y
Communicating About Risk:
EPA and Asbestos in Schools
s:
rv
Dmi Jopy for External Review
Reviewers are asked to please provide comments
No Later Than
15 September 1991
For Incorporation into Final Report
CM
o
Please Direct Questions Regarding this Draft
to Peggy Knight (202) 382-4454
or Chris Rice (202) 382-5986
HEADQUARTERS LIBRARY
. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
-------
Communicating About Risk:
EPA and Asbestos in Schools
* EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A A Look at the Problem •
1) Introduction . Page 2
2) Communications Review Page 3
3) What Did We Need to Know? Page 6
& EPA's Asbestos Communications History Page 7
1) 1970 - 1985 Page 9
2) 1985 - 1988 Page 11
3) 1988 - Present Page 14
C Findings and Recommendations
•* *
1) Findings ., Page 24
2) Recommendations' Page 34
E APPENDIX 1 (Outreach); Page 41
t.
EL APPENDIX 2 (Content Analysis): Page 48
ttf. APFENiJix. 3 (Survey & Interviews): Page 101
-, . * ' * •.-
V. APPENDIX 4 (Background Information); Page no
1) EPA's Main Asbestos Messages Today
2) Asbestos and Its Uses
3) Asbestos: Science and Controversy • .--.-"
4) .Legislative History ' .
., ~ 5) EPA's Regulatory and Enforcement History
"6) EPA's Asbestos-in-Schools Requirements . .
7) AHERA Outreach and Communications to Schools
• ".8) EPA's 1988 Report to Congress'
9) . Major Contributors to this Report
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
15 September 91
-------
Introduction
few environmental issues have been the subject of such divided
opinions, have such an unmistakable potential for health effects, or
have so much at economic stake as asbestos. Regarded as a miracle
fiber for centuries, asbestos is found in many consumer products.
particularly as an insulator and fire retardant in public and
commercial buildings. It became a liability, however, when public
attention was drawn In the 1960s to scientific studies that linked
exposure to high levels of asbestos fibers to several serious.
sometimes fatal diseases.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency became involved with
asbestos in the Agency's earliest days in 1970. Under the Clean Air
Act of 1970. EPA designated asbestos as a cancer-causing substance
and developed regulations to protect the public from exposure to
asbestos fibers during the milling and manufacturing of asbestos
products and when buildings containing asbestos are demolished
or renovated. Other regulatory programs, largely under the Toxic
Substances Control Act and the Asbestos Hazard Emergency
Response Act. have kept EPA closely involved with protecting
public health from exposure to asbestos. Most recently. EPA
completed a decade-long rulemaking in 1989, banning the future
production of most asbestos products used in America today.
Asbestos in schools has been a subject of particular concern. Tens
of thousands of schools have been built since the mid-1940s when
asbestos use became popular, and most contained insulation and
other asbestos-containing products to protect student safety in
case of fires. As information about harmful effects became available
in later years, schools were high on the list of concern by Congress
and EPA. Of greatest concern was the potential for exposure of
school children to fibers released in the air, often during
maintenance and custodial activities, or sometimes due to damage
caused by school children themselves. Early surveys showed
crumbling, friable asbestos found in some classrooms, hallways,
gymnasiums and cafeterias.
This paper is a review of the role that EPA communications
policies and information have played in asbestos-management
decisions made by school .administrators and local education
agencies. EPA Administrator William K. Reilly commissioned the
review after becoming concerned that school officials may have
misunderstood the Agency's asbestos requirements and messages.
Communicating about environmental risk is often a complex task.
Communicating about hazards where there are divided opinions on
the extent of risk and the effectiveness and costs associated with
control make it even more difficult.
Asbestos Is a case in point. The hazards associated with asbestos.
as with many environmental risks, come from exposure to the
substance. If exposure is minimal, then the risk is minimal. When
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due IS September 91
-------
the substance is found almost everywhere-in thousands, if not
millions of locations-then the evaluation of exposure becomes
quite complex. The message is made more complex when the
various alternatives proposed to minimize exposure—removal,
enclosure, or encapsulation, management-in-place—are factored in.
Finally, add into the equation the costs of control--the asbestos
abatement industry is a $4 billion per year business. Who bears the
burden of paying these costs— businesses, industry, consumers.
taxpayers?
Such issues are at the heart of the asbestos problem—along with
improved science, public relations campaigns by building owners
and the asbestos Industry, and lawsuits from parties seeking
damages that may exceed $100 billion. It is In this highly-charged
atmosphere that EPA has had to communicate with a fearful public
about asbestos.
A major focal-point of asbestos legislative and regulatory concern
has been asbestos in schools. EPA's communications effort about
asbestos, then, has focused, especially since the mid-1980s, on the
nation's school officials, teachers and other employees, and
parents.
Communications
Review
L
In the summer of 1990. meetings with school officials, interactions
with Congressional representatives, and a series of press reports
led EPA Administrator William Reilly to be concerned that many
school officials might have misunderstood EPA's asbestos
requirements.
In particular, he worried that: (I) many schools might be spending
large sums of money removing asbestos which could be safely
managed in place: and (2) school officials engaged In these
"unnecessary" removal actions thought removal was an EPA
requirement.
To get to the bottom of the Issue, the Administrator asked for a
comprehensive internal review of communications in the
asbestos-in-schools program. He wanted to know whether schools
were making "informed" decisions about asbestos management, and
whether there was a need to make EPA communications in the
asbestos-in-school program clearer and more consistent.
What was necessary to find out, then, was a correct understanding
of what the public thinks the Agency has been saying, how possible
mlsperceptions about our messages may have been created, how
EPA might have contributed to any of these misperceptlons and
what steps could be taken to clarify our messages. An obvious
additional benefit of this study is to take what we learned In
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
communicating about a subject as complex and contentious as
asbestos, and transfer our recommendations to Improve EPA
communications in other areas.
The review began in July. 1990 and was chaired by Lewis
Crampton. EPA's Associate Administrator for Communications and
Public Affairs. The Asbestos Communications Review Team
included staff members from EPA's Offices of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation: Toxic Substances; and Communications and Public .
Affairs. Most of the members had extensive experience in
communications: some were experienced in policy and program
evaluation: and several had specific experience in risk
communication as well.
It was decided that several approaches would be used to examine
various EPA messages to school officials and local education
agencies, what these audiences had to say about EPA's asbestos
policies, and how important a role EPA information played in
schools' asbestos management decisions. From these approaches
we sought to establish the basis for any misunderstanding about the
Agency's asbestos messages.
Content Analysis. First, we wished to examine EPA's messages over
time. The best approach was to analyze what the Agency has had to
say about its policies-from notices-in the Federal Register.
testimony before Congressional committees, speeches of EPA
officials, press releases, training forums with interested parties,
and brochures, booklets and other guidance and informational
documents. The content analysis covered from 1970 to May 1991
and focused on asbestos in schools, particularly at how EPA
presented the asbestos danger and how the Agency communicated
the need for asbestos controls in schools. The analysis also dealt
specifically with parental and community reaction to the asbestos
issue as it examined what EPA said, or didn't say. and how the
messages evolved over time, especially as legislation changed.
To a lesser extent, the content analysis also examined how some
concerned organizations and their publications reflected the EPA
messages-whether they supported it, opposed it. or even distorted
it. And it examined how EPA dealt with negative reactions to the
Agency's views of the asbestos problem. The examination also
included several accounts of how reporters and others have
perceived EPA's messages, as recounted in newspaper and
magazine articles and editorial comment.
Outreach. A second approach was the outreach effort to dozens of
organizations with constituencies affected by EPA's asbestos
programs. Meetings were held to discuss asbestos communications
with organizations that represented public, religious and private
schools, business, insurers, and labor Interests. Some
organizations chose to provide opinions on asbestos communication
via phone conversations rather than in meetings.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
Organizations were requested to participate in the outreach activity
by invitation letters that included a series of asbestos
communications questions. Documents were given to review group
staff members by organizations' representatives during or
subsequent to the meetings In which they participated. Some
individuals declined to participate in discussions due to their
organizations' having minimal, if any. involvement in the
asbestos-in-schools program.
Survey and Interviews. A third approach used a specially-designed
survey and telephone interviews to focus on how local education
agencies made decisions about asbestos. The decision process was
examined and mapped, dominant information sources were
identified, and other factors influencing decisions were analyzed.
Of particular importance to program management, the relative
importance of information from EPA in these decisions was
explored. A better understanding of the major factors influencing
school decisions about asbestos management options assisted the
communications review group to determine whether our current
communication strategy is targeting the appropriate groups.
In addition, an examination of the primary messages local
education agencies have been receiving over time from major
Information sources. Including but not entirely limited to EPA.
helped the review group determine if changes were needed in the
current messages to deal with counter-balancing information from
other sources and to address Inconsistencies, either across sources
or In EPA messages over time.
The findings in the Interview/survey approach were based on
several sources. First, the staff conducted In-depth Interviews with
10 State AHERA (Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of
1986) deslgnees, three EPA regional asbestos coordinators, and
EPA headquarters staff. Next, they conducted a telephone survey of
40 Local Education Agencies (LEAs) regarding the factors behind
their choice of asbestos response actions. Lastly, they analyzed two
reports prepared for EPA by outside contractors: a survey of seven
states' implementation of AHERA. and a study which examined case
studies of four LEAs during the pre-AHERA period.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments :
Due 15 September 91
-------
What Bid
We Need
to Know?
In order to respond to Administrator Reilly's charge to examine
whether schools were making Informed decisions about asbestos
management and whether there was a need to make EPA
communications clearer and more consistent, the task force
concluded that it must seek to understand the role EPA
information played in decision-making about managing asbestos
risks. Several questions arose which could lead the review to the
information it sought. The questions were organized according to
various components of the often-used communications model of
source, message. Channel and receptor-
With regard to source, the communications review asked:
o What sources of messages about asbestos were local
education agencies exposed to?
o Were the objectives and biases of those sources compatible
with each other?
In looking at the actual messages transmitted by that source
sources, several questions are pertinent:
or
o
o
What have been EPA's messages about asbestos?
Were they clear and unambiguous? If EPA had several
messages, were they compatible and consistent?
o Have the EPA messages been timely?
In examining the channels or medium of communication used by
EPA. the questions were:
o How were EPA messages transmitted to audiences?
o Were the channels effective In reaching intended audiences?
Lastly the questions related to the receiver or audiences. These
questions sought to understand how EPA Information about
asbestos assisted or hindered local education agencies In making
asbestos management decisions:
o What were the major factors influencing school decisions
about asbestos management options; How much did these
factors vary and in what ways?
o Who was responsible for making decisions about school
asbestos management options?
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
. Due 15 September 91
-------
o • What was the decision process they followed and what
characteristics might account for significant differences in
this process?
o What information sources did the audiences trust the most?
o Did audiences perceive EPA as a credible information source
on asbestos?
o What effect did information from other sources (the media,
interest groups) have on communication and interaction
among the parties?
These questions, then, formed the backbone for the three
approaches used to examine the Agency's messages and the
audience's reaction and reliance on those messages, especially with
regard to appropriate asbestos abatement options.
EPA'S
Asbestos
Communications
History
It is helpful to understand the dynamics among the major elements
that contribute to EPA's communications about asbestos risks and
managing those risks, especially as they relate to schools. The
primary contributors to this dynamic, which follows a definite
time-line, are:
(1) the increased Congressional concern reflected in new
legislation;
?
(2) changing scientific evidence on asbestos and the amount
of risk it presents: and
(3). an improving technical knowledge about such things as
asbestos levels in buildings and the most effective ways of
* measuring, controlling, and abating asbestos.
While the primary focus of our communications review is an
examination of the asbestos-in-schools Issue, it is Important to
understand how these messages were received in the broader
context of all communications about asbestos. The Agency's
messages about asbestos in schools have not been transmitted in a
vacuum. The reality has been that different legislative
requirements and different EPA offices have sent messages about
asbestos that appear similar but may have contained varying shades
of requirements or guidance that have created some confusion or
uncertainty in audiences aboi.it gxactlv what EPA's policy is QT what
guidance It offers in a particular situation. Compounding that
great^are the diverse messages about asbestos from various
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91 .
-------
8
organizations and businesses promoting tfoeir own informatifm
about asbestos hazards or safety. The ^wrsitv of these
created the potential for huge misunderstandings at the
where fficials were bein forced to make significant fin
level
financial
decisions within a context of conflict and doubt about eventual
outcomes.
EPA has been communicating about asbestos for some 20 years. Its
messages have always shifted to reflect the evolving nature of our
understanding about the substance and how to prevent unnecessary
exposure to it. The easiest way to view the Agency's changing
emphasis in communicating about asbestos is to divide the
messages into the following three periods-corresponding to
changing legislative requirements:
1970-1985:
1985-1988:
1988-Present
Raising Awareness About Hazards
Implementing AHERA
Placing Options Into Perspective
While these periods are distinct for this analysis, it must be
remembered that the messages did not undergo abrupt changes.
In fact, the messages are often overlapping and do not necessarily
conform directly to the legislative requirements. Often the
distinctions among the messages are subtle and understated.
It is certainly easier, also, to examine messages in retrospect. An
Important thing to remember is the evolving nature of asbestos
knowledge-all parties were constantly learning and having to react
to new information and requirements. Research efforts constantly
bring new facts—about monitoring, about levels of exposure, about
the best ways to handle the problem. Asbestos and our ability to
communicate about it are not static—they are constantly bringing
new information to those interested in the material, whether from
business or industry, worker safety, school administrator or public
health official perspective.
Hie content analysis, the survey of local education agencies and the
outreach efforts all assisted In confirming the evolutionary nature of
the main messages. It must be remembered, too. that specific
messages from certain offices--for instance, the exposure hazard
message from the NESHAP office-changed little, if at all. over the
entire 20-year period. But. without doubt, the factor that
influenced EPA's evolving message the most was the perception in
Congress that asbestos in schools was a full-blown environmental
emergency. EPA's messages became a part of the intense interplay
between conflicting scientific claims about asbestos and a clear
political mandate to do something about what Congress perceived
to be a national emergency.
Table 1 follows this discussion and lists the EPA asbestos messages
by source and period, as determined by the content analysis of 1
EXTERNAL Review DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
•Due 15 September 91
-------
9
pertinent legislation, regulations and guidance documents.
The First Period:
Raising Awareness
About Hazards
(1970-1985)
The first phase, from early NESHAP rules of the Clean Air Act.
through the early years of regulating asbestos under the Toxic
Substances Control Act. and up to the debate leading to passage of
AHERA. was a period where EPA primarily attempted to raise the
public's consciousness about asbestos hazards. This raising of
awareness was directed to state health and environmental
agencies, building owners and operators, and particularly local
education agencies.
In addition, a secondary message was that dealing with the asbestos
problem was not to be seen as a federal bail-out program where the,
federal government would pay the costs of eliminating asbestos
hazards. In this vein, much communication was directed to the
building of capability at the state level to provide a training and
certification capability.
The 1971 Clean Air Act listing of asbestos as a hazardous air
pollutant and the ensuing 1973 rules sent a clear message that
airborne asbestos fibers, if not controlled, could be a major risk to
the general public. It established a "bottom line" approach to
managing asbestos risks, since building owners realized that all
friable asbestos materials must eventually be removed when a
demolition or major renovation takes place. In fact, many building
owners may have voluntarily removed asbestos materials following
the 1973 rules In order to avoid possible long-term management or
liability problems. Listing asbestos as a hazardous air pollutant
clearly encouraged a "removal is Inevitable" mindset among some
building owners and school officials, and may have contributed to a
mutated EPA message that removal is required, or at least desired,
in ajl circumstances, not Just during demolition and renovation
cases.
.Throughout the 1970s. EPA vigorously publicized enforcement
cases of NESHAP violations, due in part to a belief by federal and
state officials that compliance with the demolition and renovation
rules was Inadequate. Enforcement cases proposing large fines.
prosecutions, jail terms or loss-of-standlng on federal contract lists
were often the subject of Agency press releases and press
conferences designed to raise the visibility of NESHAP regulations
and discourage future violations. :
EPA's 1982 Schools Inspection & Notification regulation was
intended to Increase health protection by requiring identification
of friable asbestos. This was expected to lead to voluntary safe
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
. Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91 ; -
-------
10
m
working practices when dealing with these materials. Additionally*^
notification of building occupants and parents was meant to
increase pressure on local education agencies to manage asbestos
safely.
The results of this 1982 rulemaklng were mixed. Compliance with
the rule was very low. At best. If one disregards the mandated
deadline for compliance and the notification requirement, it was
estimated that fewer than 50 percent of the local education
agencies complied with most aspects of the regulation. To make
matters even worse, upon investigation by EPA, many inspections
that were performed were done poorly by people with little or no
training.
Moreover. EPA probably contributed to a perception that removal
of asbestos was the Agency's policy when penalties for violations of
the Inspection and Notification rule were often eliminated if
violating school officials would agree to remove the asbestos.
Whatever the shortcomings of the Inspection and Notification rule.
it had a significant communications impact. The perceived threat
to school children appears to have Increased public awareness of
asbestos hazards. EPA's 1982 rule brought the asbestos problem
home to millions of parents and school officials.
Two years later. EPA and asbestos were again brought to the
attention of school administrators by Congressional passage of the
Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act's loans and grants program.
which directed the Agency to provide financial assistance to needy
schools with the worst asbestos hazards. To school administrators
and the public, the ASHAA legislation and the loans and grants
could have been interpreted as an EPA funding program for general
asbestos removal since most of the serious problems were best
resolved by removal.
The primary guidance documents during this period. Asbestos-
Q»r|taining Materials in School Buildings (Orange Book) and
Qujdance for Controlling Friable Asbestos-Containing Materials
(Blue Book), focused mainly on hazards and health effects as well as
basic practices and procedures In an attempt to make people aware
of the potential threat to human health posed by asbestos. The
building of a state infrastructure of qualified asbestos inspectors
and abatement personnel signalled schools and others that the
federal government did not intend to pay the bill to solve the
asbestos problem in the United States.
The content analysis and anecdotal information collected through
the outreach effort lead to the conclusion that EPA emphasized
removal as the primary means of controlling asbestos risk.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due IS September 91
-------
11
Hie Second Period:
Implementing AHERA
(1985-1988)
This second phase, from the publication of the definitive guidance
on asbestos in buildings—Guidance for Controlling Asbestos-
Containing Materials in Buildings (Purple BookJ-through the
passage of AHERA and all of EPA's efforts to implement that law,
was a period of intense communications activity resulting in four
primary messages—all revolving around the new Congressional
requirements that schools must inspect for asbestos, notify parents
and occupants, develop management plans and put those plans into
effect.
These messages built upon the earlier phase and expanded their
scope to deal with the new AHERA requirements. Issuance of the
Purple Book in 1985 was a major point of departure in the
transition to more balanced treatment of the removal/management-
in-place alternatives. For the first time, given new knowledge. EPA
offered a new element In the asbestos message-improper removals
may be an even greater hazard than if undamaged asbestos were left
alone.
While many readers may have missed the new element, some did
not. A reporter for The Washington Times, called the change in
EPA's position a "major shift in policy." In a lengthy article
appearing on August 1. 1985. the day the Purple Book was
released, the reporter quoted an EPA official as saying that "If
[building owners] have {asbestos] and it is in good condition, they
should leave it alone and watch it for signs of deterioration."
Several activities contributed to this new emphasis in the Agency's
. asbestos message that would become larger in the future. First.
Agency studies, including a major study of school abatement, began
to suggest that removal did not always or permanently clean fibers
from a building., and. in fact, could elevate asbestos levels if
improperly done. . ' .
Second, hew asbestos detection technology allowed researchers to
better identify asbestos levels in buildings. EPA developed a new
protocol as part of the AHERA program for the use of transmission
electron microscopy. For the first time, asbestos was reliably
identified and measured outside a manufacturing setting.
Third, a 1986 EPA air monitoring study found that prevailing levels
in buildings, governed by in-place management, programs, were
very low, in fact, comparable to those levels found outside the
buildings. This suggested that in-place management might be as
. effective; indeed, perhaps even more effective, in limiting exposure
to building occupants than some removals.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due IS September 91
-------
12
Next, asbestos scientists, control professionals and public health
officials increasingly began to recognize and accept in-place
management as an acceptable substitute for large-scale removals.
based in part on EPA's research. Improvements were also being
made in in-place management technologies.
Finally, anecdotal information began to grow, from the new ASHAA
loan and grant program and from other sources, such as
educational publications, suggesting that unnecessary removals
might be on the rise. EPA became increasingly interested in
making school officials and building owners understand that in-
place management was often a sound approach.
While this new emphasis was not immediately and universally
heralded as a major change in the Agency's asbestos policy, the
modification in the message signalled the beginning of an
awareness on the part of EPA that removals of asbestos in good
condition may be taking.place. Too often, building officials have
"panicked and rushed into" an asbestos-removal program that has
caused more contamination than leaving the asbestos alone, an EPA
official was quoted as saying in 1985. Increasing awareness would
eventually lead the Agency to a message years later that asbestos
management-in-place may often be the best abatement option. In
short, the Agency was responding appropriately to new information
learned in the laboratory and in the field.
But this gradual shift in program emphasis ran counter to
developments that were occuring back on Capitol Hill. In
Congress, sentiment ran high in late 1985 and 1986 for additional
federal action on the problem of asbestos in schools. Congressional
language alone played a large part In having the asbestos problem
viewed as a public health crisis. The terms "hazard" and
"emergency" together in the title of AHERA were a clear message
to many audiences-including local school officials and
parent/teacher organizations as to how Congress viewed the nature
of the asbestos-in-schools risk. There were other factors as
well—especially for local education agencies. Incredibly difficult
timetables for EPA to set the new rules, and for local education
agencies to hire contractors or train people to conduct
inspections, prepare and review management plans, and then
implement those plans, sent a powerful message that school
officials must place this activity among their highest priorities and
Increased pressures for action throughout the system.
Almost every interview and outreach conversation we conducted
with local education agencies and associations representing their
interests and those of teachers, maintenance and custodial
workers, felt that the compressed deadlines for implementing
AHERA requirements put immense pressure on school officials to
act quickly and decisively. And. in many cases, the simplest and
cleanest action that could be taken was removal. For a number of
reasons, asbestos removal made sense to some local decision
makers, notwithstanding its high initial costs.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
13
Compounding this situation was the fact that the guidance EPA
Issued was often perceived as not lending itself to the type of
decisions school administrators desired. They often looked to EPA
to tell them simply to remove asbestos or leave it in place. EPA's
guidance, originating from school officials themselves and asbestos
experts, was less definitive. It was predicated on qualitative factors
applied on a case-by-case basis by local decisionmakers. There
were some situations which readily called for removal, for example.
because the condition of the asbestos and potential for significant
exposure warranted it. and there were other cases where the
asbestos was in perfectly good condition and presented only a small
opportunity for exposure. The vast majority of school asbestos
decisions, however, may have fallen into a more nebulous middle
ground where more discretion was exercised by an 6n-the-scene
expert, trained and accredited to identify asbestos conditions and
abatement procedures. This lack of certainty and definitive
direction appears to have frustrated many school administrators
about EPA's advisory role.
Because of the AHERA requirement for accredited persons and the
complex. Judgmental nature of the asbestos-assessment process.
which did not lend itself to a simple EPA directive, one of the
Agency's primary messages during this period, then, was that only
accredited experts could make proper and informed Judgments
about asbestos inspection and management activities, since they
best understood the hazards and appropriate control techniques.
There were several reasons for this. First. EPA's experience under
the 1982 Inspections rule showed that many of the inspections
were poorly conducted by inadequately trained personnel. An
accreditation and certification program at the state level would
correct this problem by building credibility Into the inspections
and recommendations, right up front. Second. Congress, through
AHERA. designated that any requirement to inspect, develop
management plans, or abate asbestos hazards must be completed by
accredited people. Finally, the school officials, technical experts.
and others serving on EPA's regulatory negotiation determined that
general standards were not appropriate for such a site-by-site
hazard. On-site assessment would best lead to the ultimate
objective of minimizing exposure to asbestos. :
The second period, then. Is best characterized by the AHERA "rush
to Judgment" which forced difficult, costly decisions to be made in
the context of emergencies and hazards. While EPA attempted to
keep the asbestos-management options open in its written and oral
communications with LEAs. the focus was not on removal vs.
management-in-place, but on the stringent AHERA requirements
and such issues as the. necessity for accredited inspectors and
contractors. ' t . -
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
14
The Third Period:
Placing Options
Into Perspective
(1988-Present)
This third phase, from EPA's 1988 Report to Congress on Public
and Commercial Buildings. through the recent scientific debates
over fiber types and sizes, up to the issuance of the "Five Facts on
Asbestos in Buildings." has been a period of further examination.
consolidation and balancing in order that school officials see the
full array of options for managing asbestos risks.
In 1987 and early 1988. there was pressure, reminiscent of that
. during passage of AHERA, behind EPA and Congress to make
decisions about whether an AHERA-like law should be passed for
the other 700.000 public and commercial buildings in which EPA
estimated asbestos is present.
While feeling this pressure. EPA was also hearing and seeing other
factors. First, there were more complaints about the inordinate
costs for asbestos removal and the impact of these removals on
school budgets and insurance and bonds issues. There was also the
growing body of information obtained by the asbestos research
effort, discussed above, that asbestos air levels in public and
commercial buildings appeared to be very low.
The 1988 Report to Congress had the effect of halting
Congressional movement toward passage of AHERA-type legislation
for public and commercial buildings. It created a "cooling-ofT
period before additional legislative and regulatory action proceeded
to deal with asbestos and risks. And it highlighted the fact that
EPA was emphasizing its position that management of
asbestos-in-place. from a public health perspective, could be
preferable to removal.
Unfortunately, the 1988 Report to Congress received very little
publicity In the popular press, and much of its impact may have
been lost on the public. Another asbestos-related activity was
taking place and receiving the publicity-extending the AHERA
deadlines. It had become quite clear that some local education
agencies were having severe problems meeting the original
inspection, management plan and implementation deadlines.
EPA's primary actions during this period probably gave off mixed
messages to the public. First, the Agency's request for additional
time to examine the extent of the asbestos problem in other public
and commercial buildings was seen by some as an Agency retreat
from its public health position. Second, the publication of two
scientific articles In 1989 and 1990 may have begun casting doubt
in the public mind about the hazards of asbestos and the perceived
appropriateness of EPA's asbestos policies. Certainly these articles
touched off a roaring controversy in scientific and legal circles
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 13 September 91
-------
15
about asbestos health effects, and this debate spilled over into the
asbestos-in-schools program.
In addition. EPA completed in July 1989. a decade-long
rulemaklng within the Office of Toxic Substances and declared a
ban on almost all future uses of asbestos in American commerce.
Though the ban and phase-out was taken largely as a
pollution-prevention measure since safe alternatives existed, most
people would naturally see the ban as reinforcing EPA's
long-standing message that asbestos was hazardous.
Then, shortly .after the ban and phase-out announcement, the
Agency held a press conference to announce a new enforcement
Initiative against several major school boards and asbestos
contractors for violating the NESHAP demolition and renovation
rules. This too. could be seen by some as running counter to an
attempt by EPA's asbestos-ln-schools program to increase visibility
for managing asbestos-in-place when in good condition, rather than
removing It. It offered a concrete example of an agency delivering
mixed messages on the same pollutant at virtually the same time.
While EPA did not change its position about the hazards of
asbestos, it certainly increased its emphasis on in-place
management as the preferred alternative, as demonstrated by the
1990 publication of Managing Asbestos in Place (Green Book) and
the release of the "Five Facts" testimony and open letter. The
Agency's position about the hazards of asbestos, based on the
current state of scientific knowledge about various asbestos-related
diseases and causes has remained consistent, and Is shared by all
federal agencies and the National Academy of Science. EPA has.
however, continued to move to clarify the asbestos management
options available to school administrators by emphasizing that
identifying and managing asbestos-in-place may be preferable and
safer than removing asbestos in good condition.
