Contrast Microscopy (PCM) and Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) will give different results in fiber counts.
• Participants generally accepted that the quality of the analysis varies from lab to lab, according to the skills of the analyst. [Clarification: With the Proficiency Analytical Testing Program and the Asbestos Analysts’ Registry this source of variation can be estimated for PCM; and the NIST National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) provides information regarding interlaboratory variability as well.]
• It was noted that different methods may be applied for examination of bulk materials versus examination of air samples.
• Participants noted that different federal agencies employ different fiber counting criteria.
• Participants suggested that agencies may want to require PLM point counting in some circumstances. Participants recommended examining where point counting is required and where it might be used. [Clarification: The EPA NESHAP regulations require point counting for materials where asbestos is detected at a level of less than ten percent. In practice, point counting is done for materials where asbestos is detected, but less than one percent. For most materials where asbestos is detected at greater than one percent, but less than ten percent, building owners accept the material as ACM and treat it accordingly.]

Appendix G: Nations with Existing or Pending Bans on Asbestos

1. Argentina (2001)
2. Australia (2003)
3. Austria (1990)
4. Belgium (1998)
5. Chile (2001)
6. Croatia (2005)
7. Czech Republic (prior to 2001)
8. Denmark (1986)
9. El Salvador (mid-1980’s)
10. European Union (Amphiboles banned; limited exceptions for chrysotile, but these do not include mastics, sealants, joint compounds, or mortars. Member states must implement this ban by 2005.)
11. Finland (1993)
12. France (1996)
13. Germany (1993)
14. Greece (2005)
15. Hungary (2005)
16. Iceland (1983)
17. Ireland (2000)
18. Italy (1992)
19. Latvia (2001)
20. Luxembourg (2002)
21. Netherlands (1991)
22. New Zealand (timeframe unknown)
23. Norway (1984)
24. Poland (1997)
25. Portugal (2005)
26. Saudi Arabia (1998)
27. Slovak Republic (2002)
28. Slovenia (prior to 2001)
29. Spain (2002)
30. Sweden (1986)
31. Switzerland (1989)
32. United Arab Emirates (1999-2000)
33. United Kingdom (1999)

Most of the above nations outlined exemptions for specific uses (such as defense-related applications). Some applied sunset provisions to these exemptions. Some countries have had earlier bans on amphiboles, and are now expanding the bans to include chrysotile. All European Union countries will ban asbestos by 2005.

Appendix H: Glossary

ACGIH — American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. ACGIH is a not-for-profit organization of industrial hygienists that publishes Threshold Limit Values for asbestos and other chemical and physical agents.

Actinolite — one of five forms of amphibole asbestos specifically named and regulated by the EPA and OSHA.

AHERA — Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of 1986. The stipulations and impact of this Act are discussed in Appendix B.

AIA — Asbestos Information Association. This group was founded in 1970 to represent the interests of the chrysotile asbestos industry in the U.S.

AIHA — American Industrial Hygiene Association. AIHA is the trade association of industrial hygienists. Members work to reduce exposure to hazards in workplaces.

Amosite — one of five forms of amphibole asbestos specifically names and regulated by the EPA and OSHA. It occurs in certain mining districts of southern Africa as the asbestiform variety of cummingtonite-grunerite.

Amphibole (asbestos) — one of the two categories of asbestos that includes the EPA and OSHA regulated forms of asbestos known as actinolite, amosite, anthophyllite, crocidolite, and tremolite. The other category of asbestos is the serpentine variety, known as chrysotile.

Anthophyllite — one of five forms of amphibole asbestos specifically named and regulated by the EPA and OSHA. Major deposits of anthophyllite are located in Finland. It was once commercially exploited from mines in northern Georgia in the United States.

Arc chute — a device used in some electrical switches to protect the switch from damage from electric arcs.

Asbestos — the asbestiform (fibrous) variety of serpentinite (chrysotile) and amphibole minerals. The EPA and OSHA currently regulate chrysotile and the asbestiform varieties of riebeckite (crocidolite), cummingtonite-grunerite (amosite), anthophyllite, and actinolite-tremolite.

Asbestiform — a term used to describe certain minerals that have grown in a fibrous habit.

Asbestos abatement — procedures to control fiber release from asbestos-containing materials or to remove it entirely. These procedures may involve removal, encapsulation, enclosure, encasement, repair, and operations and maintenance programs.

Asbestos-containing material (ACM) — any material that contains more than one percent asbestos.

Asbestos diaphragm — a device containing asbestos used in chlorine manufacturing to separate chloride from sodium in salt water to produce chlorine.

ASHAA — Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act of 1984.

ASHARA — Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Reauthorization Act of 1990.

ASTM — American Society of Testing and Materials. Founded in 1898, ASTM International is a not-for-profit organization that provides a global forum for the development and publication of voluntary consensus standards for materials, products, systems, and services.

Asbestosis — A disease caused by inhalation exposure to asbestos resulting in scarring of the lung tissue.

ATSDR — Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, part of the Centers for Disease Control within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Blue Book — a guidance document issued by the EPA in 1983 titled, Guidance for Controlling Friable Asbestos-Containing Materials in Buildings, EPA publication no. 560/5-83-002, having a blue cover.

BOMA — Building Owners and Managers Association. BOMA represents the owners and managers of nine billion square feet of North American office space.

CDC — Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Chrysotile — the serpentine form of asbestos.

CPSC — U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, an independent federal agency.

Crocidolite — one of five forms of amphibole asbestos specifically named and regulated by the EPA and OSHA.

DOT — U.S. Department of Transportation.