Schools, finally, may have been less confused about AHERA ;
requirements and EPA's policy guidance than anecdotal
information suggests. One of the findings of the review describes
the information obtained from the recently completed formal
review of the AHERA program. Statistically valid surveys suggest
that the large majority of AHERA response actions taken by schools
were consistent with the Agency's management-in-place
philosophy. This is true. too. of actions now scheduled in
management plans.
The evaluation found that schools identified about 70 percent of
the Individual suspect asbestos materials covered by the evaluation
(representing about 87 percent of the total quantity of material)
and that most of the response actions (85 percent) taken to date by
schools Involve managing asbestos in place.
The evaluation also showed that implementation of important
elements of the AHERA program needed to be improved. For
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT .
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91 .
-------
16
example, about 17 percent of the inspections were classified as
deficient in identifying, assessing, or quantifying all the suspect
asbestos. An additional 21 percent were judged as having serious
deficiencies. Further, many school maintenance and custodial
workers were not receiving proper training to prevent them from
becoming engaged in unprotected and inappropriate work
practices regarding asbestos.
The third period, leading to the present day. illustrates how easily
messages can interfere with one another in an area as complex as
asbestos risk management. The asbestos-in-schools program took
forceful efforts to place asbestos management options into
perspective—finally emphasizing management-in-place as the
preferred option in most Instances.
The evolving emphasis in EPA's messages to local officials are best
illustrated in the following table:
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 13 September 91
-------
Table l
As
anrf
Pocy
17
Tear/ Pari^i
1971
1973
Source
EPA
promulgates
listing under
Section 112
(National
Emission
Standard for
Hazardous Air
Pollutants
(NESHAP) of
the Clean Air Act
EPA
promulgates
NESHAP-
Asbestos rules
under Section
112 of the
Clean Air Act
Message
* Asbestos is a hazardous air
pollutant.
h Is a threat to
health, a carcinogen.
' Asbestos must be removed
f 5V° buUdin« renovations
and demolitions.
• Visible emissions during
building renovations and
demolitions are banned.
• EPA must be notified of
building renovations and
demolitions.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
IS
1979
1982
1983
EPA Issues
Asbestos-
Containing
Materials
-------
19
1984
Congress enacts
Asbestos School
Hazard
Abatement Act,
P.L. 98-377
(ASHAA)
1985
EPA issues
Guidance for
Controlling
Asbestos-
Containing
Materials in
Buildings
(Purple Book)
under Toxic
Substances
Control Act
* Grants and loans are available
to "needy" schools for asbestos
abatement, strengthening
message about asbestos dangers.
• Because the law gave priority
to funding for most dangerous
situations. ASHAA funding from
EPA has gone largely to
removals.
* An Indirect message may
favor asbestos removal.
• New risk message points out
that presence of asbestos in
building does not necessarily
endanger occupants if asbestos
is in good condition and not
disturbed.
* Prudent building owners
should limit the exposure of
occupants, though this is not
required.
* Asbestos levels in schools
appear higher than in other
buildings.
* School children are at
greater risk because of greater
Hfespan.
* Management-in-place is dealt
with at some length for the first
time, although guidance savs
removal has the widest
applicability, and is only
permanent solution.
• Abatement actions should be
designed and performed by
accredited persons.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
1986
20
Congress enacts
Asbestos Hazard,
Emergency
Response Act.
P.L. 99-519
(AHERA)
1987
EPA
promulgates
rules under
AHERA
1988
EPA issues
Guide under
AHERA
* Asbestos is a health threat; no
minimum exposure levels are
established. •
* Danger is emphasized by the
words "Hazard" anp*
"Emergency" in title of the law.
• Due to concern about
exposure, school inspections.
abatement planning, and
management plan
implementation must meet
tight deadlines.
* LEA plans should be State-
approved.
* Purple Book remains
definitive guidance until further
guidance is issued by rule-
making process.
* EPA must establish a model
contractor accreditation
program for States to follow.
* Schools must inspect for all
asbestos in their buildings, plan
for its management.
* Inspection and planning must
be performed by accredited
personnel, contractors or
consultants.
* Removal is not mandated or
precluded: the decision up to
theLEAs.
* Again, removal is not
mandated or precluded: the
decision is up to the LEAs. Text
describing various situations
lists removal as one of only two
options in three of five
examples.
* Operations and maintenance
fmanagement-in-piacel is
emiihasized.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
. • Due 15 September 91
-------
21
1988
19S8
1989-90
EPA issues "100
Questions"
Guide to schools
EPA issues
Report to
Congress on
Asbestos in
and
Commercial
Buildings.
under AHERA
EPA
promulgates
amended
NESHAP-
Asbestos rules
under Section
112. Clean Air
Act
" Guide answers most
frequently asked questions
about asbestos in schools but
does not address the issue of
removal vs. management-in-
place.
* Danger of exposure Is higher
in schools than in other
buildings. EPA will continue to
concentrate attention on
schools, not other buildings.
* Asbestos exposure in
commercial buildings is a
potential hazard but needs more
study.
• .Studies in federal building
sample show low levels:
comparable to outdoor levels.
* Mortality projections are
extremely low.
* Asbestos is a danger to
human health: a hazardous air
pollutant. (Same as earlier
NESHAP-Asbestos messages)
* Removal requirements for
renovations, demolition are
reemohasized: new rules for
transporting asbestos debris
from demolitions/renovations
are described.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
1989
22
EPA issues ABCs
gf Asbestos in
Schools booklet
under AHERA
1989
1990
EPA
promulgates
Asbestos Ban
rules under
Toxic
Substances
Control Act
EPA issues "Five
Facts about
Asbestos" under
TSCAand
AHERA
* Asbestos fibers can cause
serious health problems, but
there is much uncertainty about
risk from low-level exposure.
" Asbestos properly managed in
place poses little risk.
* AHERA rarely requires
removal.
* Poorly performed removals
can increase risk.
* LEA makes decision on
whether to remove or manage-
in-place.
* Ninety-four percent of all
future manufacture of asbestos
products are banned over
period of seven years.
' Ban will reduce unreasonable
risk to human health: safe
substitutes are available.
* Exposure levels in public
buildings, based upon available
information, pose negligible
risk to building occupants.
although it might be higher for
maintenance workers.
* Management-in-place is the
most desirable option to control
exposure.
* Removal of asbestos, if
improperly done, can increase
risk.
* EPA does not require
removal, except for demolitions
and renovations.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
23
1990
1990
1990
1990
EPA issues
Managing
Asbestofi in
Place (Green
Book) under
AHERA
EPA Issues
letter to schools
EPA Issues
Environmental
Hazards in Your
Sphools under
various laws
EPA Issues
"Advisory for
the Public"
under TSCA and
AHERA
* flTae risk message is based
on the Five Facts).
* AHERA does not
removls.
• Green Book does not replace
the Purple Book, but expands
operations and maintenance .
(management-in-place)
, information.
* Removals may be required by
NESHAP-Asbestos rules during
renovation or demolition
projects.
• Schools can revise their
asbestos management plans
based on upcoming re-
inspections.
* Management-in-place should
be the keystone of asbestos-
abatement programs.
* In section on asbestos,
previous information is
reviewed.
• "Five Facts" are expanded to
emphasize a) low levels of
exposure in most schools, b)
dangers of arbitrary removal, el
benefits of management-in-
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15.September 91
-------
24
FINDINGS
the following
• rf whlch represent a synthesis of information
developed from more than one approach:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The school asbestos management decision process is a
complex, multi-step process involving many different parties
and multiple information sources.
School officials consider many legitimate factors besides
health risks in making choices among asbestos management
options.
Involvement by parents and staff in school asbestos
management decisions tends to be infrequent and reactive.
EPA's asbestos-in-schools program is very dependent on
communications because of the necessity for site-specific
decisions about asbestos management.
There is some public confusion about EPA's main messages
and policies under the asbestos-in-schools program. EPA
has inadvertently contributed to the confusion by issuing
evolving—and sometimes what may appear to be conflicting-
messages over time.
There are many important factors outside EPA's control \
which have contributed to public confusion about the hazards
of asbestos, proper risk management, and the Agency's
asbestos message.
In light of the Importance and difficulty of asbestos
communications. EPA could have given greater priority to
communicating Its messages about asbestos to the general
public and interested parties at various points in the process.
The formal evaluation of the AHERA program suggests.
contrary to anecdotal evidence, that wholesale removal of
asbestos in good condition has not been the norm since
schools began their AHERA management plans in the late
1980s.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Com
ts
Due 15 September 01
-------
. 25
One: The school asbestos management decision process is a
complex, multi-step process involving many different
parties and multiple information sources.
As Figure 1 illustrates, there are 12 basic steps In the school
asbestos management decision process. Most of these steps are
shaped by the requirements of the AHERA rule. These steps
involve many different participants from both inside and outside a
school's administration. Since information is an important "input"
to the decision process, these 12 steps provide many opportunities
for different information sources to affect the decision process.
Since school officials rarely have the technical expertise to make
asbestos management decisions on their own. reliance on outside .
sources of information and expertise throughout this process is
often very high. - .
Two: School officials consider many legitimate factors
besides health risks in making choices among
asbestos management options.
School decisions about asbestos management are influenced by
.many factors. These factors Include health risks but also expand to
non-health issues such as concerns about long-term accountability.
concerns about the complexities and cost of implementing a
long-term program to manage asbestos In place, and the desire for
an "asbestos-free" school. Such concerns are legitimate reasons for
, undertaking asbestos .management measures which go beyond
those required for simple protection of human health, even If this
translates Into "unnecessary removals." When asbestos
management actions occur for these reasons and not because of
inaccurate Information about EPA requirements, those decisions
• . can be called "informed." even though the removal was not
necessary from a public health perspective.
The question of whether or not there have been a large number of
unnecessary removals of asbestos in the nation's schools remains
unanswered, although the evaluation of the AHERA program
indicates the incidence of asbestos removal in the nation's schools
was not high. Reliable data on the rate of asbestos removal before
AHERA are not available. Much of the anecdotal evidence suggests
that there may have been widespread removals before AHERA was
People often assume the availability, or lack of availability, of funds
Is a major Influence on school asbestos management decisions.
Specifically, the assumption Is that when schools have the money
to finance removals, they choose to remove. EPA's surveys of State
AHERA designees and selected school officials suggest that these
assumptions are inaccurate. The role of funding appears secondary.
That is. schools choose to remove, or not to remove, based on
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 13 September 91
-------
26
other factors than simple availability of funds. When schools are
already inclined to remove asbestos because of some of the factors
discussed above, then the availability of funds becomes an
important factor.
Three:
Involvement by parents and staff in school asbestos
management decisions tends to be infrequent and
reactive.
The conventional wisdom-asserts "that parents have played a key.
and widespread, role in forcing schools to remove asbestos.
regardless of the material's condition. However, other than a few
anecdotes, the evidence shows that this type of action oh the part
of parents, or staff, is the exception rather than the rule. These
groups in general have played a minor role in school asbestos
management decisions. The AHERA evaluation supports this
finding. .
At the same time. It should be noted that reactive involvement.
however rare, can be very powerful when It does happen. There is
evidence that suggests a handful of angry parents can and have
forced schools to make dramatic changes In their asbestos
management decisions. The reasons for parental involvement in
these instances are varied, and may Include technical, economic.
or political Issues.
Four:
EPA's asbestos-ln-schools program is very dependent
on communications because of the necessity for
site-specific decisions about asbestos management.
Asbestos control experts and school officials have agreed with EPA
that uniform standards can not be effectively applied for asbestos in
schools and other buildings because of the importance of and
variability of site-specific Issues. This has forced EPA to rely
heavily on a communications approach which emphasizes providing
asbestos control professionals, school officials, and others with the
information and training they need to make informed asbestos
management decisions based on the condition of asbestos in
particular school buildings.
While this approach is necessary and offers school officials greater
control and on-site flexibility in their asbestos management
decisions, it can also create some tension between EPA and the
regulated community. Some school officials, who rarely have
technical backgrounds in hazardous waste management, want
directive, step-by-step asbestos management requirements. Being
told what to do and when to do it. In some ways, would make
asbestos management an easier task for them, if only because it
would eliminate the need to independently obtain, analyze, and
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
27
choose among technical options and recommendations, which may
be complex. AHERA's requirements to establish a system of
trained, accredited asbestos professionals were designed to deal
with this problem of site-specific guidance.
Adding to the communications challenge, school officials look to
several sources of advice—EPA regional asbestos coordinators,
headquarters experts, and State officials as well.
Five:
There Is some public confusion about EPA's main
messages and policies under the asbestos-in-schools
program. EPA has inadvertently contributed to the
confusion by issuing evolving—and sometimes what
may appear to be conflicting-messages over time.
Shifting messages about preferred management options. A careful
reading of EPA documents shows the Agency has consistently
maintained, both pre- and post-AHERA. that schools do not have to
remove asbestos, even though the NESHAP rule may require
removal when a school is being renovated or demolished.
Nonetheless, it has been possible at many points in time to get the
impression, from EPA documents and actions, that removal is the
preferred option. For example:
EPA Guidance. The first two asbestos-in-schools guidance
documents issued before AHERA (the Orange book, published In
1979, and the Blue book, published in 1983) emphasized that
removal is the only "permanent" solution to asbestos management
problems. The Blue book characterized removal as "always
appropriate, never inappropriate." Both the Orange and Blue books
explained the potential problems with other asbestos management
options without mentioning the possible risks associated with
improperly executed removals.
The message shifted slightly with the Purple book (published in
1985). Here, in some sections of the document. In-place
management is placed first on some of the listings of options. In
previous documents, removal was always listed before in-place
management, subtly reinforcing the Agency's emphasis on the
attractiveness of removal. However, this is the only major shift
from the preceding guidance. The larger message in the Purple
book continued to be .that removal is the only permanent solution
to asbestos problems. The book repeats the Agency's observations
on the disadvantages of non-removals, and again does not
emphasize the potential hazards associated with improperly
executed removals, given the limited information at the time.
While the Purple book was released before AHERA was passed, it
served as the main guidance document for schools to develop their
initial management plans under AHERA.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 13 September 91
-------
28
In 1990, EPA published the Green Book. This document focuses
exclusively on Operations and Maintenance (nianagement-in-place)
and emphasizes that improper removals can cause significant
health risks. Some parties outside EPA have characterized the
Green Book as a 180-degree shift in Agency policy. A careful
reading of this document Indicates that there is a new emphasis,
although not to the degree that Agency critics charge. For
example, the Green Book strongly emphasizes the hazards
associated with improper removals, and stresses that in-place
management may often be a schools best asbestos alternative.
However, this message was presaged in 1989 in an earlier
publication, the ABCs of Asbestos, where potential problems with
poorly executed removals were noted.
Enforcement Policy. Before AHERA, there was an asbestos
inspection rule requiring schools to identify asbestos in their
buildings. When school compliance with this rule proved
extremely low (i.e.. less than 50 percent), senior EPA officials
stepped up a rhetorical campaign (mainly through public speeches]
emphasizing the risks of asbestos and the need for compliance
with the inspection rule. EPA also began to publicize enforcement
actions against schools which did not comply with the rule. These
actions may have fed public perceptions that removal was the best
way to avoid problems with EPA.
Conflicting messages perceived from different EPA programs. The
mandates and main messages associated with other EPA programs
may sometimes appear to the regulated community to conflict with
those from the asbestos-in-schools program. For example. EPA's
Office of Air & Radiation. Implementing NESHAP-Asbestos
requirements under the Clean Air Act. calls for removal of asbestos
prior to demolition and renovation in buildings. The main message
one receives under NESHAP-Asbestos rules is that asbestos is
dangerous and needs to be removed prior to renovation or
demolition: management-ln-place is not an option once NESHAP-
Asbestos requirements apply. The Ofllce of Toxic Substances.
operating under the authority of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
recently banned further manufacture of asbestos-containing
products in the United States. This ban may appear to send the
same larger message that NESHAP-Asbestos does: asbestos is
dangerous, and we need to get rid of it. Both messages can be seen
to conflict with the more complex message of the
asbestos-in-schools program, where site-specific management
decisions must be made and often may include
management-in-place instead of removal.
Outreach efforts also confirmed that inconsistencies sometimes
appeared among advice given in the Region, the State, and by
Headquarters.
Opportunities for Improvement. While EPA recently took steps to
make Its current policy regarding removal of asbestos in school
buildings clearer (e.g.. the "Five Facts" as presented in
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
29
Congressional testimony in early 1990 and reiterated .In other
Agency documents), there still Is both a need and an opportunity to
further clarify the Agency's position.
Six:
There are many important factors outside EPA's
control which have contributed to public confusion
about the hazards of asbestos, proper risk
management, and the Agency's asbestos message.
Congressional actions. The ASHAA program, which provided
federal funds for school asbestos management projects, specifically
targeted high risk situations. Many of the projects funded through
ASHAA have been asbestos removals precisely because of the nature
of the project selection process which targets the most serious
hazards, which generally require removal. Thus, federal funding
actions under ASHAA may have fed public perceptions about the
overall risks posed by asbestos-In-schools and could have led to
perceptions that EPA requires, or encourages, removals.
Shortly after the advent of ASHAA, Congress passed the AHERA
legislation. AHERA contributed a sense of imminent danger to the
asbestos-in-schools situation by calling itself an "emergency
response act." The sense of urgency was augmented by the tone of
the Act's descriptions of the risks to children. Specifically, the Act
heavily emphasized the potential dangers of asbestos exposures and
continually reiterated the need for reducing exposure with
statements such as:
"The danger of exposure to asbestos continues
to exist in schools and some exposure actually
may have increased due to the lack of Federal
standards and improper response actions."
Although the tone of this quote is not inflammatory, in the context
of an "emergency response act" it conveys a sense of urgency and
crisis. This atmosphere of high risk and emergency was
augmented by the extremely short implementation deadlines
imposed by the Act.. For example:
o EPA had only six months to develop, from scratch, a national
model plan for training and accrediting asbestos inspectors,
planners, and abatement contractors.
o The Agency had only 12 months to promulgate rules to
implement AHERA: conventional rule-making normally takes
at least 18 months:
o Schools were .only given 12 months to develop their
• management plans, a task most of them were ill-prepared to
meet".
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
- Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
30
All of these factors may have contributed to public perceptions
(1) the risks from asbestos in schools are extremely high and (2)
the most prudent reaction is to completely rid the schools of the
danger by removing the asbestos,
The outreach effort confirmed that the most prudent reaction may
also consider such issues as insurability and liability for the school.
Public conflict about the basic asbestos message. The long-term,
chronic health risks posed by asbestos are difficult to explain in
simple terms. This difficulty has been considerably exacerbated by
the severe polarization of the public debate about asbestos risks.
Two of the major issues of concern are (1) what the risks from
asbestos are (and how they might vary depending on exposure.
fiber type and size), and (2) what federal regulatory policy should
be adopted in light of those risks.
There are many stakeholders in the asbestos debate, and over time
these groups cover the full spectrum of beliefs, as illustrated by
Figure 2. Some cluster at either the "one fiber can kill" position or
the "most fibers are safe" position. Each of these positions calls for
a different regulatory approach than EPA currently advocates. In
contrast. EPA has taken a middle-ground position best described as
"keep low levels low," and has continued to assert that its current
approach to asbestos-in-schools is the most advisable.
As the controversy about health risk receives increased media
attention, more and more people may begin questioning the
seriousness of the risks posed by asbestos, and the appropriateness
of the management approach EPA has taken under AHERA.
Different stakeholder groups are investing considerable resources
in publicizing their views on asbestos, and EPA has not always been
able to respond quickly to clarify the Agency's position or correct
inaccurate Information. The polarization of the health risk debate
makes EPA's communications tasks both more difficult, and more
important.
School dependence on multiple information sources. Since school
officials rarely have the technical expertise, either themselves or
on their staff, to deal with asbestos issues themselves, they must
look outside their school system for information and technical
advice about asbestos management options. The fact that there are
multiple voices competing for their attention does not make this
task any easier.
As Figure 3 illustrates, there are many different message "senders"
in the asbestos arena. Each of them has different perspectives and
interests. While school officials rely on EPA as a major information
source, they use other sources as well, including private
consultants, contractors, state government, and the popular press.
The messages school officials receive from these sources
sometimes compete and conflict with EPA's. Ultimately, this can
create a lot of confusion and "noise" in the communications
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
31
network, making EPA's message less audible.
The challenge for EPA is to adopt communication strategies which
better emphasize what EPA's message is. and how (and why) it may
differ from messages received from other sources. The caveat is
that, regardless of how well EPA improves the approach to
communications, the quality of information given to school officials
from other sources not under EPA's control will remain a limiting \
factor on the overall Impact of EPA's communications efforts.
Insufficient communications networks. AHERA applies to all
elementary and secondary school systems.t- large and small, public .
and private. However, there is no single communications network
for EPA to tap into to allow it to reach all of these schools. Over
time, the Agency's links with public schools and large private
school systems have become fairly strong, but there are still
problems with distributing informational materials to small private
schools, sometimes because they come into and go out of existence
very quickly, and others because not all States have strict licensing ,-•
requirements for small private schools. Even when the latter
institutions receive EPA AHERA" materials, they are more likely to •.
have problems complying with AHERA requirements, due to
funding and staffing constraints. In addition, in some areas of the
country there is a strong school culture (mainly among private
sectarian schools) against federal intervention in school affairs.
This further complicates the effective transmission of EPA's
AHERA messages. • : ' . .
Seven: Inll^ht of the importance and difficulty of asbestos
communications, EPA could have given greater priority
to communicating its messages about asbestos to the
general public and interested parties at various points
in the process.
In comparison with other EPA programs, the asbestos-in-schools
program has devoted considerable time and energy to its
" communications effort, especially since the passage of AHERA. The
program has faced many obstacles to effective communications.
. Some of these have been outside the Agency's control; others have
been created by EPA actions, such as the NESHAP and asbestos ban
rules, which might be perceived as contrary-to the Agency's in-
place management message. The asbestos-in-schools program staff
faces a very complicated communications challenge. They have
made a concerted and credible effort to explain the requirements
of AHERA and to provide risk management guidance to a large and
varied constituency. They have accomplished this effort in the face
.of difficult deadlines, serious funding constraints, and limited
statutory flexibility.. T . T
Nevertheless, despite its considerable efforts. EPA must share
some of the criticism for the asbestos communications problem.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
32
The Agency did not always assign sufficient resources to respond
immediately to dissonant messages broadcast by other sources
(representing their own interests regarding asbestos) or develop
and publish key guidance in a timely fashion. It appears that some
school officials did not fully understand their roles and the
respective role of EPA guidance in the development and
implementation of the management plans. Some officials felt that
they received the important guidance only after they completed
their plans and then did not feel the plans could be legally
changed. While many attempts were made to inform those officials
of their responsibilities (see the background information on AHERA
outreach and communication to schools), the dissonant voices, the
unrelenting press of program business, and the early ambiguity and
late delivery of some guidance materials may have had an impact on
the overall effectiveness of the outreach effort.
As a result. EPA's asbestos messages have not always reached the
people at which they were aimed, did not always reach them in a
timely manner, and did not always succeed in conveying the
message in a clear and unambiguous manner. Despite the
encouraging results of the AHERA evaluation which indicate that
schools are not spending large sums of money removing asbestos
which can be safely managed in place, some schools have
. conducted unnecessary removals and some school officials did not
understand, that EPA has offered a management-in-place option,
where appropriate, since 1985.
Eight:
The formal evaluation of the AHERA program suggests,
contrary to anecdotal evidence* that wholesale removal
of asbestos in good condition has not been the norm
since schools began then* AHERA management plans
in the late 1980s.
School officials may have been less confused about AHERA
requirements and EPA's policy guidance than anecdotal
information suggests. It is generally accepted that AHERA has been
successful in achieving its initial objective of conducting
inspections and developing management plans. By the AHERA
deadline of July 1989. fully 94 percent of all public and private
schools had completed their initial AHERA inspections and
developed management plans for their buildings. Certainly an
important part of the EPA message—inspect, evaluate, and correct-
has been getting through.
Second. EPA's formal evaluation of the effectiveness of the AHERA
program, completed earlier this year, indicates that the
. fundamental elements of the program were successfully executed.
With regard to the subject of this review—whether schools were
under the mistaken impression that removal of asbestos materials
represented EPA's policy guidance—it appears that the vast
majority of AHERA response actions taken by schools were
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
33
consistent with the Agency's management-ln-place philosophy.
This leads us to the conclusion that if removals were taking place.
they were exceptions to the rule and did. not represent a
widespread practice. While this does not account for activities
prior to the passage of AHERA in 1986, nor does it account for -
possible removals from buildings other than schools, the evidence
clearly indicates that school officials have largely understood the
EPA management-in-place message, along with the requirements
for inspections, .management plans, and accredited personnel.
The evaluation, based on statistically significant surveys, found that:
o Schools identified about 70 percent of the individual suspect
asbestos materials covered by the evaluation, representing
about 87 percent of the total quantity of material.
o Most of the response actions (85 percent) taken to date by
schools involve managing asbestos in place.
In addition, a survey of school principals showed that parents and
teachers did not appear to panic upon learning about the presence
of asbestos in their schools.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
34
RECOMMENDATIONS
Some of the lessons learned from EPA's experience with
communications in the asbestos-in-schools program have
implications for EPA's approach to similar risks.
Asbestos-in-schools is not the only environmental problem which
does not easily lend itself to conventional command/control
regulation. For example, indoor air in general, and radon
specifically, are two examples of environmental problems which
call for flexible, case-specific approaches and an emphasis on
communications rather than regulation of ambient air
contaminants. The lessons we learn from communications in the
asbestos-in-schools program may help EPA improve its
communications efforts in these and similar areas where
regulations by themselves will not accomplish the Agency's risk
management goals.
1. EPA should (1) continue its efforts, begun with the "Five
Facts," to explain the Agency's interpretation of available
health risk data and to obtain better information about those
risks; and (2) explore the desirability of developing and
distributing an asbestos-management-priority list designed
to help schools target their asbestos-management activities.
2. EPA should make a greater effort to communicate messages
that are consistent across the agency.
3. EPA should communicate its key messages in a more forceful
and timely manner.
4. EPA should routinely pretest and evaluate its
communications and make sure they are clear and
unambiguous and achieving their desired effect.
5. EPA should give risk communication a much higher priority
as a risk reduction tool.
One:
EPA should (1) continue its efforts, begun with the
"Five Facts", to explain the Agency's interpretation of
available health risk data and to obtain better
information about those risks; and (2) explore the
desirability of developing and distributing an asbestos-
management-priority list designed to help schools
target their asbestos-management activities.
The original version of the "Five Facts", delivered by EPA's Assistant
Administrator for Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Linda Fisher, in
Congressional testimony in June 1990, acknowledges that there is
controversy about the degree of risk posed by different asbestos
fibers. The Five Facts go on to state that:
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
35
(1) EPA has adopted a prudent approach to asbestos regulation
by assuming that all fibers are equally potent.
(2) While some sources have suggested that exposure to
chrysotile or common white asbestos may be less likely to cause
some asbestos-related diseases, various scientific organizations.
Including the National Academy of Sciences, support EPA's
more prudent regulatory approach.
This message needs to be expanded and repeated as long as the
degree of risk posed by asbestos remains a focal point of public
controversy. The following points should be stressed:
(1) EPA is aware of the controversy about the relative risk
posed by different asbestos fibers.
(2) EPA has taken what it sees as a prudent regulatory approach
given the nature of the risk information currently available.
(3) EPA's approach is supported by respected scientific
authorities: and
(4) EPA is and will continue to conduct additional studies (e.g..
the Health Effects Institute-Asbestos Research effort) to ensure
• that its policies continue to be based on the best scientific
information available.
Secondly, school officials are sometimes uncomfortable with the
- degree of Individual discretion which must be exercised in
determining what asbestos-abatement options are most
appropriate in individual circumstances. EPA has provided
guidance on these matters, but the need for site-specific
decisions appears to be consensual. At the same time, the
AHERA rule provides some descriptive Information which is
more directive than the guidance and specifies what should be
done under certain circumstances. It may be helpful to include
.copies of these descriptors (as they are, or modified) in future
AHERA mailings.
Two:
EPA should make a greater effort to communicate
messages that are consistent across the agency.
EPA is one agency and it should act and speak with one voice.
The fact that the agency has multiple programs which operate
somewhat Independently and which are charged with
Implementing many different laws does not excuse the agency
from communicating messages which are not consistent or at
least compatible across programs. The problem of
Inconsistency that was found In this analysis is not Just an
asbestos problem: It Is an Agency problem.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments '
Due 15 September 91
-------
36
Audiences receiving EPA messages about risk do not stop to
make distinctions among the Agency's various programs. When
EPA sends out messages from several different offices which
may conflict either explicitly or implicitly, it dilutes the impact
of each of the messages, no matter how carefully each has been
crafted and communicated. It also damages the Agency's
credibility.
However simple the recommendation to be consistent may
seem in principle, it is not simple In practice. The facts of
bureaucratic life often make it difficult to achieve complete
coordination in a large and complex organization. Ordinary
admonitions do not work. Heavy-handed clearance procedures
are expensive to operate and can slow operations to a crawl. A
happy medium needs to be found.
EPA has recently created a series of regulatory "clusters." Staff
from different programs who are developing regulations for the
same industries and/or substances are developing their
proposals Jointly. This approach needs to be applied in more
instances than Just new regulations. An "asbestos
communication cluster" with representatives from the Office of
Toxic Substances, the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, the Office of Solid Waste and the Office of
Communications and Public Affairs would be a good prototype.
The Office of Communications and Public Affairs presently
coordinates major communications efforts across the agency.
However, it does not have adequate resources to review all
publications. It was by chance rather than routine review that a
publication on asbestos from one office giving a message that
appeared to conflict with the message from another was
discovered on its way to the printing shop during the course of
this project. While there had been technical coordination
among the offices, there was not an overall communications
review. The Office of Communications and Public Affairs does
not routinely review all publications for this type of consistency
because its does not have the staff to do so without creating an
unacceptable bottleneck. This situation must be corrected.
Where different statutory mandates, program requirements or
other imperatives make it necessary to send what might
otherwise appear to be inconsistent messages, the reasons
should be clearly stated. Similarly, where statements represent
an evolutionary change in emphasis, a concerted effort should
be made to acknowledge and explain the apparent differences.
Three:
EPA should communicate its key messages in a
more forceful and timely manner.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
37
When EPA has an important message "that can affect many
precious lives and dollars it should make sure that message is
clearly heard by all affected parties. The Agency's
communications need to get the attention of audiences that
have many different issues on their minds and need to avoid
being drowned out or otherwise altered by communications on
the same issue from other parties.
For many issues, the Agency's communications strategy is often
limited to the publication of major documents and press
releases. Oftentimes, however well meaning and precisely
drafted. EPA's messages have not reached the intended
audiences in their intended form and have not been timely.
For important issues such as asbestos. EPA should generate,
more interpretive materials for affected parties and distribute
them more widely and quickly. In addition to major technical
guidance documents there should be more short pamphlets
which are intended to reach broad audiences with specific
messages. Messages to narrow, targeted audiences should also
be developed. A special effort should be made to have articles
by EPA officials on changed program emphases or new
regulations published in trade and technical publications instead
of leaving it to others to interpret and comment on them, as has
often been done in asbestos and on other environmental
problems.
These efforts should not be limited to top officials; official at all
levels should be making more personal efforts to communicate
major messages. Throughout the process the agency should
strive for repetition and reinforcement. The agency should not
assume that because it has said something once that .the
message has been successfully transmitted.
There are many appropriate occasions for such efforts.
Outreach for new regulations and changes in program emphasis
should be given special priority, and should be accomplished
quickly. Major enforcement and funding decisions should also
be candidates for special priority communications, so that they
are properly understood by interested parties and do not have
unintended consequences. An example of the latter Instance is
EPA's asbestos grants program. The fact that nearly all the
funds go for removals rather than management-in-place is
because the law requires that grant awards be made for only the
most serious cases, where removal is often necessary: it is not.
as some have thought, because EPA necessarily favors removal
over management-in-place. • - •'
Another occasion for clear, forceful and timely communication
is when other information sources inaccurately depict key
issues and requirements. EPA needs to make a greater effort to
follow what others are saying and promptly respond to
inaccuracies as quickly as possible. EPA's shortcomings in this
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due IS September 91
-------
38
regard are not limited to asbestos; indeed, there is no evidence
to suggest that the pattern here has.been substantially different
from the Agency norm. "
Constant coordination with all message senders is also
important to avoid variances in the messages coming from
Regions. Headquarters and States.
Effective, accurate communications is a normal part of
progressive program administration. In most instances, no
special occasion is needed for a well-schooled and aware
communications effort. Nor. in many instances, should major
additional resources be required. Clear, forceful and timely
communications should simply be a part of working smarter and
total quality management.
Four:
EPA should routinely pretest and evaluate its
communications and make sure they are clear and
unambiguous and achieving their desired effect.
When EPA says something, there should be no mistaking what it
is saying. On asbestos or on any other Agency issue, it should
not be possible to get more than one message, especially from a
single publication.
The most Important step that EPA could take to this end would
be to pretest all important documents with target audiences,
and make changes to improve the clarity of the message and
messages. The Agency spends a great deal of money each year to
project the economic impact of proposed regulations. Yet.
somewhat surprisingly. EPA does very little to gauge the clarity
and likely impact of proposed publications. The Office of Policy.
Planning and Evaluation has recently published a handbook on
pretesting. Many of the methods described are not particularly
expensive or time consuming.* EPA program offices should use
them.
Pretesting should not be confused with the present external
review system, which involves interested offices from within the
Agency and from outside. This type of review is entirely
legitimate and necessary. However, what frequently happens
when the comments all come back is that extensive qualifying
language is added to satisfy all the.reviewers. The result is often
that the publications end up in a state of terminal blandness—or
present mixed messages. The apparent attractiveness of "on
the one hand, on the other hand" should be balanced against the
need for clarity. If important qualifying language must be added,
it too should be pretested.
Another way that mixed messages slip into publications is in the
form of disclaimers that have sometimes been put in the front of
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
39
publications on asbestos and other subjects, to the effect that
the. document has been prepared by a contractor and EPA does
not necessarily stand behind everything in it. It is recognized
within the Agency that liability, not accuracy, is the driving
force in these instances, however, to the reader, no one knows
where EPA stands when this happens, and the Agency looks like
it doesn't really know the subject. This practice should be
discontinued. If EPA is not sure about some of the details, the
text of the document should explain which details are uncertain
and why.
Finally, when a major publication has been in circulation for a
reasonable amount of time, such as a year, it should be evaluated
to find out if it is having the intended effect. EPA rarely takes
this step. The prevailing attitude is that once the Agency has
spoken, that the Job of communication has been completed. In
fact the result is that EPA misses out on the opportunity to
learn whether the particular document in question or any new
documents need to be improved. As with pretesting, this step
need not be expensive or time consuming.
five: EPA should give risk communication a much higher
priority as a risk reduction tool.
At the root of each of the foregoing recommendations is EPA's
clear need to assign a higher priority to communication as a risk
reduction tool. This need exists throughout the Agency, not Just
in the asbestos-in-schools program. In fact, despite the
concerns observed in this study of asbestos communications.
there Is reason to believe that greater attention is given to
communication in this program than in many others.
Historically, communication has frequently been an afterthought
at EPA. Important decisions have been made and then they
have been communicated. Communication comes afterwards.
Moreover, rarely is communication considered to be itself a
front-line tool of risk reduction, in the sense that traditional
regulations and now economic incentives are considered to be
front-line topis. And. when it turns out that communication is
the key element in a program, it is often not recognized and
treated as such. There are those at EPA who recognize the
importance of communication, but the general culture of Agency
staff is technically-oriented and not communication-oriented.
EPA needs to stop treating communication as a poor and
unworthy relative.
This recommendation is supported not only by the findings of
this project. The EPA Science Advisory Board, in its recent
report. Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for
Environmental Protection, made a similar recommendation.
While acknowledging the importance of traditional regulations
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
40
as a whole. touf n
with economic incentives thl 222
infoimauon as a rtXuction toSf
f PA'
of tools'"
the
of
attention at all levels narHn,^ , "^es and management
^
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
41
Appendix A (Outreach)
to Commv"<*fl**"g About Risk:
Background Information ' '
An outreach effort, an endeavor to meet in person with representatives of the
many organizations affected by the asbestos-in-schools program, was used to gain
firsthand opinions about EPA's communications on asbestos.
Organizations invited to participate in the outreach project received written
information about the review's purposes prior to their involvement in meetings or
their provision of oral or written comments to the Agency. Organizations'
representatives thus learned that the review's purposes were to:
1. Examine what EPA and other organizations have said about asbestos:
2. Determine whether the many asbestos communiques have confused rather
than enlightened people on what they and their organizations should do to
minimize health threats posed by asbestos;
3. Ensure further EPA-initiated communications on asbestos are clear and
understandable to the audiences for whom they are intended.
The organizations also Ieamed--in advance of meetings--that primary questions
being asked in the review were:
o What guidance or other information has EPA distributed that has aided
or hindered communication or interaction between affected parties
such as school boards, administrators, contractors, teachers and
parents?
o What incentives or disincentives may influence selection of an
appropriate asbestos abatement option?
o What affect does information on asbestos from mass media and
interest groups have on communication and interaction between
affected parties?
o What steps should be taken by EPA and others to improve
communication and interaction between affected parties?
Participants in Outreach
Organizations that participated in outreach meetings and/or provided oral or
written information used in the review include:
Agudath Israel of America
American Association of Christian Schools . - "*
American Association of Elementary School Principals
American Association of School Administrators
American Federation of Teachers .
Asbestos Information and Research Coalition
American Insurance Association
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
42
American Insurance Services Group
Council for American Private Education
Environmental Roundtable
Laborers - Employers Cooperation and Education Trust
National Education Association
National School Boards Association
National Parents Teachers Association
Occupational Health Foundation
Service Employees International Union
Sheet Metal Workers International Association
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
Workplace Health Fund
Attachment 1 to this Appendix contains more detailed information on the
outreach effort, e.g., representatives at meetings, the dates of those meetings and
telephone conversations and when documents were provided or correspondence
sent EPA as part of the review.
. General Observations
Constituencies represented in the outreach effort felt that EPA has made a
worthwhile effort to address asbestos as a risk to public health and most
particularly, the health of children in the nation's public, parochial and private
schools.
Constituencies recognized problems that have affected the asbestos-in-schools
program. Those problems included:
o conflicting information on health risks of asbestos exposure:
o virtually-impossible-to-meet deadlines:
o inadequate funding resources for schools and EPA:
o inexperienced and unregulated, contractors:
o Congressional "shock" language such as in the title of the
Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act:
o few well trained people that schools could employ or contract with to
perform legislatively mandated work; and
o an initial lack of infrastructure and expertise in schools and parent
organizations to analyze asbestos abatement options and then carry out
the maintenance and/or removal projects effectively and economically.
Despite the asbestos-In-school program's problems, the majority of
constituencies agree that many difficulties have been overcome and the Agency's
work to make schools free of the risk of asbestos is commendable.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
43
Observations on Communications
School Organizations
have mixed perceptions of what EPA's message has been on
what to do about asbestos in schools. Some believe that EPA '
created a fear about asbestos that was not matched by clear
explanations from the Agency of the options available to schools
to mitigate or eliminate asbestos risk. Other school .
organizations always understood that in-place management was
an option to removal. (The message to schools was cluttered
very likely because all federal funds for asbestos remediation
were required to be used for removal),
want and need to get information from the Agency in a more
timely fashion and on a more consistent basts. - Specific requests
pertained to getting updates on asbestos program activities.
reinspection requirements., grant programs, and clarification on
approved methods to change management plans. Schools also
indicated that problems of inconsistency of responses from EPA
headquarters and regions and States needs resolution.
have struggled with pragmatic problems in dealing with asbestos in
their schools. Those problems include: very tight budgets: insurance
premiums too high or insurance even unavailable from external
sources for management-in-place of asbestos; perceived fear of EPA
levying large fines (causing some schools to forego insurance coverage.
in favor of asbestos removal): State regulation of insurance causing
multi-district school system coverage problems: small school systems
riot having personnel and resources required to evaluate and employ
qualified, well-trained inspectors and contractors: State regulations
that require trained personnel—not volunteers—to handle school
maintenance chores and states lacking reciprocal agreements to cover
certification and recertificatlon of workers.
feel EPA's outreach with school organizations has worked well
and effectively to inform and educate their constituencies. EPA
was praised for its "100 Questions." "The ABC's of Asbestos." and
"Environmental Hazards In Schools" publications. Both the
Purple Book and the Green Book are regarded as excellent.
however, the information was needed earlier than it was
available. One organization felt'that the "slant" .of the Green
Book differed from the Purple Book. Another organization hoped
that the EPA would involve more organizations—representing
the very small schools—In its outreach efforts: -
recognize that custodial and maintenance workers require
specialized training. One organization has distributed training
programs to about 1.000 schools, however, that effort—based
upon the U.S. having 120.000 schools-is not likely to have met
the total training need. No Spanish or other non-English-
language training materials appear to exist for schools' custodial
and maintenance workers who may experience difficulties in
EXTERNAL REVIEW. DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
• 44
reading and comprehending English.
o want EPA to provide help in determining the risk-ranking of
environmental hazards-in addition to asbestos—to students' health.
o are aware of EPA statements made about asbestos in Congressional
•hearings but appear unaware of asbestos information communicated by
the Agency--of interest to their constituents--in the Administrator's
speeches.
Insurance Organizations .
o before the passage of ASHAA and AHERA, had stopped providing
prospective coverage for asbestos exposure, began .providing insurance
that specifically excluded any coverage for past or future exposures for
schools as well as other organizations.
o indicate that schools that currently have property casualty coverage
likely have policies that exclude asbestos exposure.
o agree that removal of asbestos could make schools more attractive as
candidates for property insurance coverage but not for bodily injury
coverage against asbestos exposure.
o support the statements made in EPA's Five Facts on Asbestos.
Business and Industry Interests
o believe that the media and the general public will not distinguish
between asbestos risks in schools, other public buildings, and homes.
o believe, in general, that EPA has changed its message to state more
correctly that managing asbestos-in-place is a sound option. They-
representatlves of building ownership, real estate, asbestos product
manufacturing and insurance organizations—agree that EPA's
communication effort is now on the right track.
o agree that information on EPA's asbestos program was needed before
it was available.
o consider that documents produced by the asbestos program--
particularly the Green Book-are excellent.
o • agree that EPA processes to involve groups affected by asbestos
legislation have worked quite well. Business Interests recommend
that if no Agency arbitration specialist is available to manage consensus
building on critical asbestos issues that a qualified negotiator be
contracted with to lead necessary discussions.
o regret that the Administrator's statements on asbestos did not get
sufficient attention in mass and specialized media.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
45
LajM?r Organizations
o believe that asbestos risk can be explained in a non-threatening way;
that the high risk caused by exposure to deteriorating asbestos must
be communicated: and that the terms used to explain risk be
acceptable in a public health lexicon.
o state that the message emphasis has been changed. The management-
in-place emphasis Ignores the fact that ultimately asbestos must be
removed for health protection and pollution prevention purposes..
o criticize the lack of information available about the Health Effects
Institute • Asbestos Research project, its scope. Its funding sources
and its methods for selecting literature review panel members. Labor
organizations believe EPA breached the peer review process on the
Green Book and undercut the asbestos consensus group effort. Labor
believes a qualified negotiator is required to lead asbestos discussions
among organizations with divergent views.
.o agree that the Green Book contains much good information but
has problems with some of its content, primarily with
information contained in the book's forward, which was not
peer reviewed and which contains an inaccurate reference
(from Labor's perspective) to negligible risk. Labor
recommends that the Green Book be recalled or revised and
that any work on the Occupant's Guide cease until problems on
the Green Book content are resolved. Labor is dissatisfied also
with the content of the Asbestos in Your Home publication (a
joint product of EPA. the American Lung Association, and the
Consumer Products Safety Commission) It. tod. Labor would
like to see recalled. The content of the Environmental Hazards
in Schools booklet was praised. . .
o state that national training standards fpr workers must be set and
enforced. . .
' • - ' . '
o think that Administrator's statementsr-from a communication
" • perspective-have been mainly right. Agree with Administrator's
insistence upon sound science guiding EPA's work.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
46
Attachment 1 to Appendix A (Outreach)
to
OUTREACH EFFORT - Participants
Agudath Israel of America - Telephone Conversation - March 12, 1991 - Debra
Jacobs
American Association of Christian Schools - Meeting - February 19, 1991 -
Reverend Terry Bachur, Reverend Theodore E. Clater and Dr. Malcolm Gumming -
Letter - March 8, 1991 - Reverend Theodore E. Clater
American Association of Elementary Schools - Telephone Conversation - January
24, 1991 - Edward Keller, Ph.D.
American Association of School Administrators - Meeting - January 4, 1991 - Letter
February 8, 1991 - Joyce Hill
Asbestos Information and Research Coalition - Meeting and Documents Provided -
November 6, 1190 - Edward J. Gorman m and Paul Hefieman, Letter - December
6, 1990 - Paul Heffernan, Document Provided February 12, 1991 - Edward J.
Gorman III
American Insurance Association - Meeting - March 1, 1991 - James L. Kimble and
Martha Hamby - Meeting - James L. Kimble - May 1. 1991
American Insurance Services Group - Telephone Conversations - May 8 and May
14. 1991-Mickey Jones
Council for American Private Education - Meeting - January 12, 1991 - Letter -
February 25, 1991 - Greg D. Kubiak
Environmental Roundtable - Meeting - November 7, 1990 - W. R. Brick, Jr., Robert
Bell, Jr., John Biechman, Judy Black, Francis Bouchard, Leslie Cheek, in, Cam
Collova, Dennis R Connolly, Jim Dinegar, William Edwards, Jack Ericksen. David
M. Farmer. Paul Fiduccia, Margaret Hathaway, Lisa Hickey, William Holley, Sarah
Hospodor, Jacquelyn M. Johnson, Lisa Kill, James L. Kimble, Edward S. Knight.
Roger N. Levy, Kenneth Y. Millian, D. Kenneth Patton, Bobbie Perkins, Dennis M.
Ross, Rhond Roth, Bruce Roznowski, Kenneth D. Schloman, Edlu J. Thorn, Jim J.
Tozzi, St. Clair J. Tweedie, Ann vom Eigen, John F. Welch. Yvonne Zoomers.
Letter - November 15, 1990 - Kenneth Y. Millian and D. Kenneth Patton
International Association of School Business Officials - Letter February 25, 1991 -
Clark J. Godshall, Ed.D.
Labor-Employer Cooperation and Education Trust - Meeting - November 21, 1990 -
Karen Jordan
National Education Association - Meeting - January 30. 1991 - Joel Packer
National Parents Teachers Association - Meeting - January 30, 1991 -Carolyn
Henrich
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
47
National School Boards Association - Meeting and Documents Provided - December
19. 1990 - Katharine Herber
Occupational Health Fund - Meeting and Documents Provided November 21, 1990 -
Don Elisburg and Scott Schneider
Service Employees International Union - Meeting and Documents Provided -
November 21. 1990 - Bill Borwegan
Sheet Metal Workers International Union - Meeting and Document Provided -
November 21. 1990 - Lynn MacDonald
.United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America - Meeting and
Documents Provided - October 19. 1990 - Edward J. Gorman III
United States Catholic Conference.- Meeting - December 13. 1990 Sheila Bailey, G.
Patrick Canan. Reverend William F. Davis. OSFS. and Megan Doyle. Letter -
December 26. 1990 - Reverend William F. Davis
Workplace Health Fund - Meeting and Documents Provided - October 19, 1990 -
Sheldon Samuels
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
. Due 15 September 91
-------
Appendix B (Content Analysis)
to
48
estos in Schools
A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF DOCUMENTS ON ASBESTOS
FROM EPA AND OTHER SOURCES
Contents—
I. Introduction
II. What the Content Analysis Reviewed
III. Content Analysis ••••-
IV. Influence of Parental Pressure
V. Recommendations
I INTRODUCTION:
An important part of all EPA programs is how the Agency communicates with the
public about them. Two of the most important issues requiring clear communication in
the context of any environmental problem or program are (1) the degree of threat to
human health and the environment and (2) the applicable laws and rules designed to
protect those at risk. This chapter reviews the efforts of EPA and others to communicate
about these issues in the case of the EPA asbestos-in-schools program in particular and in
public and commercial buildings in general.
For a number of years, EPA (and to a lesser extent OSHA and CPSC) has been
communicating about the asbestos risk and asbestos risk abatement through legislation
and regulations, guidance documents and pamphlets, news releases, speeches and
Congressional testimony by Agency officials, and participation in various forums and
training programs with Interested parties. Because a major focal point of asbestos
regulatory concern relates to asbestos-in-schools. much of EPA's asbestos communication
effort has been directed at the nation's school officials, teachers and other employees, and
parents.
For this reason, this content analysis focusses on asbestos-in-schools. although.
obviously, this issue of asbestos in all public buildings is germane because schools are
public buildings even though for program and statutory purposes the Agency must deal
with them.separately. Within this focus, the content analysis looks particularly at (1) how
EPA presented the asbestos danger and (2) how the Agency communicated about the
need for removing asbestos from schools or using some other abatement approach. The
analysis also deals specifically with (3) parental/community reaction to the asbestos issue
as it examines what EPA said-or didn't say-and (4) how the messages changed over time,
especially as legislation changed. It also looks at (5) how concerned organizations and
their publications reflected the EPA message-did they support it, oppose it. or even
distort it?, and how the Agency dealt with negative reactions to EPA's views of the
asbestos problem. The analysis covers what the most current EPA asbestos guidance
document calls "EPA's approximately 11 years experience in considering public input and
fine tuning policies on managing asbestos-containing materials in buildings."
E. WHAT THE CONTENT ANALYSIS REVIEWED
The content analysis looked at two kinds of federal documents. These Include
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
49
"enabling documents"—Acts of Congress and regulations concerning asbestos
promulgated by EPA or OSHA since the early 1970s, and guidance or informational
! publications designed to interpret the rules and. in some instances, to provide detailed
i instructions on their implementation. The EPA rules originated with the Office of Toxic
; Substances (OTS), the Air Program's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
i (OAQPS). and the Office of Solid Waste (OSW). OSHA also promulgated rules. Guidance
* and information materials originated with OSHA, OAQPS, OTS, OSW. the Office of
? Communications and Public Affairs (OCPA) and OSHA. Some were produced in
cooperation with outside organizations such.as the National Education Association, the
, National Parent-Teachers Association, the National School Boards Association, and the
; Association of School Administrators. These covered a number of different aspects of
asbestos-in-school problems.
In addition, the content analysis reviewed a number of news releases, pamphlets,
backgrounders produced by OCPA. the.EPA Journal, specialized educational trade
association publications and legislative bulletins. Congressional testimony by EPA officials
11 and speeches by the Administrator and others, and articles that appeared in a variety of
* specialized and general magazines and newspapers.
The review included the following:
A Legislation, Regulations, and Reports to Congress
i;. * U.ST Occupational. Safety and Health Administration standards for private sector
• worker exposure to asbestos, first promulgated in 1972 and subsequently revised and
' expanded to include specific standards for private sector workers doing asbestos
abatement among other things, as well as subsequent EPA workplace standards for public
sector workers.
I " NESHAP Air Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Asbestos Regulations
1 applying to building renovation and demolition involving friable-asbestos containing
* materials. First published in 1973 and amended several times, most recently in 1990 (to
;! include more specific rules about transporting and disposing of asbestos) after it is
: removed.
4 - ' " •
* Friable Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools. Identification and Notification, the
"Asbestos-in-Schools Rule promulgated In 1982 under TSCA which established the
: Inspection and notification requirements. • .
i • "
<. * Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act of 1984 (ASHAA1 Public Law 98-377. August
11, 1984, which established a loan and grant program to assist financially needy schools
;, with the abatement of serious asbestos hazards, and rules related to this.
,, * Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of 1986 fAHERA. Public Law 99-5191.
October 11, 1986. which established the model contractor accreditation program, and
required promulgation of rules for school asbestos inspection.
management, and abatement, as well as a report to the Congress on asbestos-containing
" materials in public and commercial buildings.
* Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools. Final Rule and Notice, published in October,
1987. which spelled out the AHERA requirements in considerable detail in terms of
deadlines, abatement and management methods, requirements for accredited abatement
inspectors,.management advisors, and contractors.
*
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
50
* EPA Report to Congress. "SPA .Study of Asbestos-Contairlng Materials in Public
Buildings." the February, 1988. report which included for the first time new scientific
studies about asbestos in public buildings and recommended further study before
development of any legislation or rules related to asbestos in public buildings other than
1 schools. In the report. EPA cites the various studies as a major reason for opposing a
regulatory program to control asbestos exposure in public and commercial buildings.
* Asbestos: Manufacture. Importation. Processing., and Distribution in Commerce
Prohibitions. Final Rule, issued in July, 1989, which promulgates a phased ban, over 7
years, of nearly all remaining asbestos uses and products from manufacture, importation,
and processing.
* Asbestos NESflAP Revision, including Disposal of Asbestos Containing Materials
Removed from Schools: Proposed Rule Revision (This was finalized in November, 1990).
It spells out the requirements contractors removing asbestos from schools or other
buildings must follow to protect workers and the public from exposure while transporting
the waste and disposing of it.
(
E Guidance Publications
* Asbestos-Containing Materials in School Buildings. Parts 1 and, 2 /The Orange Book).
issued by OTS in March 1979 to support the fledgling EPA technical assistance program
to help schools and other building owners establish asbestos identification and control
programs in their facilities. The two volume publication describes the asbestos threat
where the substance can be found in schools, what can be done about it by way of
abatement, and where to get further information. It is the first EPA publication to deal
with asbestos In great detail, and contains considerable material on the potential dangers
of asbestos. Subsequently, the 1982 EPA Asbestos -in-Schools Rule required that one copy
be available In all the administrative offices of every school.
* Guidance for Controlling Friable Asbestos-Containing Materials In Buildings (The Blue
Bookl. issued by OTS in March, 1983, is to supplement the previous guidance with recent
experience and new information on asbestos control. In the executive summary, it says:
"For those readers who previously have been involved in the Asbestos-in-SchooIs
program, the guidance offered will serve as a review and update of familiar issues.
For those confronted with the problem of controlling asbestos for the first time.
the document will identify the critical issues, introduce information on asbestos for
the first time, and direct the reader toward the structured development of an
asbestos control program."
Like the Orange Book, it emphasizes the dangers of asbestos.
* Asbestos Waste Management Guidance— Generation. Transport. Disposal, issued by the
Office of Solid Waste (OSW). not OTS. In May, 1985. is written primarily for those
involved in disposing of asbestos wastes. The publication does refer to the school asbestos
program and presumably was sent out to schools with the AHERA rules when they were
promulgated in 1987.
* Guidance for Controlling Asbestos-Containing Materials in Buildings fThe
Bookl. issued by OTS in June. 1985 is described in the text as a revision of the Blue Book,
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
51
and a "Note to School District" says it may be retained in school administrative offices in
lieu of the Orange Book. The Purple Book is also cited In AKERA as the current official
guidance which will remain in effect until subsequent guidance materials are available. It
places special emphasis on concerns about school children. In an introductory summary,
the Purple Book is described as being substantially revised to incorporate new information
and experience related to determining if asbestos is present, planning a control program.
and choosing further actions if needed.