EIA — Environmental Information Association. EIA is a non-profit group specializing in the dissemination of information about the abatement of asbestos and lead-based paint, indoor air quality, safety and health issues, analytical issues, and environmental site assessments.

EPA — U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Established in 1970, this federal agency has a mandate to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment.

FDA — Food and Drug Administration, a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Focus group — research involving organized discussion with a selected group of individuals, having a common interest, to gain information about their views and experiences of a topic, such as asbestos.

Friable — a material which when dry may be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure.

Friction products — a group of products that use friction to increase or decrease the speed of a moving part. Common friction products are brakes and clutches.

Gasket — a material used to form a seal between two immovable parts. Sheet gaskets are commonly used on pipe flanges. Rope gaskets are commonly used on oven doors.

GETF — Global Environment and Technology Foundation. GETF is a 503(c) (3) not-for-profit organization that brings together industry, government and communities to address environmental challenges with innovative solutions.

Green Book — a guidance document issued by the EPA in 1990 titled, Managing Asbestos in Place: A Building Owner’s Guide to Operations and Maintenance Programs for Asbestos-Containing Materials, EPA publication no. 20T-2003, having a green cover.

HEI-AR — Health Effects Institute — Asbestos Research. HEI-AR was an independent, nonprofit organization formed in 1990 to compile and disseminate reliable and objective information pertaining to the health effects of asbestos. The group completed its research in 1994.

MAC — maximum acceptable concentration.

MAP — Model Accreditation Plan; training and testing requirements for persons that inspect, develop management plans, conduct, supervise, and design asbestos response actions found at Appendix C to the EPA AHERA regulations.

Mesothelioma (malignant) — a cancer of the mesothelium, a thin lining covering the major organs of the body. If it originates in the chest cavity, it is called pleural malignant mesothelioma. In the abdominal cavity it is known as peritoneal malignant mesothelioma.

MSDS — Material Safety Data Sheet. These documents provide information on the properties, storage, and handling requirements of chemicals. MSDS also detail the human health effects of hazardous chemicals.

MSHA — Mine Safety and Health Administration. An agency within the U.S. Department of Labor, MSHA oversees workplace safety within the mining industry.

NAS — National Academy of Sciences. Established in 1863, the National Academy of Science is a private non-profit institution that advises Congress on scientific issues.

NCSL — National Conference of State Legislatures.

NESHAP — National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants; the EPA asbestos NESHAP is found at 40 CFR, Subpart M. The stipulations and impact of NESHAP requirements are discussed briefly in Appendix B.

NIBS — National Institute of Building Sciences. Established in 1974, NIBS is a non-profit, non-governmental organization. It focuses on bringing together the public and private sectors to address issues related to the development of safe, affordable buildings.

NIOSH — National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. NIOSH is a division of the Centers for Disease Control, within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

NIST — National Institute for Standards and Technology. NIST is an agency of the Technology Administration within the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Nonfriable — a material which when dry may not be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure.

O&M program — operations and maintenance program. An O&M program is a set of procedures designed to reduce asbestos exposure to building workers and occupants in buildings with asbestos-containing materials.

Orange Book — a guidance document issued by the EPA in two parts in 1979 titled, Asbestos-Containing Materials in School Buildings: A Guidance Document, having an orange cover.

OSHA — Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Established in 1970 as a division of the U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA has a mandate to ensure workplace safety for over 100 million American workers.

PACM — presumed asbestos-containing material; in the OSHA asbestos standards it means thermal system insulation and surfacing material found in buildings constructed not later than 1980

PCM — phase-contrast microscopy; a type of microscopy that uses special illumination to enhance the ability to see fibers. It is a common method to count fibers collected on filter from the air.

Peak exposures — high intensity exposures to a substance, such as asbestos, that occur for brief periods.

PEL — permissible exposure limit.

PLM — polarized light microscopy; a type of microscopy often used to identify asbestos in a material.

Prevalent level — the typical concentration of a substance found in the air, water, soil, or other medium, although the concentration may be higher or lower than this level for brief periods of time.

Purple book — a guidance document issued by the EPA in 1985 titled, Guidance for Controlling Asbestos-Containing Materials in Buildings, EPA publication no. 560/5-85-024, having a purple cover.

RACM — regulated asbestos-containing material.

Response action — a method, including removal, encapsulation, enclosure, encasement, repair, and operations and maintenance activities that are designed to reduce asbestos exposure to building workers and occupants.

Richterite — a mineral having an asbestiform variety not listed specifically by EPA or OSHA as "asbestos."

SEM — scanning electron microscopy.

Serpentine — One of the two categories of asbestos. Chrysotile is the only recognized form of serpentine asbestos. The other category is amphibole asbestos.

Stakeholder — an individual or organization having a specific interest in a topic or issue.

TEM — transmission electron microscopy.

Thermal system insulation — material applied to pipes, fittings, boilers, breeching, tanks, ducts, or other facility components to prevent heat loss or gain, or water condensation, or for other purposes.

TLV — Threshold Limit Value.

TSCA — Toxic Substances Control Act. Enacted in 1976, this Act gives EPA the ability to track the 75,000 industrial chemicals currently produced or imported into the United States, including asbestos.

TSI — thermal system insulation.

USGS — United States Geological Survey. A bureau of the U.S. Department of the Interior, USGS provides geological information to the government and the public. USGS compiles statistics on the use of minerals, including asbestos, in commerce and industry.

Vermiculite — a magnesium silicate mineral (mica) occurring naturally in sheets that has been heated or chemically treated to expand to many times its original size.