* Asbestos in Buildings—Guidance for Service and Maintenance Personnel, issued by OTS
in July, 1985. is a short pamphlet telling workers how to work safely in buildings that
contain asbestos. Heavily illustrated, it is filled with do's and don'ts and is used in joint
EPA/National Association of School Administrators and other training .programs. -
• "Asbestos in Schools" A Guide to New Federal Requirements for Local Education
Agencies, mailed to schools in February, 1988, and used in training programs.
* 1QO Commonly Asked Questions About the New AHERA Asbestos-in-Schools Rule.
mailed to schools in May, 1988.
* The ABC's of Asbestos in Schools, issued by OPTS in June, 1989. was developed by the
EPA in cooperation with the National Parent-Teachers Association and the National
Education Association to "help teachers and parents answer questions and learn the facts
about asbestos in schools." Unlike the Purple Book or other technical guidance
documents, this is a general information publication that details what school officials have
to do to protect children and employees from possible asbestos exposure.
* Managing Asbestos in Place. A Building Owner's Guide to Operations and Maintenance
Programs for Asbestos-Containing Materials (The Green Book) was issued by OTS In July
1990, well after publication of the AHERA rules and regulations to provide additional
information on O and M. Even though the foreword says it "does not supplant the 1985
Purple Book as EPA's principal guidance document." but, "based on our experience since
1985 it expands and refines the Purple Book's guidance for a special operations and
maintenance (O&M) program." Although it was sent to schools with a covering letter
calling it the most comprehensive guidance document since the Purple Book in 1985. it
has minimal mention of schools.
' * A Building Occupant's Guide to Asbestos, (draft version) of a forthcoming OTS
i: publication. It is written in a reassuring way as it offers various options for dealing with .
<; potential exposure to asbestos in residential or commercial buildings.
! * Environmental Hazards in Your School, published jointly by seven EPA program offices
in October, 199O. is a "resource handbook" covering the problems of asbestos, radon, and
lead in drinking water as they apply to schools, and listing informational resources for the
: three subjects. The National Education Association. National Parent-Teachers
Association. Council for American Private Education. National Association of Independent
; Schools, and the U.S. Catholic Conference participated in development of the booklet.
i * An Advisory to the Publlq on Asbestos in Buildings, prepared by OTS and signed by the
; Administrator, and mailed to all schools on March 6. 1991. This document Interprets the
Five Facts in terms aimed at the concerns of school administrators, employees, and
parents and community groups involved with school-related asbestos issues.
; C Other EPA Publications and Materials
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
52
* Environmental Progress and Challenges: An ERA Perspective fJune. 19841.
Environmental Progress and Challenges; An EPA Perspective ii
The Environmental Challenge: EPA's Review of Progress and New Directions in
Environmental Protection (December. 199O). general publications summarizing EPA's
programs, their accomplishments, and futures.
* The EPA Journal, the Agency's official magazine, in which articles reflect
Agency/environmental concerns and Agency activities. Over the years the Journal has
published a number of articles and news items about asbestos and asbestos regulation
enforcement.
* Asbestos Fact Book, released by the Office of Public Affairs (OPA) in August, 1985 and
June. 1986, Is a comprehensive document about all aspects of EPA's asbestos programs
and is still available for distribution to the media and Inquirers.
* Environmental Backgrounder on Asbestos, released by OPA in November, 1988, and
revised in March, 1989. is used as a background handout for the news media and other
inquirers by the EPA Press Office.
* The Asbestos Informer (DRAFT), dated December, 1990. Tills OAQPS Stationary
Source Compliance Division publication deals primarily with NESHAP-associated subjects.
but does review the problem of asbestos in schools.
* EPA Testimony pn.Asbestos. Before The Congress. The content analysis reviewed
Congressional testimony about asbestos legislation by EPA officials from the early 1970s
through 1990.
* SPA Press Releases dealing with asbestos matters over the past decade were reviewed
to determine what messages about the health threat posed by asbestos and asbestos
abatement methods were being communicated by EPA to and through the news media.
D. Educational/School Publications
The content analysis looked at a large number of education organization and
professional publications. These Included the American Schpol Board Journal and special
reports published by the National School Board Association; American Schools and
University Magazine, which between 1980 and the end of 1990 published at least twenty
articles on school-related asbestos issues; the Council of Educational Facility Planners
Journal, which In 1983 published, "Asbestos: A Present Hazard to Education"; PTA Today.
which published "Asbestos in Your Child's School—How to Get Ride of It": AGB Reports, a
publication of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities, which published
"Asbestos Imperative: What You Must Do", in 1986; School Business Affairs, which In late
1986 had an article on the removal of asbestos from Houston's schools; published an
article In 1986 or 87 on "Self Insuring Against Asbestos removal; In December. 1988,
published a series of articles about AHERA requirements; Education Law Reporter, in
March, 1990. published a long article, "Contracting for Asbestos Abatement: What You
Need to Know"; and. the National Association of Elementary School Principals newsletter,
The Communicator, in November, 1990, wrote about the Green Book under the title,
"Guide warns against hasty asbestos removal." The article also questioned the timeliness
of the publication.
E. General Publications and News Media
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
53
The content analysis included a number of newspaper and magazine articles that were
available at EPA headquarters or through the EPA library. While these included major
magazines, business magazines, and major newspapers (like the Readers Digest. TJmg.
The New York Times. Business Week, etc.) access to newspapers published across the
nation was limited and EPA did not have a clippings archive. Some anecdotal indication
of the extent of newspaper coverage comes from articles in school publications, the galley
proofs of the Michael Bennett book. The, Asbestos RackeJ. various magazine articles, and
some of the PED survey Interviews. OTS provided a collection of 1988 newspaper
clippings from 43 states.
HI. CONTENT ANALYSIS • ,
A INTRODUCTION
This content analysis is organized broadly around two major issues: how the risk of
asbestos has been presented and the question of which abatement options are
appropriate, with emphasis on the removal option as opposed to various forms of
management in place. The discussion of each of these issues is divided into sections
covering Acts of Congress and EPA materials, and what others said. Each of these
discussions is further divided into three time frames: (1) Pre-AHERA (1972-1986) (2)
Post-AHERA enactment and the early phases of AHERA implementation (1986-1988), and
(3) the period beginning with the 1988 EPA Report to the Congress (1988 to present.)
E How the risk of asbestos has been presented
1. Acts of Congress and EPA Materials
* Several major points emerge from an examination of Acts of Congress and EPA
materials: ,. .
* All EPA voices-the Office of Toxic Substances (OTS). the Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS). Office of Communications and Public Affairs (OCPA). the Office of
Solid Waste (OSW). the Executive offices, and the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
(OPPE)--have consistently pictured asbestos as a carcinogen and potentially hazardous to
those exposed to asbestos fibers. Only very recently has-the concept, of this risk being
"negligible" entered EPA's asbestos communication lexicon. '.
* At key points in time, however, the messages about the risks of asbestos that LEA's
could get from various EPA sources were somewhat different. This was due to different
legislative mandates, changing scientific estimates of risk not being consistently
reflected, and simple lack of coordination.
* Messages from individual EPA offices (e.g.. OTS) were reflected with reasonable
consistency in such channels as the Federal Register. EPA publications, speeches,
testimony, and news releases.
a The Pre-AHERA Period (1972-1986)
1. Laws and Regulations: ' .,...-. •• .
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
: Due 15 September 91
-------
54
Early OSHA worker protection standards were issued in June, 1972, with EPA air
emissions standards for asbestos, under the Clean Air Act. in the form of a NESHAP
published in April 1973 (these were revised in 1975, 1978, and 1990). Each regute on
was accompanied by statements tracing the history of asbestos and the health issues
involved. In March, 1979, EPA Institutionalized official concern about exposure of school
children to asbestos by initiating a regionally based technical assistance program to help
building owners—and, particularly, school systems--to control asbestos-containing
materials in their facilities.
Initially, key Acts of Congress and related rules developed by EPA described the
asbestos danger:
October 14. 1975: NESHAP. (CFR Title 40. Part 61. Suboarts A and Bh
"Warning signs shall be displayed (that say)...Breathing Asbestos is Hazardous to
:; Your Health." (Reprinted in Orange Book, p.42)
May 27. 1982 Friable Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools. Identification and -
Notification (40 CFR Part 763):
"Asbestos is a known human carcinogen. Extensive epidemiological evidence
demonstrates that inhalation of asbestos can lead to pleural and peritoneal
mesothelioma. lung cancer, asbestosis.. and other diseases which are serious.
irreversible, and often fatal. Asbestos has been responsible for the premature
deaths of many persons who worked with types of insulating materials now
found in some schools." (Federal Register, May 27. 1982. P. 23361. A.
Background).
This information on the asbestos hazard was expanded upon in the 1984 Title V-
Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act. (Public Law 98-377. August 11. 19841 Findings
and Purposes. Section 502 fa) Findings and Purposes, which again identifies asbestos as a
source of "severe or fatal diseases" and then says:
"Medical evidence has suggested that children may be particularly
. vulnerable—substantial amounts of asbestos...have been used in school buildings...
Asbestos concentration far exceeding normal ambient air levels have been found in
school buildings containing...damaged materials.... The presence in school buildings of
friable or easily damaged asbestos creates an unwarranted hazard to the health of
school children and school employees."
ASHAA Section 502 (a) also includes a significant finding: "medical science has not
established any minimum level of exposure to asbestos fibers which is considered to be
safe." This statement, and the one about asbestos concentrations in schools exceeding
levels in outdoor ambient air are repeated in a number of EPA guidance documents which
preceded the 1988 Report to Congress.
2. Guidance Documents
The first EPA asbestos guidance document, Asbestos-Containing Materials in School
Buildings JThe Orange Boole Parts 1 and 2). was issued in March 1979. Copies were
required to be kept available in school administrative offices. In a "Dear School Official"
opening. The Orange Book set the official tone for Federal concern about asbestos in
schools:
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
55
"...Individuals who are exposed to asbestos could develop lung cancer or cancers in
other parts of the body... Since these materials are found in school buildings, we at
EPA are particularly concerned with exposure of school children... The enclosed
manuals were prepared to...outline the steps you and the schools in your district can
take to...protect students and school personnel from exposure/'
The Orange Book's first chapter contains a number of risk-related statements which
are cited here, at some length, because they serve as a baseline against which to compare
future guidance information (Chapter 1. P.I):
"Some asbestos levels measured in school buildings have even been shown to briefly
exceed the current Federal workplace exposure level standards..."
"EPA and the scientific community' believe that any exposure to asbestos involves some
health risk. No safe level of exposure (threshold exposure level) has been established.
Further, it is Impossible at this time to estimate the degree of risk associated with low
level exposure."
"Where possible all exposure to asbestos should be eliminated or controlled."
"The exposure of children and adolescents to asbestos in the school building occurs
early In their life span. Their remaining life expectancy provides a long development
period for asbestos-related diseases.
"A large number of students can be exposed at one time to asbestos that is released
from asbestos-containing materials present in the school building. The duration of the
exposure is of concern since school children attend school daily for most of the year."
"The school population is very active. Certain asbestos-containing materials can be
damaged during school activities and as a result of the capricious behavior of students...
Many cases of badly damaged asbestos-containing materials have been found in
schools."
And in Part 2: . .
"Asbestos fibers, even in low concentration, may have carcinogenic potential, and a
biologic activity that may persist for the lifetime of the exposed host." (P.' I-1-1)
"Environmental contamination from asbestos containing surfaces occurs not only
during construction and demolition, but also throughout the entire life of the
structure." (P. 1-1-4)
"For buildings with deteriorating asbestos material, however, quiet activity
contamination levels may be significantly higher than outdoor ambient air levels." (P. I-
2-8) . . • . . ... v
.„,* ."•-••**
The Orange Book Part 2 (which is cited in at least one school publication as advocating
removal) also sets the stage for its sections on response actions with such statements as:
"Environmental contamination from asbestos can occur not only during construction
,,and demolition, but also throughout the life of the structure (P.I-4); "The rate of fiber
dispersal in fallout is continuous, low level, and long lived. Fallout may occur without
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT . .'
. • , Reviewer Comments • •
Due 15 September 91 s . '*•
-------
56
physical disruption of the fiber-bearing materials and may simply be a function of
degradation of the adhesive (P 1-2-5)... "Routine activities in a structure containing
sprayed asbestos surfaces will usually result in elevated fiber levels" (P 1-2-8)...
"Maintenance work...may also result in exposures that exceed regulatory limits
established by OSHA."
(Note: According to OTS. the statements about asbestos fallout quote above are not
supported by scientific evidence and should possibly be viewed as examples of early over-
statement of the asbestos-in-buildings danger.)
The next page deals with asbestos-related diseases at considerable length.
Guidance for Controlling Friable Asbestos-Containing Materials in Buildings (The Blue
Book), published in March 1983, reiterates statements about exposure to airborne
asbestos regardless of level is a health risk, that children and young adults are most at
risk, and adds:
"Prevalent levels of airborne asbestos inside buildings where asbestos-containing
materials are present may exceed outdoor levels by a factor of 100.(p. viii) As to low
level exposure, it adds, "the risk of cancer is of greater concern at low levels than the
risk of asbestosis," (P. 1-1) and. "..asbestos workplace studies suggest that a child
exposed from age 5 to 10 has at least 10 times the chance of developing mesothelioma
as does an adult exposed to the same amount of asbestos between ages 35 and 40." (P. 1-
1)
The Blue Book has pictures of damaged gym ceilings and a hole made by the top of a
flagpole standard. (P. 3-9,3-10)
Two years later, in 1985. three different guidance publications reiterated the asbestos
exposure health risk threat. Asbestos Waste Management Guidance—Generation.
Transport. Disposal, issued in May by OSW. not OTS, and aimed primarily at those
involved in disposing of asbestos wastes, devotes almost three pages to asbestos-related
health hazards. It opens with the familiar statement of EPA concern about asbestos dating
back to the early 1970s, and that the concern is based on medical evidence. Asbestos in
Buildings—Guidance for Service and Maintenance Personnel, issued In July, also
emphasizes health risks.
The "most significant of the three 1985 publications is Guidance for Controlling
Asbestos-Containing Materials In Buildings (The Purple Book). This publication, which Is
described In a note to school districts on page ii as being retained instead of the Orange
Book to satisfy the requirements of, the TSCA Asbestos-In-Schoois rules.
The Purple Book represents the beginning of OTS' attempt to put asbestos risks in a
more balanced perspective. Its wording for the first time, softens the degree of risk:
The presence of asbestos In a building does not mean that health of building
occupants is necessarily endangered. As long as asbestos containing material (ACM)
remains In good condition and is not disturbed, exposure Is unlikely. (Note: This
assertion conflicts with the earlier statement about fiber fallout which appeared in the
Orange Book and is considered questionable.) When building maintenance, repair,
renovation or other activities disturb ACM. if it Is damaged, asbestos fibers are
released, creating a potential hazard... Although not required to do so by federal law,
.the prudent building owner will take steps to limit building occupants' exposure to
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
57
airborne asbestos." (P.S-1)
Of schools, the Purple Book says:
"Prevalent concentrations of airborne asbestos in a sample of school buildings was 10
to 100 times higher than outdoors. At the same time, asbestos, levels in the schools
were 10,000 to 100,000 times lower than pre-1972 levels in asbestos insulation
workplaces."(P. 1-2). and "also, asbestos exposure in children is of special concern
since they have a greater remaining lifespan than adults, their lifetime risk of develop
mesotheiioma is greater. Avoiding unnecessary exposure to asbestos is prudent."(P. 1-
2)
3, Other EPA Publications
Other EPA publications, not specifically related to ASHAA. AHERA or the NESHAP. also
pictured asbestos as a health hazard over this same time period. For example, the EPA
Journal, which to a large measure mirrors the Agency's programs and major concerns.
published a number of articles on asbestos and asbestos regulatory programs, asbestos in
the home, asbestos enforcement, asbestos-related training. As early as December, 1983.
in an EPA Journal article entitled "Dealing with Toxics: Present and Future," then-Deputy
Administrator Al Aim wrote:
"We are evaluating our current asbestos control program to see how effective it has
been in reducing public health risk, and are conducting a survey of asbestos in public
buildings to assess the level of health danger that represents. We will be evaluating
more extensive regulation of this dangerous substance."
In this one paragraph. Aim used the words health, risk, danger, and dangerous.
The first major EPA Journal article on asbestos appeared in May. 1984. under the
title. 'Twenty Lessons from Asbestos.: A Bitter .Harvest of Scientific Information." It was
i written by Dr. Irving Selikoff, a leader in the asbestos-related medical field. He wrote in
'; terms of 10.000 deaths so far. and over 100.000 more to come. Dealing with EPA's
!; asbestos-in-schools efforts, he wrote:
I
; . Lack of "concern about very low levels seems somewhat out of touch with reality while •
: some schools have levels of 100 to 1000 nanongrams and while maintenance and
t repair work on asbestos materials is often undertaken without precautions or
supervision." ^
; That same issue of the EPA Journal, coincidentally. had a short news item In its "Update"
I section about penalties assessed against the Diocese of Pittsburgh and the Southeastern
i City Schools in Grove City. Ohio, for violating EPA's then existing school asbestos rule.
; The story also mentioned complaints against schools in New Hampshire. Philadelphia. PA;
1 Cheyenne. WY. and Lebanon. OH. Succeeding issues had additional stories about EPA
, enforcement against schools around the country. Over the years, other stories on asbestos
also included information about the substance being dangerous and a carcinogen. Such
information also appeared in all EPA news releases about asbestos matters.
•• , _ j. . - .
| In the June. 1984 Environmental Progress and Challenges: An EPA Perspective, the
•; Air section; includes asbestos health effects on a chart (P. 12. Figure A , and in the Toxics
:!. section (Pp. '110-113) after describing the health effects at .length says "asbestos is known
to be a health threat to millions of people." .among them school children, teachers and
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
58
others In schools, and notes that "of particular concern is the exposure of children to
asbestos." The section also describes what EPA was then doing to "safeguard" children.
h Post-AHERA (1986-1987)
1. Legislation and Regulations
On October 22^ 1986. the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (Public Law 99-
519) continued the emphasis on potential dangers, starting with the words "Emergency
Response" in its title, and with such statements as:
"The danger of exposure to asbestos continues to exist in schools and some exposure
actually may have increased due to the lack of Federal standards and improper
response action." (Section 201:(a)(l)J
The EPA's comparable statement, in the October 30. 1987 Asbestos-Containing
Materials in School Final Rule and Notice fAHERA Jules) (Federal Register. October 30.
1987) under Supplementary Information. D., Basis for Decision, (page 41829) is more
subdued:
"EPA's analysis of risk placed in the rule-making record when the proposed rule was
issued shows that asbestos in schools could present a risk or concern and that the
measures required by this rule are necessary to protect public health and the
environment."
2. Guidance Documents
The one major guidance document issued during this time period. Asbestos in Schools-
-A Guide to New Federal Requirements for Local Education Agencies, did not discuss the
dangers of asbestos exposure except within the specific context of abatement response
actions. Its emphasis is explaining the AHERA regulations. Another publication. 1QQ
Commonly Asked Questions About the New AHERA Agbestos-in-Schools Rqle. did not
include questions about the dangers of asbestos exposure or the question of whether
asbestos should be removed or otherwise managed.
a Other EPA Materials
During this period, no additional documents were issued other than fact sheets to go
with the rules, but EPA Journal articles and Agency news releases continued to refer to
asbestos as health-threatening and a carcinogen.
c. Since the Report to Congress (1988 to Present)
1. Legislation and Regulations
The following year, the February. 1988 EPA Report to Congress, EPA Study of Asbestos-
Containing Materials in Publiq Buildings set the stage for future differences between early
and later EPA appraisals of the risk involved, and the more direct advocacy of asbestos
management in place instead of removal. While reiterating the health hazards presented
by asbestos exposure and expanding upon the danger to school children posed by
asbestos, the report also deals with other studies, including one made in 1987 (Hatfleld,
Stocfcrahm, Chesson. 1987, for OTS)(Appendix 2. P. 2-1) that found the indoor air
asbestos levels in 43 federal buildings in six states were the comparable to levels in the
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
.Due 15 September 91
-------
59
ambient air outside. This indication that the problems in buildings other than schools
might not be as dangerous notwithstanding, the report says, service workers "appear to
be equally at risk, whether employed in public or commercial buildings or in schools."
(P.7)
In dealing with the schools versus public buildings exposure issue, the report says:
"The potential for damage or disturbance in schools might be greater than in many
other buildings, given the nature of the occupants (children) and higher expected .
.level of activity. ( P. 7)... It is difficult to make comparisons between schools and
nonschool buildings with regard to exposure and risk (P.7)... A proportional risk
model developed by the Agency suggests that elimination of asbestos exposures in
schools might significantly reduce risk for populations later exposed in public and
commercial buildings." (P.7)
The report includes a letter from then .EPA Administrator. Lee ML Thomas transmitting
the report to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, which concludes.
(P. 5 of letter):
"...Asbestos in commercial buildings, like asbestos in schools, represents a potential
health hazard that deserves careful attention. However, we need to continue to place
our primary focus on asbestos in schools... Children, since they have the longest life
expectancy, would appear to incur the greatest risk... Children also spend a great deal
of time in school where any asbestos is especially susceptible to disturbance by the
occupants..."
Two other EPA rules round out the risk picture presented in laws and regulations: The
first was issued by OAQPS (not OTS). The second was issued by OTS.
In January. 1989, the Asbestos NESHAPS Revision, Including Disposal of Asbestos
Containing Materials Removed from Schools; Notice of Proposed Ride Revision..48 CFR
Parts 61 and 763 (Federal Register, January 10, 1989 P.912)) says:
"The existing standard and proposed amendments...are based on the Administrator's
determination that asbestos presents a significant risk to human health as a result of
air emissions...and is therefore a hazardous air pollutant."
And, in July, the Asbestos: Manufacture, Importation, Processing, and Distribution in
Commerce Prohibitions; Final Rule (40 CPR Part 763 (Federal Register. July 12. 1989):
"EPA is issuing this rule to reduce the unreasonable risks presented to human health
by exposure to asbestos during activities involving these products." (P.29460)
The phrase, "unreasonable risk" appears a number of times. Considering the wide
publicity given this "ban" on asbestos, this rule no doubt reinforced school officials' and
community concerns about asbestos in their schools, even though it was published after
AHERA-required inspections and management plans were completed and the rule really
did not affect them. ,
2. Guidance Documents
The ABC's of Asbestos in Schools, published in June 1989, begins with, "asbestos fibers
can cause serious health problems," and reiterates EPA's concern for children, but. like
i>
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
60
some of its predecessors, links asbestos exposure to exposure to cigarette smoke and
repeats, "much uncertainty surrounds the risk from exposure to low levels of asbestos
fibers." (P.2)
A key element of EPA's communications about asbestos in the most recent time period
is the repetition of the "Five Facts." a summary of EPA's recent concept of the asbestos-in-
buildings exposure risk, and the Agency's emerging emphasis on management-in place as
apposed to removal. The "Five Facts" were first used by Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances' Assistant Administrator Linda Fisher in replying to the Science Magazine
article (see below), while testifying before the House Subcommittee on Health and Safety
Materials of the Committee on Education and Labor on April 3. 1990. She did not dwell
on specific health concerns, using .instead a statement used repeatedly over the years in
testimony by EPA officials: • • .
"Our goals, and those of this subcommittee, remain identical: to minimize the
inhalation of asbestos which is in place in school buildings."
As to the"degree of risk, she said, (page 10):
"With respect to the so-called 'one fiber can kill' image, the present scientific
evidence will not allow us to state unequivocally that there is a level of exposure below
which there is a zero risk, but the risk in fact could be negligible or even zero... While
scientists have been unable to agree on a level of asbestos exposure at which we. as
public policy makers, can confidentially say. 'there is no risk.' this does not mean that
all or any exposure is Inherently dangerous. To the contrary, almost every day we are
exposed to some prevailing level of asbestos fibers in buildings or experience some
ambient level in the outdoor air. And. based upon available data, very few among us.
given existing controls, have contracted or will ever contract ah asbestos-related
disease at these low prevailing levels....present evidence suggests that building
occupants face only very slight risk. Severe health problems attributed to asbestos
exposure have generally been experienced by workers in industries...where they were
constantly exposed to very high fiber levels in the air..."
In guidance materials, the Five Facts surfaced in a truncated version in the Foreword
to the Green Book, Managing Asbestos in Place. A Building Owner's Guide to Operations
and Maintenance Problems for Asbestos-Containing Materials, published in July, 1990.
This guidance document continued the qualification of asbestos exposure risk that began
with the/Purple Book:
"Fact One: Although asbestos is hazardous, the risk of asbestos-related diseases
depends upon exposure to airborne asbestos fibers...at very low exposure levels, the
risk may be negligible or zero... Fact Two: Based upon the available data, the average
airborne levels In buildings seem to be very low. Accordingly, the health risk to most
building occupants also appears to be very low. (Green Book, pp vii. viii}."
The Foreword which contains the Five Facts does not discuss potential health effects.
although they are discussed in a subsequent background section on Page 2. The Green
Book says virtually nothing about schools (except for a brief paragraph on AHERA) and a
slightly longer section on AHERA-required inspections. It says, among other things:
"Whenever we discuss the risk posed by asbestos we must keep in mind that asbestos
fibers can be found nearly everywhere in our environment (usually at very low levels.
There is. at this time, insufficient information concerning health effects resulting from
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
'61
. low-level asbestos exposure, either from exposures in buildings or from our
environment. This makes it difficult to accurately assess the magnitude of cancer risk
for building occupants, tenants, and building maintenance and custodial workers.
I Although in general the risk likely to be negligible for occupants, health concerns
, remain, particularly for the building's custodial and maintenance workers." (P.2)
' Although the Green Book was not written for schools per se. it was sent to 44,000
LEAs with a covering letter calling it "the most comprehensive asbestos guide published
\ by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) since 1985." This claim
" notwithstanding, it does not include any references to previously published information
ii about school children being especially vulnerable, asbestos levels in schools being higher
I than the ambient air outside, or other information about the propensity of in-school
:; activities for damaging asbestos that appeared in earlier guidance or. in part, in the ABCs
• and the Purple Book (still the guidance of record, to which the Green Book is a -
: supplement).
; While the Five Facts continued to be used in other testimony and letters to the editor
or other articles in which EPA refuted attacks on the Agency's asbestos policy stemming
' from or based on the Science article or comparable sources, the only other EPA guidance
1 document in which they appear is the March 6, 1991 memorandum from Administrator
1 Reilly. An Advisory to the Public on Asbestos in Buildings, which is reviewed In the '
! section of this document dealing with the period after the 1988 EPA Report to Congress.
| Another major publication is Environmental Hazards in Your School, published in
' October. 1990. and dealing with asbestos/radon, and lead in drinking water. On page 2,
! it says. "EPA estimates that there are asbestos-containing materials in most of the nation's
approximately 107.000 primary and secondary schools." (Note: other EPA publications use
figures ranging from 31.000 to 40.000-plus, and on page 4, this same publication puts the
number at 44.900.) The problem with the figures may be that different figures may
represent LEAs or individual schools, or schools with friable or nonfriable asbestos.
On page 3. the publication says: . .
. • ' "
"Asbestos fibers can cause serious health problems...uncertainty continues to surround
• the-probability of malignancies occurring at low levels of exposure. Low level exposure
would include average exposure to asbestos fibers in schools and buildings. Due to lack
of reliable exposure data extracted from epidemiological studies and .the absence of an .
exposure threshold, the fact that school .children and custodial workers are exposed to
any amount of asbestos fibers continues to constitute a concern."
*'('•-.. • '
a Other EPA Publications . ,v
' -t '. • . -• f
i In August. 1988. Environmental Progress and Challenges: EPA's Updajg. there is a
, statement about issuing emissions standards for asbestos and health effects (p. 13). a
•j paragraph under Indoor Air Pollution (P. 32) expressing concern about asbestos in the
I home, listing of ASHAA and AHERA under major toxic chemical laws administered by EPA
! (P. 113), an article on asbestos control training programs (p. 122) and additional material
i on Agency efforts to achieve further reductions of asbestos risks (Pp. 124. 125). Asbestos
i in schools is not mentioned and there is no special section on the nature of the asbestos
health risk. • "
In December. 1990, Meeting the Environmental Challenge: EPA's Review of Progress
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
• - Reviewer Comments
• . Due 15 September 91
-------
62
and New Directions in Environmental Protection, the health effects of asbestos are
included on the list of regulated air pollutants {P. 10), and asbestos is included in a list of
indoor air pollutants (P. 11) but further mention of asbestos (P. 18} is limited to:
"..In 1989. EPA banned the manufacture of most asbestos products. EPA has also
provided considerable grants and guidance to protect children from exposure to
asbestos in schools."
Hazardous Substances in Our Environment: A Citizen's Guide to Understanding Health
Risks and Reducing Exposure, a September, 1990, publication, cited asbestos as a
carcinogen (P. 23), although it used a cement factory as its exposure example and did not
mention schools.
One additional publication should be noted. The Asbestos Informer entitled, "Asbestos-
-What You Don't Know Can Hurt You!" A draft version dated December. 1990 but
scheduled for mid-1991 release, is related primarily to NESHAP-Asbestos and is being
published by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Stationary Source
Compliance Division. The emphasis is on occupational, para-occupational (families of
workers), and neighborhood exposure, although it does discuss in-school exposure and
will include a brief summary of the Five Facts. The content about asbestos exposure risk.
is, however, less reassuring than the Green Book or the 1991 Public Advisory:
"Once inhaled, asbestos fibers can easily penetrate body tissues. They may be
deposited and retained in the airways and lung tissue. Because asbestos fibers remain
in the body, each exposure increases the likelihood of developing an asbestos-related
disease... Scientists have not been able to develop a "safe" or threshold level for
exposure to airborne asbestos... The younger people are when they inhale asbestos,
the more likely they are to develop mesothelioma. That is why enormous efforts are
being made to prevent school children from being exposed."
EPA news releases related to asbestos continued to refer to it as a dangerous
carcinogen, etc. For example, a news release dated August 22. 1989. about EPA
enforcement actions quoted Deputy Administrator Habicht as saying: "Asbestos is a known
cause of cancer in humans and it can be a killer." The release also estimated that as much
as "half of the asbestos demolitions and renovations done nationwide may not be in
accordance with Clean Air Act regulations." (Note: This is considerably different from the
March 6. 1991. Five Facts statement that "we believe most asbestos removals are being
conducted properly." While the latter statement no doubt refers to asbestos-ln-schools
removals, the reader is left to make that distinction unaided.) A July 6. 1989 news
release on the asbestos phaseout rule said asbestos has been linked "to a number of fatal
diseases."
d. Observations on the treatment of risk in Acts of Congress and EPA materials
It is evident from the foregoing that the various EPA voices have been generally
consistent in describing the potential dangers to human health presented by asbestos
exposure, but since the initial AHERA implementation period there has been a softening
of some messages about the risks involved in exposure to asbestos in schools and
buildings. The degree of hazard that in early publications is attributed to medical sources
becomes, for example, a hazard which medical sources can't determine, and the notion of
no known threshold of exposure becomes a matter of 'we don't know how dangerous low
level exposure is.'
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
63
Why this change in emphasis occurred is not explained in the EPA publications going
to school officials and the general public. Instead, phrases like "based on five years of
experience," or "our eleven years of experience." introduce the changes. If it is based on
the surveys In the 1988 Report to Congress, that is not explained In the documents that
were reviewed, although Assistant Administrator Fisher did discuss the reasoning behind
the Five Facts at much more length than they have been dealt with elsewhere. If
messages, are evolving, straight talk on the reasons behind the changes need to be better
explained to audiences.
2. What Others Said
How did the various EPA messages "Play in Peoria," or. better yet. In the offices of the
Peoria school district? This content analysis cannot fully answer this question It can only
report what was written in different publications at different periods by those who
undertook to decipher EPA's messages for their various audiences, how they perceived
the response of school officials and the community, and what they advised their readers
to do by way of response. What the review did find was:
* While there may have been reasonable consistency In how the EPA messages were
reflected in official publications and EPA statements, this was not necessarily so in the
trade and general news media. Sources outside EPA have given a variety of different
messages to Local Education Agencies (LEAs) about the risk of asbestos.
* Those sources include school associations, consultants, contractors, school
employees, and parents. LEAs have also received messages from OSHA. the courts, the
scientific community, and the press.
* Some of these sources have supported EPA's messages, others have challenged them,
and still others have misrepresented them and/or pointed out the inconsistency of
messages from various sources. As time goes on. the controversy has increased, especially
since the Science article and Administrator Reilly's speech on asbestos policy in June
1990.
In reviewing educational publications, the news media, and other non-EPA
1 publications, it is often difficult to separate risk-related content from abatement- and
response-related material. This is especially so with the educational organization
1 publications, since their major emphasis, by and large, was what to do about asbestos, not
> how dangerous it is. A broader review of these publications will be found at the end of
; Section 2, which deals with the question of removal vs. management-in-place. The
j general media are reviewed at length in Section 4.
a Educational Publications -
1 First, a look at school-related publications which are widely read by LEA
administrators and which reflect the context within which school administrators view
asbestos and other operational problems. It is worth noting that many of the articles are
• surrounded by a "Greek chorus" of ads for asbestos consultants, removal contractors and
similar firms. '...:.' ,
' In educational publications in particular, the EPA messages are most often translated
| by lawyers, consultants, contractors or others with a vested interest in the translation.
! Few of the articles came from EPA sources, and only a few were written by school
administrators. This is not to say the writers were deliberately distorting their subjects,
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
64
but it Is obvious that they had a very specific perspective. And. of course, whatever they
were writing about the asbestos-in-school hazards was reinforced, or confused, by what
appeared in the general news media.
An example of what appeared in the educational press is the May-June 1983 Issue of
the Council of Educational Facility Planners Journal (P. 18,19) by professors L. Dayle
Yeager and David Bilbo, who say. of asbestos products:
"Many...have been proven to be connected to long term health problems...were used
extensively in the construction of educational facilities... Based on the assumption that
a safe learning environment exists in their school facilities. Americans have routinely
entrusted the physical well-being of their children to the educational system.. This
prevailing attitude may undergo drastic changes within the foreseeable future as a
result of past and current research Unking asbestos to long term health problems."
Citing projections that 17 percent of all cancer deaths in the United States will be
asbestos-related, the writers conclude:
"Passage of time without immediate and decisive action compounds this problem. To
ignore this is to violate the trust of all Americans who created or create and suppor: an
educational system designed to promote the physical and mental well-being of their
children."
The article offers as resources an EPA package and the Orange Book.
Only one issue of PTA Today, the organ of the National Parent-Teachers Association.
was found that had a story on asbestos. Appearing in February 1985 (before AHERA). the
article was entitled "Asbestos in Your Child's School: How to Get Rid of It (P. 18.19) and
written by a firm of mental health consultants. Done in Question and Answer format, it
deals at length with asbestos dangers, saying:
"School is the most likely place he or she (a child) would encounter asbestos" and
using EPA figures to estimate that some 15 million school children and 1.4 million
teachers and school employees may be at risk through exposure.
As time went on, educational publications become Increasingly focussed on abatement
methods and requirements, costs and funding questions, and legal matters rather than
the risks involved.
Rarely are any school sources quoted as questioning EPA's risk messages. One is cited
in the Section 2 review of educational publications. The review of the general news media
reporting on asbestos removal issues in 1988 found two such statements in 464
newspaper articles. One has to assume, therefore, that school officials accepted EPA's
risk messages as reasonable.
b. General Press
Insofar as the general press is concerned, there were many messages about the risks
associated with asbestos, most of them tending to support and dramatize EPA's
statements over the years. It was not until articles in the New England Journal of
Medicine. (June 29. 1989) and Science.fJanuary 19. 1990) criticized EPA's asbestos
policy as being based on over-stated assumptions of the risk involved—that there began to
be a spate of articles questioning how dangerous asbestos really is. These appeared in
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
65
such publications as Readers Digest, news magazines, the American Spectator. USA
Today, the Wall Street Journal, and the New Republic. Others such as the New York
Times Magazine, sought to clarify the arguments in feature articles. The "Five Facts" were
cited by EPA in various newspapers to clarify the Agency's position.
i; C The Question of Removal vs. Management-in-Place -•
Although the AHERA study and other evidence indicates that LEAs that have removed
: asbestos in their schools or plan to are in the minority, this review focusses on this area
because it has been the subject of considerable controversy in relation to costs, necessity,
; school closings, inherent danger of doing so. etc. The perception that asbestos removal
has been widespread is not supported by the AHERA study (which puts the percentage of"
" AHERA plans that include removal at between 10 and 15 percent), but it was implied in
I Administrator Reilly's asbestos speech, and educational and other publications give a
similar impression, especially about the pre-AHERA years. Unfortunately, no one seems
; to have kept statistical records on the subject. EPA has been charged both with fostering
removal and failing to foster removal. The content review finds:
ii *
|, * A careful reading of EPA documents shows that the Agency has consistently (pre-and
;; post-AHERA) maintained that asbestos-in-schools laws do not necessarily require schools
j. to remove asbestos they find In their buildings even though the asbestos NESHAP rules
may require removal when a school is being renovated or demolished: management-in-
; place may be the preferred option in many cases, a message EPA is now making especially
clear.
1;
* Nevertheless, it has been very possible at many points for LEAs to get the impression
from the Agency's documents and actions that removal is the preferred option. The
Office of Toxic Substances has moved forcefully to correct this impression in recent years.
but there have times when the message was not clear. Whether or not this actually led to
large numbers of "unnecessary" removals cannot be documented by this content analysis,
just as there are no published statistics on NESHAP-related removals.
* The message about maintaining asbestos in place has not been consistently reflected
in the Federal Register. EPA publications, and statements by EPA officials, probably
because it is a relatively new development. •
* Timing of EPA's post-AHERA publications that emphasized maintenance-in-place
asbestos abatement may have contributed to confusion about this issue on the part of a
significant number of LEAs:
- Published AHERA requirements and rules, and EPA publications and releases,
emphasized (1) using an accredited abatement counselor to develop and LEA's
asbestos abatement plan. (2) specific deadlines for various steps in the compliance
process, and (3) an options selection framework within which LEAs could develop and
implement their required asbestos abatement plans.
- Publications emphasizing the changed approach were not released until well after
the deadlines approached. The one publication that said the abatement counselor's
advice could be changed was issued one year after the plan deadline, then based the
opportunity for change on inspections still-to- come. .
Beginning with the original NESHAP ban on spraying asbestos on open surfaces and
requiring removal of asbestos (if the amount found was greater than certain specified
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
66
quantities) when demolitions or renovations were undertaken, the EPA has
communicated to schools the need to do something about determining and abating their
asbestos problems. Early rule-making required inspection and- notification but not
abatement measures, although they were recommended. But ASHAA did make available
grants and loans to financially troubled schools to help pay for abatement (which, since
the statute required that funds be directed to schools with the most severe asbestos
hazards, generally paid for removal). AHERA established a framework for mandated
abatement, offering options which included encapsulation, enclosure, maintenance.
repair, and removal. On the other hand, the Agency was also saying that EPA rules don't
prohibit removal if that's what an LEA decides to do, and the largest portion of ASHAA
funding was, and is, still paying for removals. Since, as early as 1972. EPA began
discouraging removal except when truly necessary, one question this analysis seeks to
answer is: given that EPA's asbestos-in schools message was multi-faceted, directed to
several receivers (schools, parents, accredited personnel), and in recent years had to be
adjusted to accommodate scientific developments, was the message clear and consistent
or confused and subject to misinterpretation?
Hie following analysis looks at what EPA said, both as to risk and as to the removal
question, and how the message was reflected by others.
1. Acts of Congress and EPA materials
a The Pre-AHERA Period (1972-1986)
1. Laws and Regulations
NESHAP Air Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Asbestos Regulations.
. first published by OAQPS in 1973 and amended several times, most recently in 199O,
these regulations require that asbestos be removed before a building is renovated or
demolished. This requirement applies to schools as well as other public or commercial
buildings. The most recent revisions provide more specific requirements for transporting
and disposing of asbestos after it is removed.
Friable Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools. Identification and Notification, the
"Asbestos-in-Schools" Rule, promulgated by OTS in 1982. On the subject of abatement,
this document says, in its Introduction(p. 23360):
"Many of the friable asbestos-containing materials in schools do not require abatement
or removal. A reasonable effort by school officials to manage the materials can prevent
damage to or deterioration of them and the consequent release of asbestos and
exposure of users... Some asbestos-containing materials Identified when complying
with the rule may be determined to require corrective action such as removal,
encapsulation with a sealant, which improves the cohesive strength of the material, or
enclosure."
The rule goes on to describe the Orange Book (published in 1979 and quoted
elsewhere in this review) as a source of guidance about what to do and how to do it. notes
that "abatement is often needed whenever the friable asbestos is visibly damaged and
easily accessible or has inherently poor cohesive strength." In "A Guide for Reducing
Asbestos Exposure," (reproduced on P. 23373). the only reference to removal is:
"if you must disturb or remove large sections of asbestos-containing material,...turn off
the school's ventilating system if you are disturbing or removing large sections of
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
67
asbestos-containing materials." . •
The Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act of 1984 fASHAAl Public Law 98-377.
August 11, 1984, provides funds for financially needy schools with serious asbestos
problems (the kind that necessitate removals) and twice includes in the list of actions
HI (enclosure, encapsulation, removal) for which federal funding could be available:
|; "replacing the asbestos material removed from school buildings with other
|! appropriate building materials..." . .
!! • '
I This may have unintentionally strengthened perceptions that EPA favors, removal,
although the fact the statutory language and the fact that most ASHAA grants and loans
11 have funded removal projects undoubtedly had a much greater impact.
' ' 2. Guidance Documents >
i ; ' • .. • - " - •
i; Asbestos-Containing Materials in-School Buildings. Parts I and 2 (The"Orange Book).
! published in 1979:
| After a section saying there are two basic long-term control measures, containment or
| complete removal, the Orange Book says: "Asbestos removal provides a final solution by
" elimination of the contaminant source. It requires, however, renovation involving
friable asbestos materials, with significant problems of worker protection, prevention
" of environmental contamination, and considerable interruption of activities in the
building. Containment by sealing, encapsulation, or barrier system usually results in
', lower levels of asbestos contamination during alterations, takes less time, and may be
! less expensive, especially if replacement is avoided. The asbestos source remains.
f however, and damage, deterioration, or failure of the protective system will result in
recurrence of asbestos contamination. .
...Maintaining low fiber levels may require strictly controlled maintenance custodial
activities for the life of the. building (P-II-2-4). .
: Under enclosure systems the Orange Book says:
i • '
i( "The uncertainties of its long term effectiveness, the need for continued air
!< monitoring, and the remaining problem as the time of demolition or renovation, make
this method unattractive." (P. II-3-1).
I A long section on removal discusses how to go about it properly but does not point to it
as potentially dangerous.
Guidance for Controlling Friable Asbestos-Containing Materials In Buildings (The Blue
Book), issued'in March, 1983:
11 The Blue Book also puts removal at the top of a list of abatement measures (P. 311) and
i; says ( P. 3-14):
"Many abatement experts believe removal of asbestos-containing material is the
only final and satisfactory solution to the problem of asbestos exposure.
Competently performed, with adequate protection for workers and building .
occupants, removal can eliminate all potential for exposure. On the other hand.
removal may be more complicated and cost more initially (although not
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
68
necessary In the long run) than other abatement measures."
Subsequent sections point up the difficulties involved in other measures, and a table
(P. 3-27) comparing asbestos control.measures, positions removal first in the table's
listing, and cites as advantages: "Eliminates asbestos source. Eliminates need for special
operations and maintenance program." According to the table, removal is always
appropriate, never inappropriate. . .
Guidance for Controlling Asbestos-Containing Materials in Buildings (The Purple
Book), issued in June, 1985; places operations and maintenance (management-in-place)
at the top of the list of abatement options, thus beginning the shift in EPA emphasis. But
in a table (P.4-9), similar to that in the Blue Book, removal is listed first in relation to
surfacing material, saying it "eliminates asbestos source." and "eliminates need for special
operations and maintenance program. The table indicates removal "can be used in most
situations." No inappropriate applications are listed, and the disadvantages listed for
enclosure and encapsulation include the fact that the source remains and must be
removed later.
In a section on methods (P. 4-10). the Purple Book says:
"Removal has the widest applicability. It is also the only truly permanent solution,
since no building containing asbestos can be.demolished without first removing the
ACM."
"If ACM has only minor, isolated damage, removal of selected areas may be sufficient."
It goes on to say:
"Enclosure and encapsulation have limited application. Enclosure is restricted to
situations where ACM can be isolated in small localized areas. Encapsulation can be
used only for acoustical plaster in good condition. In addition, the special operations
and maintenance program must be continued...until the building is demolished.
Encapsulation may make eventual removal more difficult and costly."
a Other EPA Publications
During this period, new EPA publications other than those previously mentioned, did
not deal with asbestos removal as an issue, nor did EPA news releases.
b. AHERA and Immediately After (1986-1988)
L Laws and Regulations
The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of 1986 fAHERAl fPubllc Law 99-519).
October 11. 1986. contains this early statement about the Purple Book (Section 201(a)(3):
"The guidance provided by the Environmental Protection Agency in its 'Guidance for
Controlling Asbestos-Containing Material in Buildings' (The Purple Book) is Insufficient
in detail to ensure adequate responses. Such guidance is intended to be used only
until the regulations required by this title become effective."
AHERA (section 203) establishes four degrees of damage or potential damage to
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
69
asbestos, and requires EPA to establish appropriate response actions for each category.
again referring back to the Purple book as a resource, and says, in Section 204. that until
new regulations are promulgated, the "current guidance"-the Purple Book—is in effect
(What it says about danger and removal is reviewed below.) AHERA establishes a system
requiring LEAs to hire accredited advisors to help them develop plans, then to submit the
|| plans for review by their State Governor, who has a stated period during which he .can
•• disapprove it. In Section 205. one reason for which a Governor may disapprove a plan is
. that it:
I "Does not contain a response action schedule which is reasonable and timely, taking
; into account circumstances relevant to the speed at which the friable asbestos-
, containing material in the school buildings...should be responded to...including human
i exposure to the asbestos while the friable asbestos-containing material remains in the
school buildings." .
' The AHERA rule (P. 41826 IT.) also describes the Purple Book as:
i • • •""'.'.
| "State-of-the art guidance to help identify and control asbestos in buildings... The'
•• document provides criteria for building owners to use in deciding which abatement
•f method is most appropriate for each particular situation."
! The Purple Book became the guidance document in effect when AHERA was enacted
; and the AHERA rules promulgated. Under the law. It was to remain In effect until new
guidance was promulgated through the rule-making process. So, because new guidance
: materials were not promulgated by rule-making, the Purple Book was in effect during the
: AHERA planning and implementation period and is still the official guidance, even though
: it is not binding in the same sense that the formal AHERA rules are. Subsequently, in mid-"
l: 1989 and 1990. the Purple Book was supplemented by a publication on asbestos
assessment and the Green Book's operations and maintenance guidance. And. the
'oreword to the subsequent 1990 guidance document (Managing Asbestos in Place, the
Green Book) says that this new guidance:
1 "does not supplant'the 1985 Purple Book as EPA's principal asbestos guidance
,: document. Rather...it expands and refines the Purple Book's guidance for a special
", operations and maintenance program..."(P.vii)
• Note: A description of previous EPA activities, however. Indicates the Agency had.
i prior to AHERA's enactment, initiated development of two new guidance documents on
'' asbestos control. (It is assumed that these were the ABCs and the Green Book.)
• Subsequent sections dealing with the specifics of various abatement measures do not
raise any serious questions about dangers or hazards.
l: A long description of various asbestos problems and preventive measures, concludes
!with "If, however, such preventive measures cannot be effectively implemented; other
(response actions. Including removal, will be required." (P. 41830) "Nothing in the rule
shall be construed to prohibit the removal of ACBM from a school building at any time.
should removal be the preferred response of the LEA...", (P. 41832) and. further on. "If it
is not feasible...to repair the damaged material, it must be removed." The rule Itself
[(Section 763.90 Response Actions), repeats the statement that nothing in the rule will
prevent schools from removing asbestos if they so wish and lists a number of situations in
which removal could be the preferable response, qualifying this only by saying, "response
actions, including removal...shall be designed and conducted by persons accredited to
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
70
design and conduct response actions." (P. 41850)
One other section (763.93, P. 41853) is cited here because is bears on the question of
whether or not LEAs could change their plans on the basis of another opinion after they
had been approved. Whether they can or can't change them after formal approval has
been obtained and the implementation deadlines have passed, is a question that relates to
subsections (c) and (d):
"(c) Each local education agency must begin implementation of its management plan
on or before July 9, 1989, and complete implementation in a timely fashion, (d) Each
local education agency shall maintain and update its management plan to keep it
current with ongoing operations and maintenance, periodic surveillance, inspection.
re-inspection, and response action activities. All provisions required to be included in
the management plan under this section shall be retained as part of the management
plan, as well as any information that has been revised to bring the plan up to date."
Note: It does not say yes: it does not say no. insofar as changes soon after the 1989
implementation date, but this section is used in the covering letter which OTS sent to
LEAs with the Green Book to encourage changes on the basis of forthcoming inspections.
Hindsight suggests further explanation in the rule would have been helpful: (See below,
under Green Book).
Shortly after the AHERA rule was promulgated, EPA released "Asbestos in Schools" A
Guide to New Federal Requirements for Loc^l Education Agencies (early 19881. This was
used for training and orientation by such groups as the National Association of School
Administrators. On the subject of removal, it may have added to the confusion for those
LEAs that ultimately chose the removal option:
Chapter 6 (P. 19) deals with response actions.
language from the statute-- it says:
In its opening paragraph—using
The response action selected must protect human health and the environment,
but .the LEA may choose to implement the least burdensome response action
from those actions that protect human health and the environment...LEAs may
always choose to remove ACBM... All response actions, including removal...must
be designed and conducted by persons accredited to design and conduct
response actions."
"Least burdensome" is not defined, presumably because there are so many local-scene
variables. The chapter then goes on to list the five categories of damage or potential
damage listed in the AHERA rule. It gives alternative control methods for them. For four
of the five categories, removal is one of two or three options. The dangers of removal are
not discussed in the publication.
The Agency also published. In May, 1988. 100 Commonly Asked Questions About the
New AHERA Asbestos-In-Schools Rule, "to help school officials, training providers, and
accredited persons better understand the new AHERA schools rule. Interestingly, It
contains no questions about removal as compared to other options.
a Other EPA Publications
The Asbestos Fact Book was issued in 1985 and reissued In 1986. It reflected
comparable information about the laws and requirements that appeared in the Purple
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
71
Book. The EPA Journal had an occasional article about asbestos but did not get into the
removal issue. "
c. Since the Report to Congress (1988 to present]
; 1. Legislation and Regulations
i During this period there have been no new major asbestos laws enacted, and new
I NESHAP rules did not involve the issue of removal vs. management-in-place. Rather, they
: focussed on transportation and disposal of asbestos once it had been removed.
:l The asbestos ban.rule. Asbestos: Manufacture. Importation. Processing, and
i Distribution in Commerce Prohibitions, Final Rule, issued in July, 1989. did not directly
j involve asbestos in schools, except as it ultimately affects various products used in school
building, but the publicity It received may have influenced some LEAs as they considered
, abatement options.
: 2. Guidance Documents • '
The ABC's of Asbestos in Schools (June. 1989). is the first EPA publication to
emphasize the potential dangers of removal. Whereas the Purple Book and the 1988
AHERA Guide listed a number of circumstances under which removal could be
appropriate, the ABCs, (Pages 6-8). says:
I!
\ "..Asbestos that is managed properly and maintained in good condition appears to pose
i relatively little risk to students and school employees. Accordingly, the AHERA rule
rarely requires the removal of asbestos materials."
key word seems to be "requires", for previous guidance does indicate a number of
umstances where removal could be appropriate. Further, the ABCs booklet says:
'•. "The final response action, asbestos removal. Is generally necessary only when the
material damage is extensive and severe, arid other actions will not control fiber
release. Although the AHERA rule does not prohibit schools from removing any
asbestos material, removal decisions should not be made lightly. An ill-conceived or
poorly conducted removal can actually increase rather than eliminate risk.
Consequently, all school removal projects must be designed, supervised, and
conducted by accredited professionals, and should be performed in accordance with
state-of-the-art procedures.... The final selection Is up to school officials after they
f receive the advice of the school's accredited management planner."
Page 10 reinforces the earlier statements with:
: "Federal regulations do not require the removal of all friable asbestos from schools
until the building is demolished. In fact, during the life of the building, other methods
of dealing with the material are often preferable to removal."
Nothing is said about NESHAP requirements for removal before renovation or
demolition. Newspaper clippings and educational publications examined in this review
indicate that removal is frequently related to renovation projects in school buildings.
Managing Asbestos in Place, a Building Owner's Guide to Operations and Maintenance
Programs for Asbestos-Containing Materials (The Green Book). Although the Foreword
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
72
says the Green Book, "does"not supplant the Purple Book," It strongly emphasizes
management In place and as opposed to removal. This new emphasis, while not
identified as a changed approach. Is described as "based on our experience since 1985."
and:
"It expands and refines the Purple Book's guidance for a special operations and
maintenance program. In particular, the guide more strongly emphasizes the
importance of in-place management. The guide's purpose is two-fold. First, it offers
building owners the more detailed and up-to-date instruction they need to carry out a
successful O and M program. Second, it informs building owners, lenders, and
insurers that a properly conducted O and M program can in many cases be as
appropriate an asbestos control strategy as removal. Furthermore, in some cases, and
O and M program is more appropriate than other asbestos control strategies, including
removal." (p. vii)
The "Five Facts" are then introduced (pp. vii, viii) to "help calm the unwarranted fears
that a number of people seem to have about the mere presence of asbestos in their
buildings and to discourage the spontaneous decisions by some building owners to remove
all asbestos-containing materials regardless of its condition;" •
Three of the Five Facts are related to removal, and raise issues not raised in the "
"danger" context by previous guidance:
"By their nature, asbestos removal tends to elevate the airborne level of asbestos fibers.
Unless all safeguards are properly applied, a removal operation can actually increase
rather than decrease the risk of asbestos-related disease... Asbestos removal before
the wrecking ball swings into action is appropriate to protect public health. At other
times, EPA believes that asbestos-removal projects, unless well-designed and properly
performed, can actually increase health risk." Fact 5 "recommends a proactive, in-
place management program whenever asbestos containing material is discovered...
This does not mean, 'do nothing.'"
Management-in-place is briefly described, with the reminder that it may be all that is
necessary until the asbestos is disturbed by renovations or removal.
The strong stand against removal is softened on Page 8:
"But O and M procedures alone are not sufficient for ACM that the inspector
determines is significantly damaged, and may not be sufficient for some types of
ACM...some form of full scale abatement-repair, encapsulation, enclosure, encasement
or removal—will be required. Removal...may also be appropriate when performed in
conjunction with major building renovations or as part of long-term building
management policies...as covered by EPA NESHAP requirements..."
There are a number of other references to the NESHAP requirements.
The only references to schools note that AHERA does not require removal, and
describe some of the AHERA inspection requirements as examples for operators of other
buildings.
Although previous guidance had referred extensively to higher asbestos fiber levels in
schools than other buildings and the ambient air. and to the special problems of school
children and asbestos exposure, neither the Green Book nor the covering letter to School
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
73
(Officials, which essentially'does little more than repeat parts, of the Foreword in letter
form, give any indication that the concerns have, changed or have been superseded by new
t scientific information. The letter does not indicate, for example, that previous
•; information about schools is no longer valid if. indeed, such is the case. The letter says:
;; "The new guide is important because in-place management should be the cornerstone
1 of your school asbestos control program, as documented in your management plans
! under...AHERA." t .
but does not-acknowledge that available guidance material, including the 1988 summary
'. of AHERA requirements. Nor did it attempt to explain the change in direction, except to
refer, to the Five. Facts, which do not mention schools. It does, however . suggest they
• might want to revise their management plans, based on upcoming mandated inspections,
with the new guidance in mind. . •.
! It should be noted that the earlier version of the Five Facts, as presented by Assistant
I Administrator Fisher in testimony before two House Subcommittees in. April and June,
1990, included much more in the way of explanatory comment. For example, she said:
1 : .
"The mere presence of a hazardous substance, such as asbestos, on an auditorium
ii ceiling, no more implies disease than a potential poison in a medicine cabinet or
|i under a kitchen sink implies poisoning." (P. 10)
1 ^
i
' [Note: while it Is unlikely that many LEAs ever saw this testimony about the Five Facts, it
! should be recalled that both the Blue Book and the Purple Book used pictures of scarred
' auditorium and gymnasium ceilings to Illustrate in-school hazards). Although earlier in
her testimony she described the AHERA and ASHAA Programs (ASHAA provided $245 .
)million in grants and loans for LEA abatement efforts), in her summary of the Five Facts.
"she said: . •
"EPA's asbestos program for schools and its guidance for other building owners, which
'• is founded on in-place management, is designed to keep these low prevalent fiber
" levels low, through recognition and management." (P. 15) .
;i There is no indication in the testimony, however, that most of the ,$245 million
•* (including that spent in 1990) funded removals, and that the strong emphasis on in-place
i management might be considered by school districts as a change in direction that
' differed from all previous guidance from EPA except for the ABCs.,
I
t Advisory to the Public About Asbestos in Buildings, distributed to LEAs over the
t Administrator's signature'on March 6, 1991. This version of the Five Facts, is tailored to
I a school-related audience, and is much longer and much more explanatory than the Green
i Book version; it contains a great deal of material that did not appear in the version sent to
' LEAs in 1990. It opens with a statement about the current asbestos controversy, saying.
"Unfortunately, some these (reports) may have confused, rather than enlightened, the
\ public about the potential health risks of asbestos exposure and...EPA policies regarding
.;• asbestos in schools and other buildings." Among the things it says are:
\ • • - • '
!i . "...Present scientific evidence will not allow us to state unequivocally that there is a
ii level of exposure below which there is a zero risk, but the risk at these-low levels in
i fact could be negligible or even zero...
"Fact Two: Prevailing asbestos levels in buildlngs--the levels that school children and
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments ,
, Due 15 September 91
-------
74
you and I face as building occupants-seem to be very low. based on available data.
Accordingly, the health risk we face as building occupants also appears to be very low.
"Fact Three: Removal Is often not a school district's or other building owner's best
course of action to reduce asbestos exposure.
"It is important to understand that, for most situations, EPA's asbestos regulations for
schools under the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) do not require
removal of asbestos. These regulations allow the school to decide whether asbestos
removal, or some other response action is the best option to protect the health of.
school students and employees. In general, asbestos removal is most appropriate
when asbestos materials, such as pipe or boiler insulation, are damaged beyond repair.
"Although we believe most asbestos removals are being conducted properly, asbestos
removals by their very nature disturb the material and significantly elevate airborne
fiber levels...
"Prior to a major renovation or demolition, asbestos material that is likely to be
disturbed or damaged to the extent that significant amounts of asbestos would be
released must be removed using approved practices under EPA's asbestos National
Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPJ regulation... Clearly.
asbestos removal before the wrecking ball swings into action is appropriate to protect
public health. However, this cannot be said of arbitrary asbestos removal projects.
which, as noted above, can actually increase health risk unless properly performed.
This, in part. Is why EPA has not mandated asbestos removal from schools of other
buildings beyond the NESHAP requirement, which has the effect of gradually and
rationally taking all remaining asbestos building materials out of the inventory...
"...In Summary. EPA's best advice Is neither to rip it all out in a panic nor to ignore the
problem under the false presumption that asbestos is 'risk free.' Rather, we
recommend a practical approach that protects public health by emphasizing that
asbestos material In buildings should be located, that it should be appropriately
managed, and that those workers who may disturb It should be properly trained and
protected. That has been, and continues to be, EPA's position..."
Again, this document, like the Green Book, does not reflect any of the specific
concerns about school children expressed in earlier asbestos guidance materials.
3.
Other EPA Publications
Environmental Backgrounder on asbestos was Issued by the Office of Public Affairs In
November, 1988, and the following year, but did not dwell on the issue of removal vs.
management-in-place.
The first EPA Scorecard. published In April. 1989, hailed two asbestos developments:
"Ban on New Asbestos Products: Broke ten-year stalemate to ban almost all asbestos-
containing products in U.S: and. later
"Loans and Grants: Around $45 million in loans and grants to help nation's most
financially needy primary and secondary schools abate asbestos hazards...."
In December 1990, Meeting the Environmental Challenge: EPA's Review of Progress
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
15 September 91
-------
75
arid New Directions in Environmental Protection. Administrator Reilly's opening message
(P, vi) says:
"EPA announced a ban on almost all new uses of asbestos in the US by 1997. And EPA
launched a management and communications review to assure that Agency guidance
on the most effective ways to reduce asbestos risks-often by managing asbestos in
place-is understood by schools, building owners, community officials, lenders, and
others."
2. What Others Said
a Educational Publications
1. Pre-AHERA (1972-86)
The National School Board Association publishes a magazine, the American School
Board Journal, issues advisory information to member school boards, testifies before
Congress, and holds informational conferences. Its publications indicate asbestos removal
was going on Pre-AHERA, and that the during the Congressional consideration of AHERA.
the Association opposed inclusion of mandatory removal requirements in AHERA.
Although the Association did not favor enactment of AHERA, it did not oppose It but
worked against specific proposals such as a removal requirement. The American School
Board Journal. March 1985. on "The Issue Catches Fire." published three asbestos
articles. One. by attorneys Daniel A. Speights and Edward J. Westbrook deals with law
suits by school districts against asbestos manufacturers to recover the costs os asbestos
abatement, opens:
"If you already rid your schools of asbestos (or are on the verge of doing so)..." Later,
they note, "some school board members worry that, by initiating litigation against
asbestos manufacturers they might open the schools up. to suits by teachers or
students for costs of medical monitoring or. worse, personal injury suits alleging the
schools fault in causing inhalation of asbestos fibers.
And, later on. "if you do the abatement work and don't seek cost recovery costs you risk
jsuits by irate taxpayers."
Tlie second article, an interview with attorney. Herbert B. Newberg. deals with the
same subject and makes the same points.
The third article, by Associate Superintendent Victor J. Ross of the Aurora. Colorado.
school system, is titled. "When a school asbestos problem surfaces, act swiftly—and still
suffer the sting of bitter public criticism." points the finger at EPA for alarming people
about asbestos. It opens: . ..
1 "Asbestos might not be to 20th-century America what bubonic plague was to Europe in
the Middle Ages, but it seems to be generating nearly as much fear in the hearts of this
generation of humans... As a school administrator who has wrestled with the problem
of asbestos in school buildings, I am not as convinced that tiny asbestos in the air will
I produce as much cancer (and death) as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
would have us believe. What I believe, however, doesn't count. I've learned that folks
who send their children to our schools generally do believe it. and for school
f administrators, that's what counts."
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
, Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
76
According to Ross, the Aurora school board reviewed EPA guidelines and launched an
effort to test all buildings' for asbestos, post notices, and organize a program tc remove or
encapsulate any asbestos found. Twenty school were posted, in 11 asbestos was
encapsulated. "Were the Aurora schools safe now? We certainly thought so." But what
ensued was a saga of sloppy contractor work, further structural problems with asbestos
ramifications, closing a school, a loss of trust (on the part of teachers and parents) and a
bitter controversy with threats of union action and law suits, all played out in the press.
Concludes the writer, dealing with school asbestos problems is "going to be burdensome.
costly, and time-consuming."
Another important source of information for school officials is American Schools and
Universities magazine. From 1980 on, the magazine published more than 20 articles on
asbestos, many of which dealt with asbestos removal. It was not until passage of AHERA
and issuance of the AHERA rule that alternatives to removal were given significant
attention. Although removal continued to receive considerable emphasis, by 1989 and
1990, more and more attention was directed at O&M.
For example, the March, 1980 Issue. featured-'Will government fund asbestos removal-
-This district didn't wait," (Page 32. ff.J- a story on a New Jersey school district that
approved a $26 million bond issue--"the largest such project approved to date in the
nation." The decision to go ahead with the removal was based on an evaluation of the
district's problems by Dr. Robert Sawyer of Yale. The story describes the district's
intensive promotion and news media campaign to obtain bond issue approval in the face of
local voter apathy. In describing a last-minute town meeting, the article notes the
presence of EPA representatives which "lent weight and authority to the administration's
proposed solution to the problem."
A December. 1980 article. "Asbestos Removal: How Safe is Safe? " (P.42 ff.) deals with
worker safety and asbestos removal. In January. 1984. "See You In Court (pp 24-15) by
attorney Edward J. Westbrook. is about school district suits against asbestos producers "to
recover the enormous costs of removal." It is written in alarming terms such as:
"America's schools are filled with millions of tons of asbestos-containing sprays and other
products. Many of the workers who Installed them are already dying from asbestos-
related diseases." And, "asbestos products in the school have caused (and will continue to
cause) serious injury to students, school personnel and school property...While school
districts are obviously unable to do anything about past asbestos exposure in their schools.
they are acting to reduce the possibility of future exposure by removing the asbestos
hazard now."
February, 1984~"Once and For Ail-When Inspection Revealed Asbestos, West Haven
wasted no time-using a unique approach every trace was removed within a month" (P. 39
ff.) tells about the West Haven, Connecticut school district's asbestos removal project
which followed the EPA required inspections, noting, "while EPA regulations require only
reporting and monitoring of the problem. West Haven elected to remove it altogether."
The district school superintendent is quoted:
'West Haven felt that In the long run. we were better off with total removal. Taping
required a great deal of auditing and maintenance. Encapsulation was good, but once
again, whatever was used to encapsulate could be damaged and you'd have a continuing
problem. There'd be no auditing, no maintenance: the problem would be solved
permanently."
A cautionary note emerges In April 1984. In "Asbestos Abatement-Start to Finish" by
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
77
asbestos consultant Edward MakruskI (P.59-ni. An introductory sidebar says:
The EPA surveyed the largest school districts in the nation to determine compliance
with its '83 deadline for inspection and notification of friable asbestos. The result:
; over 50% have not inspected for asbestos or have done so improperly. Two-thirds of
I these districts failed to notify parents or did so inadequately. While the EPA currently
| does not require abatement of asbestos, its recent internal report suggests that the
| agency is considering tougher regulations."
, And the article itself begins:
Nl
"While every school district should remove and replace asbestos as soon as possible,
! the fact that wee are dealing with a potent human carcinogen calls for careful
; planning. An ill-planned, ill-timed asbestos abatement project can disrupt school
•! activities, contaminate the building, cost more than it should and generate a public
' relations nightmare for the administration."
;| Under "preliminary planning" the writer says:
j "Little help is available from state and federal agencies, and no law or regulation
specifically requires the abatement of an asbestos hazard."
:In describing abatement options, removal is included as one approach but not as the only
,one. •
i The first time an EPA official participates In one of the magazine's asbestos articles is
in the February, 1985 issue (P. 11-ff.) when Susan Vogt. then acting director of the EPA '-
bestos Action Program, joined an AASA lobbyist, the president of an alliance of former •
bestos manufacturers, the head of the National Asbestos Council, an architect, and a^U.S.
:nate committee staffer in "a lively and informative discussion of the statutes and outlook
for asbestos abatement In our schools." Asked if it's fair to put on the school
administrator the task of making public health decisions," Ms. Vogt said:
I »
> "It's difficult to know who should be assigned that task..every asbestos situation is a
very specific situation... Decisions about correct abatement actions are best made by
! local people."
On the subject of parent concerns, architect Lee Brockway said:
"I work with a number of PTA groups and I can see that anyone.presenting them this
algorithm fan EPA formula related to the amount of asbestos present and Its danger) as
;' a reason for hot removing asbestos would be like trying to stop the water coming
', through a broken dike...if asbestos is identified.^ parents of school children are going to
! ask that we get rid of it." ' • , '.
' i "', _
Another participant interjected, "they're under enormous pressure to move Immediately.
to remove it as soon as they have identification." to which Vogt replied, "and a standard,
for that matter, I don't think would change the minds of the public." The architect also
said: . ' . .
'. ' V - *
:; "Our clients have found that encapsulation doesn't reassure the people in the
! community, the users of the buildings, and the parents of students. Encapsulation
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91 "
-------
78
leaves the asbestos in the building...they are concerned about..the future...The attitude
expressed by the parents and the community make administrators feel uncomfortable
with the encapsulation process."
The SBA representative cautioned about the dangers of improper removal, adding, "there
are very few contractors qualified to conduct removal work properly so it should be a
remedy of last resort,"
In a March, 1985 article on "Asbestos: 1985/86 Budget Priority (P.84 ff.) by former
school superintendent Frederick Hill:
There may be some arguments about what is friable-dry, disintegrating, exposed
asbestos that can or does release fibers into the air—but most school officials have
taken the common sense approach: if there is any question of possible hazard, get rid
of it."
A year later. February 1986. "Asbestos Removal in Schools: Step Carefully to Breathe
Easily" (P.34). by consultant Lawrence Liss, points to the need for architects, engineers
and industrial hygienists on a school's "removal team". It begins:
"School officials must confront how best to remove asbestos from their buildings if only
to prevent huge legal judgements, loss of liability insurance, government sanctions and
public panic...The Environmental Protection Agency estimates it will cost at least $20
billion to remove the hazardous asbestos material still remaining in the nation's
schools. These costs may easily multiply if districts don't manage the removal process
in the best way."
There is also a brief update of the previous year's roundtable in which Susan Vbgt
participated (p. 34) In it. Ms. Vogt describes the new training centers at various colleges
and says insurance companies will be less resistant if proper training is given to
contractors. Other participants say. "the EPA in 1985 has done an excellent job, and the
initiative is passing back to them, where it belongs" and, from the Safe Buildings Alliance.
'To the EPA's credit, it took a more practical approach to the problem and evidenced a
significant change in tone in revising its technical guidance with the publication of its
'purple book'."
The last pre-AHERA story, "An Innovative Program for Removing Asbestos." Is a reprint
from School Business Affairs, telling how the Houston school system went about removing
all asbestos from 144 schools. It notes parental concerns and emphasizes community
awareness concerns.
PTA Today. February 1985, article. "Asbestos in Your Child's School. How to Get Rid of
It." (pp 18, 19): The article points out that no federal law requires removal of friable
asbestos but that some states may be moving in that direction. Under alternatives to
removal, it cites encapsulation and enclosure. The article calls on parents to tell schools
that have not inspected that they are violating the law and to alert other parents and the
school board to the need for an inspection and possible cleanup.
"If nothing Is done, notify the EPA. If the school has a problem, suggest to the school
board that the areas with airborne fibers be shut off. For a committee...Get information
from the EPA Office of Toxic Substances...Urge the school board to select a qualified
firm to Inspect and remove asbestos...During the actual removal, it is Important for all
persons other than authorized personnel and trained asbestos workers to stay out of
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
79
the areas—away from removal activities and asbestos waste dumpsters—to avoid
possible exposure..." ; ',
f ' •• ''.'•''.'
jit also discusses the complexities of removal.- - ; '
! School Business Affairs. published by the American Association of School Business
: Officials International, had several articles. The first, in December. 1986, mentioned
' earlier, dealt with the Houston School District's removal program.
!' 2. Post-AHERA (1986-1988) .
! On May 18. 1987, the National School Board Association's Federal Relations office sent
(out a bulletin to members on the legislative history of AHERA. attributing congressional.
|| motives to "frustration with EPA and pressures of election year politics, including
pressures from building service employees, teachers unions and the National PiA. Saying:
t
"For the first time. AHERA creates a federal requirement for public and private schools
to abate asbestos hazards.." and "...schools found to contain friable asbestos must then .
} develop and implement asbestos management plans to repair, enclose, encapsulate, or
remove materials using certified contracts." Under "Accommodations in Ahera to
! PRESENT concerns (P. 3)" the Bulletin lists "requirements of EPA to set clear
: standards describing when asbestos should or should not be abated and prescribing
|i only the least burdensome methods-including alternatives to removal."
The bulletin also references the Purple Book, as "the binding document until EPA issues
;;new regulations."
i
A new 7-page Bulletin on December 10. 1987. highlights major issues and summarizes
,e new EPA AHERA rules. In bold type on page 2:
I! "It is important to note that neither the regulations nor the statute require the
removal of asbestos-containing material, except in those circumstances where it is the
j only response action that protects human health and the environment." That
[ statement is preceded with, "the regulations require an on-going operations and v
I maintenance program for any building where asbestos exists."
Calling the regulations "quite complicated", the Bulletin recommends an attorney
review planned actions "Because there are substantial penalties." Page 3 reflects pressure
"to move quickly: "...if your district is planning some abatement, you will want to assure
the that staff has arranged with contractors to perform these activities during week-long
holidays or summer vacations. Contractor schedules are quickly filling up, so staff cannot
•aflbrd to wait.."
; The Bulletin also notes that an EPA estimate of $5.350 per year per building for a
typical management program "does not cover the cost of removal, if that is determined to
tbe the appropriate response action."
: The first post-AHERA article in the ASUA magazine appeared on February. 1987. (P.
«47 ff.) Entitled, "AHERA Update-Final Asbestos Regulations Released by the EPA," it was
fadapted from the National Asbestos Council's NAG Journal. It heavily emphasizes the
Inspection and surveillance requirements and quotes the Question and Answer material
jjsent out by EPA with the AHERA rule announcement. This included:
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
> Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91 ~
-------
80
"Q: Do the regulations require schools to remove ACM? No. The regulation requires
schools to choose a response action which protects human health and the
environment. The range of response actions the school can choose depends on the
condition of the ACM. The response action is chosen by the school with the assistance
of the accredited management planner. A school may choose to .remove ACM if
removal is the preferred response action." ,.-
The same issue contains advice from the President-elect of the NAC on "Choosing the
Consultant/Inspector" (p. 51,52). opening with: -
"Removal of asbestos-cpntaining material can be a costly and disruptive process.
Schools often opt to manage their asbestos by deferring removal to a time in the future
when capital is available and better planning can be achieved. To keep the
environment safe in the continued presence of asbestos, schools that manage asbestos
must implement an operations and maintenance program that will clean up asbestos
fibers already in the air. reduce the danger of future release of fibers by minimizing
damage to asbestos-containing materials, and monitor asbestos conditions on a regular
basis..." ..-•'•.
A School Business Affairs article, in 1987 (date not available), entitled "Self Insuring
Against Asbestos Removal," deals with legal aspects of removal,.noting:
"The only permanent solution to the problem is removal of asbestos materials and it is
the recommended course of action by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency."
The Orange Book is cited, as the source of this statement.
3. Report to Congress to (1988 present)
In March. 1988. PRESENT communications indicate the group had joined other
school groups in lobbying for an extension of the October 12, 1988 AHERA compliance
deadline because of the shortage of certified inspectors and accredited management
planners In the private sector, the scarcity of EPA training courses for school district
personnel, and a shortage of accredited laboratories for AHERA-required testing.
The American School Board Journal that same month, under the headline, "Asbestos:
Here's what you have to do to avoid fines of up to $5000 a day", a story written by
attorneys Stephen L. Braun. Luis M. Nido. and Martin W. Dies, Jr.. begins, (P. 35-37):
"When school board presidents get together these days, the usual shop talk...is likely to
be pushed aside In favor of questions and comments about asbestos inspections. Some
school systems have already lined up inspectors to give their school buildings the
careful scrutiny required under the new Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response
Act..still others are confused about exactly what their responsibility is. No wonder.
the school asbestos story is a painful and confused one. and the latest chapter.
initiated by the passage of AHERA. is not likely to be the last.... For the full story on
what is required, school systems (and their attorneys) should consult the
regulations...the new EPA regulations go much further (than earlier requirements) by
calling for timely action sufficient to protect human health and the environment.
According to the regulations, this does not necessarily mean removing all asbestos.
though that is. of course, the most effective way of alleviating the hazard (p. 37)."
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
81
The October 1988 Journal scolded.laggard school boards, but put much of the blame
for slow action on EPA. In an article entitled, "Asbestos: Stop Dragging Your Feet" (P. 14),
which reported that some systems were complaining that the seven month AHERA
• compliance deadline passed by Congress was still not long enough, the publication says:
|!
' "And maybe you were right to complain. Maybe seven more months isn't a big deal
;; when we're looking at a ten-year record of foot dragging. That's right-at least 10
years. The first Journal cover story laying out the dangers of asbestos in schools
appeared in November 1978. And we were reporting on a danger that had already
been acknowledged by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in 1972...
•! Subsequent research left little doubt that the versatile substance could cause cancer
: and posed dangers to the developing lungs of children."
• The article then describes EPA "moving with customary caution" going through the
! Technical Assistance Program and the 1982 rules requiring inspection and notification.
i Next came AHERA because "...by 1986...nothing much had happened...approximately 30
| percent of the US school system hadn't even inspected for asbestos-never mind
> removing it."... Noting that dealing with asbestos:
I "...Can be a terrible financial drain.,. It's true, too, that the leadership (and assistance)
EPA was able to offer was inadequate, to say the least. Most of the money Congress
authorized to help schools deal with asbestos never was appropriated. EPA lacked
:: inspectors... You could say that all these circumstances invited school systems to
1 become scofllaws—if you think it's okay for school systems to play by the same rules as
industrial polluters... Some school systems have rid themselves of asbestos...but while
the others have been trying to decide what they could afford to do--or trying to avoid
i the problem altogether—students and staff members have spent ten years at risk. It's a
long time."
The same month, October 5, 1988. NSBA distributed a summary of the Proceedings of
the 1988 NSBA Federal Policy Coordinators Asbestos Workshop, entitled, "Asbestos Issues-
-What You Should Know about AHERA Compliance, Liability, Contracting. Future
Legislation." Major workshop emphasis was placed on the legal aspects of AHERA
compliance, and on the significance of the seven-month extension of the compliance
deadline. David Kling, Acting Chief, Hazardous Abatement Assistance Branch, EPA. was a
participant. He told the workshop (Pp.3-4):
"...There are abatement options under AHERA. Removal is neither prohibited nor is it
1 required: it is simply one abatement optlon--and it may not be the preferable option. ,
; Where asbestos is undamaged or nonfriable, it's, better to manage it in place until a
] major renovation is.undertaken. If asbestos is friable...removal may be the most
: appropriate abatement response."
I! . ' - .
He emphasized that AHERA: ,, .
t "Is an inspection and maintenance plan program, not a removal program. AHERA
: allows you to select the appropriate response, whether that be operations and
, maintenance, repair, encapsulation, enclosure, or removal. You won't find EPA second-
. guessing you If you stay within this range."
The publication offers a number of EPA resources, including Asbestos in Schools: A Guide
to Federal Requirements. 100 Commonly Asked Questions About the New AHERA
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT.
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
82
Asfrestos-ln-Schools Rules, ''and the ABCs of Asbestos In Schools (which, It turned out, did .
not become available for another year.) . .
NSBA's School Board Business Briefs in the summer of 1989 reported a survey of 671
school districts in 44 states that showed 98 percent compliance (higher than an EPA
survey had shown for all districts) and that responses indicate EPA had underestimated
potential costs to school districts by at least fifty percent.
In the AS&U Magazine. July, 1988. there is a lengthy article. "Asbestos Abatement.
What AHERA Could Really Cost" (P. 70 ff.) by environmental law and conservation
consultants Martin S. Rulstein and Dunewood Truglia. The article concludes that
"governmental estimates of AHERA compliance with inspection and planning
requirements are "low by a factor of three." Among the reasons cited are:
"In the absence of knowing what costs are reasonable by industry standards from
reputable, skilled consulting firms, and those who will perform below required
standards. Such fly-by-night, unskilled professionals will have their place with the rip
and run asbestos firms who did so much harm already..,.The work must be done within
the context of a litigious society, with formidable incentives for environmental issues,
particularly where the protection of children is concerned...within the context of
potential litigation and the uncertainty of government's stance on enforcement, we do
not believe that saving ...will be possible or even advisable due to the fact that the LEA
is charged with ultimate responsibility for compliance."
A February 1989 AS&U article. "Proper Selection of an Asbestos Management
Consultant and Contractor is Essential "(P. 37 ff.) by Douglas Mueller, a consulting
engineer, focusses on selection and hiring of asbestos management consultants and
"removal contractors." It does not deal with any other abatement response. In March, in
a special section sponsored by the Association of Wall and Ceiling Industries p. 142 ff.), an
article entitled, "Asbestos Needs Good PR" tells how building owners, including schools.
should handle asbestos management from a public relations viewpoint, calling for a well-
thought-out communications strategy.
Then, in June 1989. it's back to the horror stories, with an article entitled "The
Asbestos Nightmare" (P. 43 ff) by Paul Wtnslow, an architect and consultant, who warns
about the pitfalls of abatement:
"...increasingly, careful planners are being caught in that nightmare by a series of
government regulations; asbestos procedures...you've been told you don't need to do
anything about your asbestos problems until you remodel, so every year you report your
asbestos and forget about it. Suddenly, your board decides to remodel... Of course.
you'll plan the construction for the summer, school in recess. But asbestos abatement
doesn't understand about time or deadlines. When asbestos is uncovered under a roof.
for example, it can become friable and dangerous... Before you know it, you're not only
reroofing your building, but replacing the ceilings as well... The strict rules for asbestos
abatement don't show concern for the value of property inside the building, either...
Typically, administrators are caught short by the abatement procedures, committing
too little time and too few resources to them at first... Asbestos may be as dangerous in
the environment as the EPA would like you to believe, but the rules for its disposal
cause even more problems... The process of removing asbestos can often be more
expensive than the remodel that precipitated it. Because very few contractors know
how to handle asbestos abatement, costs are high. And unsupervised, the job is
sometimes not completed correctly."
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
83
In June. 1989. environmental health consultants and EPA trainers Steven Pike and
Elizabeth Shandley. an article entitled. "Districts should make health protection the
driving force in asbestos abatement-Philosophy for asbestos control, (p 37 ff.). finds the
authors urging school districts to focus first on health protection rather than, legal
compliance. They say they usually recommend O and M operations to school districts.
saying: . ' '
"This O&M activity can be maintained indefinitely until either the functional space
requires renovation or demolition, or the sampled area can no longer be maintained in
11 a state of repair that prevents the release of asbestos fibers."
?•
• However, removal is considered by them to be a part of O&M. not something different.
• Other AS&U articles include. August 1989. Asbestos Walk-Through-Care must be
i taken in the removal of asbestos floor tile" (P. 24 IT.); a February 1990 series of short
• articles on how schools can manage various "Hazardous Materials" (p. 28 ff.). which
includes a short piece by Janet Oppenheim McMullen. acting executive director of the
, Asbestos Abatement Council, who calls for adequate planning and identification, training
;! maintenance and custodial personnel, developing O&M procedures, concluding: "simply
, stated. ACM should not be removed unless all options to manage it have been tried and
" found inadequate."
i -
A March 1990 article. "Is Your School in Compliance With AHERA?" (P. 133 ff.) by
I James A. Brownlee, a New Jersey asbestos control official, reminds school districts that
• AHERA will be enforced and they must be sure their districts are in compliance. An,
| interesting note is the writer's urging district officials to take the time to understand
; their approved plans:
"...Protecting building occupants and the environment is the objective that moved
AHERA ahead... The costs associated with this initiative to date do not allow careless
implementation of the management plan or refusal to comply. It makes perfect sense
i that LEAs who have invested time and money to develop a comprehensive document
: that focusses on management of asbestos should take the time to completely
understand its content and devote the necessary resources to see it implemented."
11 In April, 1990, a short ASUA magazine article is devoted to EPA's "Recommended
Interim Guidelines for Stripping Asbestos-Containing Floors" (P. 53). and in August 1990,
it's back to removal with a story on how Anchorage. Alaska, removed all the asbestos from
a high school. (P 31). The writer, architect and environmental consultant C. William
Echols. notes that: '
p
i "Anchorage become one of the first districts in the nation to comply with EPA's
; original voluntary program for identification of asbestos containing materials. The
;!' district recognized very early the health hazards associated with asbestos in schools
> and allotted funds to make asbestos removal a high priority."
iii " •
Earlier statements about removal in School Business Affairs are contradicted in the
December. 1988 issue in a series of articles about AHERA (pp 23 ff.) included one.
entitled "Don't Fall Into the Response Trap" by Elizabeth Shanley and Steven Pike of an
environmental health consulting firm, which emphasizes that "nowhere in AHERA is
there a requirement for asbestos removal.". It also says:
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
84
"Well-intentioned but unrealistic goals of asbestos removal will certainly guarantee that
the LEA will be haunted by AHERA for many years to. come."
It goes on: . • *
"...the regulations are specific and response actions defined, but.they allow the LEA
plenty of flexibility of choice.. .If the LEA understands the wealth of appropriate options
available, the result will be better decision-making and use of financial and human
resources." •
" ;ong the common response action traps to avoid are unrealistic optimism and or
? .usiasm about removal." the authors write.
"Often a school district with a history of asbestos issues is so fed up with inspections
and reinspection that they come to regard complete removal as the answer to their
prayers. Sometimes these districts have problems with "community sensitivity toward
asbestos and deal with public relations challenges by planning the Immediate removal
of all ACBM." They describe O and M "as the most important response action-
Operations and maintenance programs are essential prior to the implementation of
any response action and, if properly designed, understood, and followed, will provide
more protection to the occupants of buildings than any other response action."
Among the other articles is one by a consultant calling on LEAs to carefully consider
liability issues, noting that:
"...AHERA created a liability nightmare by requiring decisions from people ill-equipped
to make them. For example, the school first needed a designated person to lead the
compliance with AHERA, however no specific training for this person is required.
Though these people are usually competent authorities in other fields, the reading
necessary would stagger a law student... This omission of training was a severe
oversight."
The author. Arthur P. Dore. Is a contractor. Another article, "Alert! Optional Response
Actions," is written by Robert J. Shluzas. a manufacturer of encapsulation products.
Among other things, he writes:
"At the time management plans are submitted. LEAs are usually not able to determine
which technically acceptable response action will be the least burdensome method
when It is not known what the costs will be in future years when the work is actually
performed and the fact that LEAs do not know what funds are available."
He goes on to suggest:
"What you can do today is to keep your options open. Assuming more than one specific
response action is determined by your and the Management Planner to protect human
health and the safety, the LEA may choose to state both options in their management
plans....This...keeps the interested parties such as parent groups better apprised of
abatement choices."
He even includes a suggested statement to include in the plan:
"Not withstanding the specific response actions provided in this management plan.
the right is reserved to -utilize other acceptable response actions that are found
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
85
subsequent to this submission."
The Education Law Reporter, in a March 1. 1990. "Commentary: Contracting for
Jp Asbestos Abatement: What You Need to Know" (p. 1123), disagrees. The authors.
,: attorneys Edgar H. Blttle, JD, and Jane B. McAllister, JD, LLD, say:
"It is critical that those response actions not be summarized in the contract, but must
j * -be developed in detail. The contractor should specify what response actions, were
i adopted, and why, as well as explaining what response actions were rejected, and why.
; This level of specificity is crucial to adequate protection of the school district from
; liability because it demonstrates the reasonableness of the district's actions."
! • .
i One further citation: The Communicator, published by the National Association of
i Elementary School Principals, in November. 1990. had an article entitled. "Guide warns- •
;; against hasty asbestos removal" which is the only mention of the Green Book found in any
I educational publication this reviewer was able to obtain. It describes the Green Book as- .
; seeking to dispel the myth that all asbestos must be immediately removed and sets out
detailed guidelines for maintaining it safely. The story quotes EPA Administrator Reilly's
speech and Assistant Administrator Fisher, then notes that EPA has been criticized for
I not releasing the guide sooner, adding.
:' "An EPA staffer told Communicator the project has been in the works for three years.
• but was temporarily tabled to release resources to enforce...AHERA."
* • • .'.
i| It goes on to quote the environmental hazard coordinator in the Fairfax. Virginia school
! system, as saying:
"We've had a management plan in place since the early 1980s. But EPA guidance was
sketchy. Many districts just, removed their asbestos to avoid any liability. Some hired
contractors that didn't get it all or removed it incorrectly."
j After examining the school publications that were available, one can reach several
•.conclusions: Much of the information, both for removal and cautioning against it. came
' from writers who had a potential financial interest in the matter, and little from came , t
| from official sources. While EPA was mentioned or cited frequently, only two EPA staff
: members-Dave Kling and Susan Vogt-were directly involved in a forum or other activity
'that led to an article or distributed report.
,, 3. EPA's Response to Criticism ' . -. .
"'• ' ' • ' '• ' ' • .
A review of printed materials, testimony, clippings, etc. finds that:
>•* EPA's response to criticisms of program, emphases or requirements, is rarely evident
ii in printed materials or news releases, aside from a few letters to the editors and an
i; occasional interview quote. ,
* . ' .,.••"•
I This is particularly striking because in several educational publication articles quoted
I above. EPA's cost estimates for removal/abatement, were sharply challenged. There is no
•evidence that the Agency responded to those articles. On the other hand, it is interesting
that none^of the school publications reviewed raised questions about the gcjgnce article.
; While the Five Facts were developed as a response to the Science article, they have
__been used primarily in EPA publications and Congressional testimony, and in at least one
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
. Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
86
asbestos-related tradepaper, but not in larger-audience, general interest media that
published articles based on the New England Journal and Science. EPA did send a letter
to the editor of Science. ' . .
b. General Press
The perceived change in the nature of EPA's messages has become more controversial
as time passes, especially after the Science article and the Administrator's speech on
asbestos policy became grist for the editorial mills of columnists and other writers who
have opposed federal policies on asbestos and believe EPA created unnecessary "panic" in
the public mind about asbestos. Actually, how much a change in EPA position the Green
Book represents is arguable-depending how it is viewed in terms of vested self-interest-
and could be seen as an extension of a more prudent approach to school asbestos
management that started with the Purple Book, but the perception of the Green Book as a
major shift is reflected by a letter to OTS from the Sheet Metal Workers International
Association, which has long been at odds with the Building Owners and Managers
Association about dealing with asbestos in buildings. Wrote the union, on November 8.
1990, in a letter to Joseph Carra. Deputy Director of OTS:
"We are not alone in believing that there has been a shift in EPA policy. I'm attaching a
statement issued by the Building Owners and Managers Association which echoes our
sentiments." . . .
The attached BOMA statement read;
"The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently endeavored to 'set the record
straight' on the facts about asbestos as currently known. The EPA presented these
facts to Congress and the American people. BOMA members have reason to be
encouraged by this recent shift at EPA. Inside you will find out what the EPA really
thinks about asbestos in buildings."
(Note: While is recognized that for both organizations involved, describing EPA actions
as a shift ^approach is in their self-interest, they did see the strong emphasis on O and
M as a major shift.)
A review of articles in national and local newspapers, news magazines, and some
national business and other specialized publications includes a number of articles on
different sides of the issues Involved and also provides insights into how LEAs across the
nation reacted to AHERA requirements.
Publicity about the health risk was apparently widespread at the beginning of the
1980s. For example, a nationally distributed United Press International feature appearing
in the Dallas Morning News on January 19. 1990. reported:
"...Little has been done to prevent asbestos exposure despite its known health
hazard...between World War and the end of this century, well over half a million
Americans will have died of asbestos-related diseases... Americans are facing a major
public health threat..unless changed, we are destined to compound the deadly legacy
of asbestos and start the clock clicking for the next forty years... There Is no safe level
of exposure and the only way to eliminate asbestos related diseases is to eliminate the
material."
On April 24. the same paper published an Associated Press wire story reported more
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
87
Cserious consequences:
"..About 58.000 to 75,000 Americans die each year from diseases caused by exposure
to asbestos years earlier...asbestos is ubiquitous and its effects, measured in disease and
health, are staggering... Eleven million U.S. workers have been exposed to asbestos.
but the long latency of asbestos related diseases means many who were exposed in the
1940s and 1950s are only now experiencing ill effects."
' In 1985. the EPA came under attack from Rep. James Florio (D-N.J.) according to the
1 New York Times of April 15 for failing to "order schools to remove asbestos because of
i 'pressure from the Office of Management and Budget."1 Similar stories appeared in the
Washington Post of April 14 and 16; in the April 16 story the post said:
] Rep. Florio "charged...the Reagan administration is prepared to sabotage all federal
; efforts to remove asbestos from the nation's schools."
| The story also cites an EPA letter to the Service Employees International Union
.which had petitioned for such regulations:
' 'We do not agree that federal regulation is the best approach to hazards in schools and
other commercial buildings."
• The story also noted:
"Asbestos, once widely used in insulation, has been conclusively linked to cancer and a
variety of,serious respiratory ailments. The EPA estimates that about 15 million
children and 1.5 million school employees are exposed to loose, or friable, asbestos."
The subject of asbestos removal was highlighted on August 1, 1985, when the
Washington Times hailed publication of the Purple Book under the headline: "EPA alters
;, asbestos advice, finds leaving it in buildings may be safer than removal." The Times story
1 begins:
"Removing asbestos from schools and other buildings may not be the best way to deal
; with the cancer-causing fire retardant. the EPA says in an asbestos guide being
' published this week. .
"In a major shift In policy, the EPA now maintains that 'if the asbestos is in good
;: condition, you are probably better off leaving it there' than removing it, said Susan
Vogt. director of EPA's Asbestos Action Program."
'i - .
;; The article goes on to say the Purple Book's predecessor, the Blue Book, "which serves
I as the Bible for school administrators and building officials who are struggling with
asbestos problems," noting that it advocated removal to eliminate the threat from
exposure to crumbling friable asbestos, and says:
"In the revised policy-the Purple Book-EPA says, "The presence of asbestos in a
building does not mean that the health of building occupants is necessarily
endangered." It goes on to quote Susan Vogt again: 'Too often building officials have
panicked and rushed into an asbestos-removal program that has caused more
• contamination than leaving the asbestos alone."
The article also said the EPA had still not adopted specific standards or exposure
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
88
levels.
This is the subject of a story in the March 19, 1987 Environmental Defense Fund
newsletter. EDF News, headed: "Court and Congress Require EPA to Remove Asbestos
Hazards." This article tells about an EDF lawsuit which ended in a settlement under
which EPA agreed to establish standards and require abatement actions in schools.
Because, according to the article, the settlement produced no result other than an EPA
rule requiring a one-time inspection, Congress enacted AHERA to accomplish the desired
purposes.
OTS provided the content analysis with a collection of newspaper clippings from daily
and weekly newspapers in 39 of the 50 states.' All were published in 1988. and most
dealt with LEAs that had been undertaking, planned to, or were considering asbestos
removal. What made them especially interesting Is that many of the articles described
asbestos abatement efforts already under way or being planned at the time the AHERA
rules were promulgated and LEAs were involved in the required pre-implementation
inspection, planning and approval processes. The Purple Book was the guidance
document used during this time.
Newspaper stories from 21 states were reviewed. Of the 464 stories read. 80 percent
involved past, on-going, or planned asbestos removal. By and large, most of the projected
removals reported were part of the abatement plans developed by EPA-accredited
management planners/project designers (sometimes described as contractors) and
recommended as part of the AHERA process. A number of stories indicated LEAs were
seeking or had obtained a postponement of the October 1 AHERA deadline for submission
of plans for State government approval, most often because of delays in completing
inspections caused by a shortage of available accredited consultants.
Much of the reported removals had been under way for a number of years and were
attributed to earlier EPA asbestos-in-schools initiatives-especially the 1982 friable
inspection and notification rule-or NESHAP or OSHA requirements.
Fifteen percent of the stories said, quoting LEA officials or other specific sources, that
asbestos removal was required although it was often difficult to determine the nature of
the so-called mandate. Some mistakenly attributed it to the 1982 rule, many seemed to
mean NESHAP rules because renovations were involved, and some stories attributed the
requirement to AHERA. Others said AHERA required "removal or control." or "removal or
encapsulation."
[Note: It should be remembered that the 15 percent just mentioned is a segment of a
relatively small number of newspaper stories selected by a law firm representing asbestos-
related firms and provided for review. One should assume that the total number of news
stories about asbestos that appeared in 1988 was many times larger than the sample
available to this study, so that the percentage saying removal is mandatory is really a very
small percentage of gjl mews stories about asbestos that may have been published that
year.
A typical story dealing with the "mandate" and decision to remove is one from the
Phoenixville, Pennsylvania Evening Phoenix of October 18. 1988:
"Bucktown-The Owen J. Roberts School District re-opened the 1988-89 school
budget last night to include more than $800.000 worth of additional expenditures--
the largest of which is a federally-mandated asbestos removal program.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
89
"...The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of 1986 requires that all schools
remove asbestos or have management plans in place within the next three years.
Superintendent Ray Claypool said that if the asbestos is not removed immediately, the
i district will be subjected to stricter regulations in the future.
" If we have this problem, let's not have it around for years. Let's gear up and get it
( taken care of now,' he told the board. Schools opting to encapsulate and manage
asbestos, rather than remove it. must monitor the affected areas every six months..."
1 Few of the stories reviewed dealt with the dangers of asbestos exposure other than to
; use the words carcinogen and/or lung diseases as a one-time descriptor, and only two of
< the 464 stories indicated that local school officials did not believe asbestos to be a danger.
I Asbestos abatement, including removal, came through as an accepted fact of life, as in this
;; quote from the North Carolina Catholic School of October 1, 1988:
; "Our goal goes beyond compliance with the law." Sister Haney said. "We are
i committed to protecting human health and the environment."
In states such as Wisconsin and Connecticut some of the stories were confusing as to
* whether federal or state asbestos programs were involved. • •'
What controversy was reflected in the clippings related largely to school closings and
J the problems that caused, not to asbestos removal. The main concerns found in the
stories were:
ii (I) Where the money was coming from (bond issues, federal or State sources, deferral
\ofotherprojects.etc.) - . ... •
(2) School closings and the problems they caused. These stories ranged from the -
;controversy (including student demonstrations over crowded, temporary but
unsatisfactory learning, conditions, etc.) in relation to the year-long closing of high schools
• in San Francisco and Sacramento, and an elementary school in Pawling. New York because
of asbestos removal, to questions about week or month-long closings or delays in a new
school year because of unfinished work or asbestos emergencies. In one, the basic issue
was whether young children should be forced to walk along a heavily-travelled street to a
i temporary school. . . , ,
•!;. (3} School attendance while asbestos abatement work was going on. This came up •
^three times, and in each case parents were offered the option of keeping their children at
shome; in one situation, nine percent did. Otherwise there were only a handful keeping
;their children out of school. ,
ii • .-»
(4) Litigation. The few such stories dealt with suits against asbestos manufacturers,
! suits against contractors for faulty work, liability as a reason for removal, and two cases; -
legal action against a school superintendent who ignored the asbestos removal
'recommendations of staff members who had Just returned from EPA asbestos training
^schools, and one who had permitted removal by an unlicensed firm.
;; While there were occasional references to parental concerns, they were more of a-* .
[reassuring nature and did not indicate there had been PTA or other parental pressure for
[asbestos removal. There were occasional references to school employees unions bringing
-[pressure. - . . t . ;.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments - -
Due 15 September 91
-------
90
The national media continued to deal with asbestos in terms of its potential dangers.
Time in its February 6, 1989 business, section, headlined a story. "Monster in the Cioset-
The frantic campaign to remove asbestos could cost $ 100 billion". Focussed on asbestos
in public and commercial buildings, the story said:
"...many researchers contend that low levels of exposure are not necessarily hazardous.
Since the mineral occurs naturally, trace amounts can often be found in fresh air and
water. Yet EPA has said that the only guaranteed safe amount of airborne asbestos is
zero... The demand for asbestos-removal service vastly exceeds the ability of the
fledgling industry to supply it safely... Hundreds of cleanup jobs have been botched by
poorly trained and badly equipped workers who send additional asbestos particles
swirling through the air... The EPA is thinking of expanding the Asbestos Hazard
Emergency Response Act, which requires all schools to draw up a plan to control or
remove asbestos, using workers trained according to federal standards."
While EPA asbestos policies had been criticized from time to time, what ultimately
became a.:major controversy was initiated on June 29. 1989. with the publication of an
article in the New England Journal of Medicine by Drs. Brooke Mossman. associate
professor of pathology at the University of Vermont, and Bernard Gee. professor of
pulmonary medicine at Yale. The article, representing the first major shift in the medical
perspective on asbestos, reviewed existing medical literature on health effects of asbestos
exposure and concluded that the health risks from non-occupational exposure to asbestos
in buildings are small, especially since most asbestos used in U. S. buildings is chrysotile.
which, they said, posed little danger to the lungs. The authors were sharply critical of
EPA's asbestos policies.
This article, and a successor in Science, were to be the basis of numerous published
attacks on the EPA's asbestos policy. During the interim before the attacks began to
appear, there were other significant-stories on asbestos.
For example. U.S.News & World Report, in its July 17 issue, under the headline.
"Erecting.a fire-wall against asbestos." reported the EPA ban on future manufacturer of
asbestos products, noting:
"The ruling won't end the debate over asbestos already In place. Under a previous EPA
regulation. U. S. schools were to start asbestos control or removal program by July 9.
But many school systems, where asbestos was widely used as fireprooflng insulation.
are still unsure what to do. EPA Administrator William Reilly sided last week with
experts who argue that it is often more hazardous to remove asbestos that is not
leaching into the air than to leave It alone."
Newsweek, on July 17. reported the asbestos ban story under the heading, "Asbestos:
The Long Goodbye." U.S.News & World Report returned to the subject of asbestos on
September 8, with a story on The Panic in Gramercy Park." a New York neighborhood
where an underground explosion threw asbestos pipe insulation fibers into perhaps 35
buildings. In the story, the magazine said:
"It would cost billions to remove asbestos from all underground systems. Nor is it
necessarily desirable. Experts know that serious explosions are rare. And as with
schools and buildings, removing asbestos often leads to more exposure than leaving it
in place. The Environmental Protection Agency has required schools to develop
asbestos plans. So far. most are choosing to leave the mineral in place. The agency
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
91
has put off for now any-Similar ruling for public'buildings. In July. EPA banned all
future uses of asbestos starting next year." •' - •
:! ^^
. The New England Journal of Medicine surfaced as a catalyst for controversy in The
! American Spectator of October, 1989. along with a report of a subsequent Harvard
1 Symposium which also reviewed existing medical literature and criticized the EPA stance.
! A long "Special Report: The Asbestos Ripoff." by Michael Fumento (identified as the
i author of another expose. "The Myth of Homosexual AIDS")..The substance of the article
I can be taken from the various subheads:
. i . '
,, "Coming soon to a school or office near you: a life-saving innovation that could kill you,
j designed to correct a problem that doesn't exist, by removing materials that aren't
dangerous until somebody tries to remove them; and guess who's going to pay for it".:. '
' AHERA Today. Gone Tomorrow... Panic in the Malls... The asbestos alarmists do not
• operate alone. AHERA was signed into law by the supposedly anti-regulation Reagan
|! White House without so much as a hint of a veto... Because asbestos occurs naturally in
' rock formations, everyone is exposed to it: in the air. in water, in food... Because
j asbestos abatement is so frightfully expensive when done properly, the temptation to
! do it improperly is immense... Stories abound of lower-class and .immigrant workers
i who have been duped into believing asbestos removal was just a routine job. requiring
J no mask or special clothing... Abategate...." -
! Fumento concludes:
ji
;; "As one scientist, writing of the op-ed page of USA Today put it:' asbestos is like a big
sleeping dog. If not stirred up, it does no harm. If hammered or sawed upon, it may
bite anyone near it.' The best way of dealing with asbestos in school buildings and
workplaces is the way most homes with asbestos are dealt with: leave the material .
alone unless there is a special reason for it to be disturbed. To this end. it is good that
the EPA ordered schools to identify the location of asbestos, both to prevent
disturbance and to provide warning of possible dust dispersal if a disturbance does
take place. Identification and management should probably be supplemented with
periodic air sampling. If sampling shows dangerous levels of airborne asbestos, then
and only then is removal or encapsulation warranted. (This assumes that EPA will
finally set an air quality standard for asbestos, which it has not yet done... If bouncing a
basketball against a gym celling disturbs fibers in the tiles (a favorite fanciful scenario
of the abatement enthusiasts-how often do basketballs hit ceilings, and how much
asbestos is going to be released with one hit?}, then kids should be told not to do that.
It's not a perfect solution. It's simply the most cost-e'ffective-and the safest. Leave
the sleeping dog alone. It will save lives and perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars.
That should b e worth something, shouldn't it."
Business Week, in its November 20 issue, dealt with an Illinois Supreme Court
decision supporting school districts suits against asbestos manufacturers. In explaining
why schools were suing, the article said:
"...Small wonder. The Environmental Protection Agency figures about 20 percent of
U.S. buildings contain some asbestos. The total cleaning cost, says the EPA, is a mind-
boggling $51 billion. Schools, have a special problem. They must pay the piper now.
Other buildings must follow asbestos guidelines only when razing a structure. The EPA
adopted rules two years ago ordering schools to contain or remove asbestos by July.
1989. So far. the Chicago school district's cleanup tab is $40 million."
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
92
The Fumento assault on EPA's asbestos program was condensed in the January. 1990,
Readers Digest, giving it a much larger national readership than the original. In
simplified language, the Digest article made such points as:
"...One of the biggest regulatory boondoggles in U.S. history. Its costs may well run into*
hundreds of billions of dollars nationwide. Worse, it could cause more deaths than it
prevents.. Whatever the price, it is worth paying, because abatement will prevent the
grisly deaths of thousands of Americans, especially school children... One of the
highest estimates of the fatality rate from low-level asbestos exposure comes from a
1988 EPA study. It predicts that among the tens of millions of people who will
circulate through all public and commercial buildings with damaged asbestos, 2530
asbestos-related deaths will result over the next 130 years. Yet the worst airborne
asbestos levels in the EPA's building sample were no higher than the levels found in
outside air! And you can't abate the great outdoors.. The EPA has estimated that by the
mid-1980s as much as three-fourths of all asbestos abatement in schools had been
conducted improperly..." ;
The Science article appeared in January. 1990. It is entitled. "Asbestos: Scientific
Developments and Implications for Public Policy". Drs. Mossman and Gee were joined in
co-authorship by Dr. J. Bignon, biopathologist and director of a French research institute.
M. Corn, director of the Division of Environmental Health Engineering. Johns Hopkins
School of Hygiene and Public Health, and A. Sea ton. director of Scotland's Institute of
Occupational Medicine.
The tone of the lengthy article is set in the abstract:
"...Available data do not support the concept that low-level exposure to asbestos is a
.health hazard in buildings and schools..."
It opens with:
"Asbestos engenders both fear and panic in U.S. Society.. A mandate from the EPA
requires inspection of the nation's public and private schools for asbestos...resulted in
the explosive growth of asbestos identification and removal companies..."
The authors reiterate the New England Journal of Medicine finding that the health
risk from asbestos exposure in buildings is minimal--at one point they use the word
"minuscule." and say. "published risk estimates show that risks of asbestos-related
deaths...due to exposure in schools are magnitudes lower than commonplace risks in
modern-day society."
In the concluding paragraphs on public policy, the article says:
"The AHERA ruling of 1986 brought asbestos to the attention of the U. S. public and
instilled fears in parents that their children would contract asbestos-related
malignancies because of high levels of airborne asbestos fibers in schools. Panic has
been fueled by unsupported concepts such as the 'one fiber theory.' which maintains
that one fiber of inhaled asbestos will cause cancer. As a result of public pressure.
asbestos is often removed haphazardly from schools and public buildings even though
most damaged ACM is in boiler rooms or other areas which are inaccessible to
students or residents. The removal of previously undamaged or encapsulated in
airborne concentrations of fibers in buildings... Asbestos abatement also has led to the
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
•i "
t 93
exposure of a large new'cohort of relatively young asbestos removal workers...
"..The available data and comparative risk assessments indicate that chrysotile
asbestos, the type found predominantly in U;S. schools and buildings, is not a health
risk in the nonoccupational environment. Clearly, the asbestos panic in the U. S. must
be curtailed, especially because unwarranted and poorly controlled asbestos abatement
results in unnecessary risk to young removal workers.. Prevention (especially in
adolescents) of tobacco smoking, the principal cause of lung cancer in the general
population, is both a more promising and .rational approach to eliminating lung tumors
than asbestos abatement. Even acknowledging that brief, intense exposures to
asbestos might occur in custodians and service workers in buildings with severely
damaged ACM.'worker education and building maintenance will prove far more
effective in risk prevention for these.workers."
Forbes picks up the discussion in its January 8 issue, quoting Dr. Mossman and citing
the New England Journal of Medicine article as well as Michael Fumento's from The
American Spectator. The article says:
"The result of the asbestos fiber phobia has been the overnight growth of what is now a
$3 billion industry. 'Asbestos abatement outfits...have raised-millions with new stock
issues in the last two years. They have an easy sales pitch to building owners: Want to
have tenants? Want to eliminate your liability? Then let us remove your asbestos
problems." and asks: "Why do business people worry about asbestos abatement?
Because it's the law in some cases. The EPA calls fir abatement when a building
undergoes renovation that would disturb existing asbestos, and also prior to.
demolition, a sensible precaution. But even when abatement isn't in Congress' school
law—it is often the most attractive option for dealing with asbestos because of
questions over liability.
"...Alas, all this asbestos abatement isn't doing much good. The sad truth is that
abatement usually raises the levels of asbestos fibers in a building, short term,.
i endangering abatement workers..."
i
' Another article in the same issue deals the with Mossman/Gee paper and other studies
under the headline: "Some scientists believe asbestos in buildings not dangerous".
*f And Time, on January 29. covers the Science article in a story headed "An Overblown
; Asbestos Scare?: The dangers are minimal in most buildings, says a new study".
.;• *
A number of articles in trade and industry publications over a period of months
' printed articles on the studies, repeating phrases like "the asbestos panic," and,
depending on their specific audiences, frequently warning that these studies-because the
. .downgrade.the danger of asbestos exposure in buildings-may project a poor future.for
; abatement-related companies.
• Such articles appeared in publications such as the Engineering News-Record. Air
1 Conditioning. Heating and Refrigeration News. Colorado Business. Industry Week.
i Environmental Waste Management. Occupational Hazards, and Architectural Record.
': The February 7, 1990 issue of the Bureau of National Affairs' Occupational Safety and
Health Reporter reviews the controversy the New England Journal and Science articles
created, noting that several doctors had written letters to the editor criticizing the
i articles. One letter said. 'It would be unfortunate if the article in the Journal ...was used as
argument against asbestos inspection and, where necessary, abatement... The
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
94
abandonment of inspection and abatement is not justified." Another said the article
"subtly presents the view of the asbestos industry... Contrary to the impression created by
the article, the relation between lung cancer and exposure to asbestos has.been
established in numerous epidemiological studies."
In another expose-type article. "Everything You Know About the Environment is
Wrong," writer Gregg Easterbrook, in the April 30. 1990 New Republic, writes, of.
asbestos:
'Yet thanks to the front-page treatment of asbestos fear-given great play in the 1980s—
there is a 1987 federal law requiring that asbestos be ripped out of public buildings.
This causes fibers to become airborne, exposing workers to the one aspect of asbestos
that is truly dangerous. The cost? EPA estimates $55 billion. Fifty-five billion dollars
to save one life in 10 million. Aren't there far more promising public health
investments?" ' .
An article in the March 5 Asbestos Abatement Report introduced a new element into
the asbestos debate the controversy a new element by reporting that a federal Judge in
New York had given the go-ahead to a lawsuit against the Yonkers, NY school board by a
woman who claimed her husband died as the result of asbestos exposure while a student
in a Yonkers Junior high school. .
The April. 1990 Asbestos Issues contained a special report "recording the reactions
and opinions of the asbestos control industry" to "the debate sparked by the...Science
article." It contains the EPA's official response and comments from Dr. Irving Selikoff.
The introductory article notes:
"one of the most prevalent concerns voiced by the medical, legal and asbestos control
communities has revolved around the question of whether the Science article authors
were objective and free of conflicts of interest. Specifically, observers have questioned
the fact that some of the authors participated in the Harvard Symposium, which was
sponsored by the Safe Buildings Alliance (SBA) an association of former asbestos
products manufacturers"
An attorney is quoted as saying "only experts acceptable to industry were chosen to
participate in this symposium."
EPA's posltion-this is the only in-print forum made available for analysis, although EPA
also had a response in the June, 1990. letters to the editor in Science—was presented by
Robert C. McNally, Chief of the Abatement Programs Development Branch in OTS. He
noted that EPA agrees with the Science authors "that prevailing asbestos levels do seem
to be low in .public and commercial buildings, given the available data."
"The EPA's asbestos programs for schools and its guidance for other building owners
are designed to keep low levels low. through recognition and management," he wrote.
"...EPA's regulations only require asbestos removal under two conditions: 1) before
renovation or demolition activities which would disturb it and 2) in schools, if school
officials themselves believe that removal is the appropriate way to control fiber release.
"In place management, of course, does not mean 'do nothing'...an active in-place
management program will reduce any unnecessary exposure of these workers and
others. In short, the best way to keep low levels low in buildings is to recognize and
properly manage any asbestos in them... "The point is to keep low levels low. as
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
95
exposure to any potentially hazardous substance is best controlled and minimized."
He noted also that the EPA study of 49 federal buildings cited by the authors:
"...while a useful indicator, cannot be considered representative of all government
i: buildings, let alone buildings in general, since we lacked funding, to do a more
representative study and to control for in-place management programs, which tend to
; keep levels low.", .
: ' McNally's article went on to review the ABCs of Asbestos in Schools and the Green
'Book and their approach to removal and management in place, the Agency's concern
.about the exposure of workers in buildings, and the forthcoming HEI study.
Selikoffs reply was in the form of a summary (by someone else) of his remarks at a
forum on asbestos discussion of the article. He is quoted as congratulating the Science
article authors for serving the cause of the asbestos manufacturers, and urging his
'audience to seek independent Information about the risk exposure data presented by the
authors. Dr. Selikoff said: "we have to proceed on our own agenda, assessing the degree of
risk presented and our own plans for cleaning up those sites that involve serious
.exposures."
> Another article on the controversy, using language similar to that in other articles on
the subject, appeared in the July. 1990, Consumers Research magazine, including the
statements about removal of asbestos increasing the risk of exposure. And still another,
headed "Asbestos Debate Re-Emerges in Dispute Over Building Hazard" appeared in the
New York Times on June 26. The Times presented both sides of the question rather
(extensively. :
Administrator.Reilly's speech. "Asbestos, Sound Science, and Public Perceptions," at.
the American Enterprise Institute on June 12. 1990, provoked further controversy. In
the speech. Mr. Reilly. said: .
' "Based on recent meetings I have had with school officials...on discussions I have had
with members of Congress, and on the spate of inaccurate and sometimes tendentious
ir articles and columns in the news media, it's clear to me that a considerable gap has
opened up between what EPA has been trying to say about asbestos, and what the
; public has been hearing. EPA has been trying, especially in the last few years, to
', emphasize the importance of managing asbestos 'in place' whenever possible. We've
stressed the approach because the unnecessary removal of asbestos-containing
, materials may actually pose a greater health risk than simply leaving them alone-so
long as the materials are undisturbed and unlikely to be disturbed."
II
: To illustrate what he meant, the-Administrator cited the Downers Grove. IL,. school
system which had Just won voter approval of a million dollar bond issue "for safety
improvements in its two high schools—including what was described as an expensive
asbestos removal program." Mr. Reilly quoted a school board member as saying the
removal was so expensive because-it involved materials "buried deeply in the school's
walls..." Said Mr. Reilly, "it appears on the face of it that this is an extreme over-reaction
to the mere presence of asbestos." . :
i . i .
.;, Because Mr. Reilly had only a. Chicago newspaper clipping about the bond issue, he did
not have the whole story. According to a story in the Downers Grove Reporter that
Appeared on September 21, 1988.-long before the Administrator's speech, the city's
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
96
schools were at that time already in the third year of an asbestos removal program, but
that the program still had several years to go. .Said the article, "the decision to
completely remove asbestos instead" of sealing it in plastic, made 3 years ago, has saved
the district millions of dollars." Later in the story it is revealed that the source of the
latter information, about savings, comes from the contractor who's doing the work.
The point of the story was that, under the new AHERA regulations, promulgated after
the Downers Grove removal program began, the city could not meet the new AHERA plan
approval deadlines and was asking for an extension of the deadline. According to school
officials, the system had by then already removed 70 percent of the asbestos but saw the
remaining 30 percent, "that sits behind brick and mortar'" as the tough part of the job.
Part of the problem was laid at the foot of the federal government by Mart Schack,
director of plants and operations. According to the article:
"He added that District 99 faces two sets of constraints; those imposed by the U. S.
government and those imposed by the school board. When work began in 1984, the.
board .required that asbestos be completely removed, not Just encapsulated with
plastic. It also required the work be done during the summer, when students
wouldn't be exposed to any asbestos that might leak from the removed areas. It will be
at least 5 years before the last piece of asbestos is out of the high schools... The new
rules, with their paperwork and restrictions, aren't helping the district's abatement
efforts, Schack added. "I'm not so sure how much more difficult they can make it for
us."
In February, 1991. the Downers Grove LEA was still at it, according to an editorial in
the Reporter, which congratulated District 99 for its persevering in the protection of the
children in its schools.
The Reilly speech came under sharp attack by writer Michael Bennett, author of "The
Asbestos Racket", in the August 15. 1990 Washington Times. "Environmental Protection
Agency Administrator William Reilly came close to admitting the organization is
responsible for the greatest environmental fraud of our era, the asbestos scare." After
going over the history of EPA's asbestos program, as he sees it, Bennett concluded:
'Yet despite the administrator's seeming shift in philosophy, the EPA hasn't formally
renounced its asbestos policy. Thousands of businesses remain at risk, and tens of
thousands of people have been exposed to unnecessary health risks. The...senators
should demand hearings to explore the EPA's political hypocrisy and to discover why
the agency hasn't fully abandoned its ridiculous policies..."
A week-later, the Times printed a rebuttal by Mark Weber. Director of Publications for
the National Asbestos Council, who said the Bennett article "makes sweeping
generalizations that may significantly mislead your readers."
"Clearly," he wrote. "Americans believe that asbestos is a health hazard and they believe
they should be notified when the Class A carcinogen is present where they live or
work, according to a recent survey by he National Asbestos Council... Apparently, the
American public does not want to be lulled Into the false sense of security about
asbestos that Mr. Bennett apparently espouses... What Mr. Bennett fails to prescribe is
a traditional proactive management of asbestos which includes neither hysteria nor
indifference. Even If asbestos is the greatest environmental fraud of our era, as Mr.
Bennett claims, to completely deny that the problem exists and so claim that rational
management of the problem isn't necessary is equally inappropriate."
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
97
| The Times also, published, on September IV. a letter-from an Ann Arbor. MI.
.engineering consultant, who accused Weber, not Bennett, of misrepresentation.
ii Administrator Reilly's speech was also the subject of editorials in the Detroit News and
the Ann Arbor News. Interestingly. Bennet used to be a reporter for a Detroit paper. The
j Detroit News heads its article. "Kilting the Asbestos Myth" and says that's what Reilly did:
"Many millions of dollars have been wasted on unnecessary asbestos removal. "Now |
" who do you suppose said that?... The quotation appears in a press release of ...EPA
I Administrator William K.- Reilly. The statement accompanied the release of a new
i guide book. "Managing Asbestos in Place."...The EPA is trying to quell the fear and
: panic the agency itself created..." '
"Mr. Reilly and the EPA have..to pay a price for.the irresponsible and unscientific way
the agency handled this issue," the editorial says. And it is.a loss.of credibility.. If they
i were so wrong about asbestos, how do we know they are right about radon, dioxin. and
ri all the rest? The EPA won't regain Its credibility until it bases its actions on a • •
i thorough review of sound science, not on emotions and suppositions."
• The Ann Arbor paper's editorial is essentially the same. In a rebuttal in the Detroit
• paper. John J. Sweeney, President of the Service Employees International Union, takes
issue with the paper's stand and with EPA's change in direction, saying:
i "It is distressing to us that in publishing its new guidelines document, the EPA seems
• to have capitulated to the asbestos manufacturers and real estate interests... We believe
! EPA will have done a great disservice by publishing its new guidance if building owners
interpret the document as evidence that asbestos in buildings is not a hazard. The end ;
result will be that school districts and other building owners will be saddled with the
" eventual cost of removal, and building service workers will suiter needlessly from
asbestos disease." , • • • •
The Washington Times on September 2. in an editorial reviewing the Casper,
i Wyoming, situation involving a long asbestos-related school closing, went through the
various complaints and studies, then, hailed the impending release of the Green Book,
• which was also it's top-of-the-front-page lead article, headlines: "EPA warns against"
< asbestos removal."
• A few days earlier, in its August 30 issue, Science, published another article. "Counting
j on Science at EPA"* on how "William Reilly is trying to give science a bigger role in EPA
: policy and wants to focus on the worst environmental problems, not just the most visible.11
| The article never mentioned asbestos.
'• On November 12, 1990, the Legal Times published a story on the continuing confusion
| about asbestos, under the headline, "Agencies Send Mixed Signals on Asbestos." A
• subhead read: "New Policy Pronouncements from the EPA and OSHA on Asbestos May
I Discourage Removal but Still Treat the Substance as Hazardous. ...
.i ."'"•''' " " • •
The article deals at length with the Green Book and its emphasis on management in
I place, but also stresses at length OSHA emphases which apply to building-abatement ;
I projects as well as to other activities, and Include notifying workers of the asbestos
• hazards they face on the job. Another subhead says. "Neither the EPA nor OSHA requires
mandatory inspections or removals. For the near future, whether and when-to inspect
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT .
Reviewer Comments -
Due 15 September 91 .
-------
98
and abate asbestos in commercial buildings will remain the decision of the building
owners, as influenced by lenders, tenants, and other market forces."
Joseph Hooper, writing in the New York Times Magazine on November 25, 1990,
reviewed the ongoing debate under the headline. "The Asbestos Mess—Now, some
scientists say removing the fiber can be worse than leaving it." Hopper starts with Dr.
Selikoff s early work on asbestos dangers, then turned to the New England Journal of
Medicine article, saying:
"the shock waves are still reverberating through the field... For the lay public, the
controversy has provided a rare glimpse into the workings of American science, and
the alliances-holy and unholy-it forms with government, labor and business....
Mainstream publications found Mossman's revisionist theory irresistible... The
National Examiner, a supermarket tabloid, which announced its interpretation of the
findings in a screaming headline: 'After spending billions taking it out of our schools,
experts discover..ASBESTOS IS SAFE!'"
After a lengthy, balanced discussion of all the issues. Hooper hopefully concludes:
"The polemics are the inevitable residue of the history of asbestos research in America.
In its first phase, research was a tool used by industry to keep workers in the dark:
later, when the workers acquired a powerful ally in Selikoff. it was a weapon with
which to fight back. But today, it is no longer useful or accurate to divide asbestos
researchers into saviors of labor or lackeys of industry. If Selikoff and his allies would
drop the cudgels of class war. and if Mossman and the younger generation of scientists
should, conversely, become shrewd about the political implications of their work.
perhaps they could arrive at a scientific consensus that would provide a blueprint for
the asbestos policy of the future."
In the early part of 1991, there have been a number of articles asbestos litigation, and
the role of insurers. Generally, they emphasize the number of abatement firms forced
into bankruptcy and the costs of both settlements and judgments. A typical one. in
Forbes, on February 12. 1991. is entitled, "The Asbestos Monster: Will It Eat Your
Company Next?"
Meanwhile, Asbestos Issues, in December. 1990. and February and March. 1991.
published a number of articles of interest One February article dealt with "An Inside Look
at Asbestos Policies." It is by Joseph Schechter of the Technical Assistance Division,
Environmental Assistance Division. OTS. What Schechter provides is an expanded version
of the "Five Facts." the first time they have appeared in an external publication.
Another, in February, "Preservation Versus Removalism." deals with the shift in EPA
policy "away from tacit encouragement of asbestos removal in favor of asbestos
management:
"Overall, building owners have greeted the emphasis with relief, but many of them are
even now beginning to question the wisdom of asbestos preservation... According to
the removalist view, removal is the only effective management option with long-term .
value. The benefits of preservation are short-term. Although removal admittedly is
risky, these risks can be minimized and controlled through artful project design, close
independent supervision....continuous monitoring.... Preservation carries severe
liabilities of its own. If an owner commits to the goals of perservationism-elimlnation
of existing contamination, prevention of exposure and future fiber release—In writing.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
99
but the policies and procedures spelled out in the 0 and M Manual routinely are
ignored by the building engineers, the responsibility for injury to the owner's
employees can be traced back to the owner... Few property managers will adopt one
philosophy to the exclusion of the other, but by understanding the polar extremes, an
" owner can be in the advantageous position of making a rational decision about what is
best for their property." . .
Note: Three publications. Mealev's Litigation Reports (May 25, 1990).Asbestos '
:• Abatement (July/August, 1990). and Industrial Hygiene News, raise the issue of the role of
the Safe Buildings Alliance as an asbestos manufacturing industry-created public relations
effort. They attribute the spate of articles (including, by implication .the New England
; Journal of Medicine article) in the general and trade press to the efforts of SBA's public
relations agency.
,; IV. Influence of Parental/Community Pressures on Removal
; While contractors, the National School Boards Association, many of the authors of the
h Science article and other articles which followed it. have expressed the belief that
parental and community pressures were a major cause of LEAs removing asbestos from
' school buildings, the content analysis does not support this belief, nor does the AHERA
study. j
The AHERA study shows little parent reaction to being notified of asbestos in schools;
] The Hagler-Bially study likewise indicated such pressure had little impact on decisions to
remove.
Early EPA efforts to enlist parents in an anti-asbestos effort do not appear to have been
uccessful. (See Deputy Administrator Al Aim statement. EPA Journal. June. 1984. Update
'Section..)
These are findings that emerge from the content analysis. While there were numerous
, articles in educational publications, there was only one by Associate Superintendent
Victor J. Ross of the Aurora. Colorado, school system (American School Board Journal,
March 1985) that reflected intense parental pressure, and that involved the aftermath of
; a sloppy job by a removal contractor. The 1988 news clipping review also found only one
' example of major parental concern about asbestos, per se. Rather, strong parental
ii concern related to school closings necessitated by asbestos removals and the transferring
" of their children to other schools. In instances where removal went on while school was
; in session, parents were offered the option of keeping their children at home: few-no
more than 9 percent in any reported situation—did so.
Although PTAs were often said to have helped create nationwide panic, the one article
on the subject in the national PTA magazine. PTA Today (Feb. 1985) was highly
responsible. The article promoted removal of asbestos in schools, but included
j appropriate EPA cautions on the subject. The recommended forms of activism were
alerting officials to the presence of asbestos and related laws, and helping to raise money
ii for abatement. The National participated in the development of the EPA publications.
i ABCs of Asbestos in Schools and Environmental Hazards in Your School.
Rather then being seen by LEAs as sources of pressure, the content analysis saw
parents as targets for support for bond issues when community support was badly needed.
ii Occasionally there is a reference in an article that indicates parents may have been
pushing for something be done about asbestos and that is reflected in a school official
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
100
statement, "now the parents can be reassured, etc. The AHER£ study reported that none
of the parents who were focus group participants recalled reacting in any way when they
received notification of asbestos in their children's schools.
One magazine, Forbes, in a January 8. 1990 story about the medical studies in the
1988 EPA report to the Congress, says:
"Public hysteria about the asbestos threat had reached its zenith a year earlier, when
Congress passed a law requiring every school board in the country to come up with a
plan to deal with the potential asbestos health risk. 'Parents thought, we're going to
have geniuses die at 35. we're going to play Russian roulette with our kids,' recalls
Arnold Fege, chief lobbyist for the National Parents and Teachers Association, which
heavily supported the asbestos law."
Because this statement attributed to a PTA official was so at odds with the findings of
the content analysis and the AHERA study. Fege was asked if the quote was accurate. His
answer: "No. What they printed was way out of the context of what I actually said. In fact.
I wish there had been more hysteria out there when we were pushing for a stronger
AHERA." . '
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
101
Appendix 3 (Survey & Interviews)
to Communicating About Risk: EPA and Asbestos in Schools
THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EPA INFORMATION
IN SCHOOL ASBESTOS MANAGEMENT DECISION PROCESSES
Overview
This appendix presents the results of an internal EPA analysis of the relative
importance of EPA information in school asbestos management decisions. The analysis
was conducted as part of a larger study requested by EPA's Administrator, Bill Reilly, in
the summer of 1990. At that time, meetings with school officials, interactions with
Congressional representatives, and a series of press reports led the Administrator to be
concerned that many school officials might misunderstand the requirements of EPA's
AHERA program (mandated by the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of 1986).
In particular, the Administrator worried that (1) many schools might be spending large
sums of money removing asbestos which could be safely managed in place, and (2) school
officials engaged in these "unnecessary" removal actions thought removal was an EPA
requirement. To get to the bottom of the apparent problem. Mr. Reilly asked for a
comprehensive internal review of communications in the asbestos-in-schools program.
He wanted to know whether schools were making "informed" decisions about asbestos
management, and whether there was a need to make EPA communications in the asbestos-
in-schools program clearer and more consistent.
IAs part of this study. EPA analyzed how schools make asbestos management decisions,
and how important information from EPA Is to the schools decision-making process. This
appendix presents the results of this analysis of the school decision process.
Before beginning, it should be noted that the perceived problem which initiated this
study—the concern that there were high numbers of "unnecessary" removals of asbestos--
is not as large as anticipated. The recently completed comprehensive evaluation of the
AHERA program (insert cite) indicates that the current asbestos removal rate in schools
is low (i.e.. about 15% of all projects recommended in'school systems' management plans)
and that most removals are justified by the condition of the asbestos.. Interviews
conducted with 10 state AHERA designees and 3 EPA Regional Asbestos Coordinators
confirm that there have been removals of asbestos in good condition over time, but that
the frequency of these removals is highly variable. In some states they have occurred in a
large number of schools (e.g., Alabama), while other states report little such activity (e:g..
Wyoming). In some states, the emphasis on removals appears to have decreased over
time, with the highest rates occurring before or shortly after AHERA was passed.
A snapshot of this appendix - . • -
In this appendix, we "map" the LEA (local education agency) asbestos management
decision process, identify dominant Information sources, analyze the major factors
influencing LEA decisions about asbestos, and explore the relative importance of
information from EPA in those decisions. The findings in this appendix are based on:
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
1C2
1. In-depth Interviews with 10 State AHERA designees and 3 EPA Regional Asbestos
Coordinators;
2. A telephone survey of 40 LEA officials regarding the factors behind their choice of
response actions:
3. Two reports prepared for EPA by outside contractors
A. The Hagler Bailly study, a seven-state survey conducted in 1990 (An
Evaluation of Three EPA Public School Risk Communication Programs: Asbestos.
Lead in Drinking Water and Radon. 1990);
B. The Jellinek study, a case study of 4 schools, conducted during the pre-
AHERA period ( Asbestos-Related Rigk Communication Project: Final Project
Report. Jellinek. Schwartz, Connolly & Freshman. Inc., 1987).
4. Interviews with EPA Headquarters staff.
SECTION I
OVERVIEW OF THE SCHOOL DECISION PROCESS
A. KEY STEPS IN THE PROCESS
Understanding the role of information in LEA (local education agency) decisions about
asbestos management requires understanding the basic decision process which school
systems follow. As the charts on the following pages (cite page #) illustrate, there are 12
basic steps in the asbestos management decision process. Most of these steps are shaped
by the requirements stipulated by the AHERA rule. Information from EPA is important
throughout this process, rather than being important at only one or two steps.
B. DIFFERENCES IN DECISION PROCESSES ACROSS SCHOOL SYSTEMS
1. The most marked differences in schpol decision processes occur between public and
private schools.
The public school decision process tends to be more open, and involve many more
individuals and information sources, than the private school decision process. School
administrators, teachers, service workers, the school board, and parents all get
involved in public school asbestos decisions to a greater degree than their
counterparts in private school systems. In addition, the general public often gets
involved In public school decisions if those decisions require a bond Issue to acquire
implementation funds. This kind of general public Involvement is not seen in private
schools.
Private school decision processes are more centralized, involve fewer people from
both inside and outside the schools system, and as a result rely upon fewer external
information sources. Private school administrations are typically smaller than those
found in public schools, and the decision-making hierarchy is more collapsed (Le.,
fewer decision-makers). The decision process tends to be closely controlled by school
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Oue-15 September 91
-------
103
administrators. Staff and parents generally are net involved, and board participation
varies with the school. •
There are, of course, exceptions to this pattern of-centralization in private school
systems, especially among sectarian schools. In sectarian schools, the organizational
hierarchy of the church or diocese determines who the primary decision-maker for
asbestos management is going to be. For example, in some dioceses, the central office
makes the asbestos management decisions for all schools in its region. In other .
dioceses, the individual schools make their own decisions.
i
There is less parental and staff involvement in private school decision processes than
in public schools. One of the major reasons for less parental involvement in private
school decision processes is that these parents have deliberately entrusted private
schools with their children's education. In so doing, they de facto entrust 'school
administrators with their children's health. Parents with children in sectarian schools
also may defer to school administrators, and be reticent to challenge them, because
those administrators represent their religious leadership.
The reasons for less staff Involvement In private school decisions parallel those for
parents, but there are additional reasons as well. Unlike their public school
counterparts, private school staff do not have the recourse of union protection.
Teachers and service workers in both sectarian and non-sectarian private school
systems may not feel that they are in a position to challenge their administrators.
Also, in the case of small sectarian schools, service workers often are volunteers or
part-time employees who are not in tune with asbestos issues and therefore are not ,
active. . ,
Involvement -by staff and parents in both public and private school asbestos decision
irocesses tends to be reactive and infrequent.
Type of involvement •
While levels of staff and parental involvement are higher in public than private schools,
in both forums this involvement tends to be in reaction to perceived problems with
the school's original management decision. The problem, as defined by parents and
staff, may be based on technical, economic, or political grounds.
Frequency of Involvement
The conventional wisdom asserts that parents have played a key. and widespread, role
in forcing schools to remove asbestos, regardless of the material's condition. However,
this has been the exception rather than the rule. EPA did not find widespread ...
evidence of parents forcing schools to remove asbestos under the AHERA program.
The involvement of a handful of angry parents and staff can and has forced schools to
make dramatic changes in their asbestos management decisions, but this happens
relatively infrequently.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due IS September 91
-------
104
SECTION n
KEY FACTORS INFLUENCING SCHOOL DECISIONS
ABOUT ASBESTOS MANAGEMENT
1. There are many factors which influence school decisions about asbestos rather than a
single over-riding one. The most important factors (NOT in order of importance) are:
o perceived legal requirements
o long term accountability
o perceived risk
o level of internal expertise
o reliance on multiple external information sources
" * »
o concerns about 'the difficulty of implementing an O&M program
o desire to be "asbestos free"
2. Perceived state anfl federal requirements are clearly one of the most important factors
underlying school asbestos management decision.
We emphasize perceived requirements because school officials often cite state and
federal rules as a major factor Influencing asbestos management actions, regardless of
whether or not those actions are in iact required by state or federal law. While the
AHERA rule imposes many requirements on school officials. It does not mandate
specific management actions. These actions must be made on a case-by-case basis and
are up to the discretion of school administrators. Nonetheless, school officials often
cite EPA requirements as the reason for their actions-even when those actions are not
dictated by the AHERA rule and are not supported by EPA guidance.
3. Other^equallv important factors include;
Accountability. In those cases where asbestos that is in good condition is removed,
one of the primary reasons for removal appears to be school concerns about long term
accountability. This includes concerns about possible enforcement actions, adverse
parental reactions, liability, maintaining credibility with the local community, and
related issues.*
Perceived risk and the need to limit the exposure of children to hazardous asbestos
fibers is clearly a primary factor in school decisions to remove asbestos which is in
poor condition, or to undertake other management actions directly suited to the
condition of the materials. It can also be a factor in other management actions, such
as removals of asbestos in good condition.
Lack of internal expertise. While schools probably would prefer to rely on their
trusted internal staff, these individuals rarely have sufficient expertise to permit
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
I
X.
105
reliance on internal experts. The AHERA rule requires schools to use accredited
personnel for different aspects of asbestos management (e.g.. inspectors, management
planners; see school decision process chart); It is rare for schools to be both willing
and able to train their staff to fill all of these technically demanding roles. This
combination of factors forces schools to go outside their staff to obtain technical advice
on asbestos management, and makes it difficult for schools to evaluate the
recommendations provided to them by outside experts. It also leaves school officials .
susceptible to inaccurate information or bad advice.
Reliance on multiple external information sources. While public schools tend to rely
on more information sources than private schools do. both turn to sources outside the
school system for information about asbestos risks and asbestos management. These
information sources sometimes present conflicting or unclear advice, forcing schools
to choose among them.
Concerns about the difficulty of implementing an O&M program. This includes
concerns about having sufficient internal expertise to handle the program as well as
concerns about its long-term cost and difficulty. If a school has insufficient, internal I
expertise to tackle long term O&M. removal may seem like a reasonable and logical : I
alternative.
Desire to be "asbestos free" and not have to worry about the problem anymore (i:e.,
peace of mind, certainty of no residual risk, choice of certainty over uncertainty). A
school's primary mission is education, not hazardous waste management. While
fulfilling the desire to be "asbestos free" may be expensive, it also frees a school system
from the long term commitment of resources and staff to maintaining an adequate
O&M program. Removal leaves school administrators with one less thing to worry
about, one less thing diverting them from their primary mission.
3, Many of the above factors may lead to "informed" decisions about asbestos
management, even when this entails removing asbestos which is in good condition.
The condition of asbestos clearly is not the only factor motivating school decisions
about asbestos management. For many school officials, the desire for an asbestos-free
school, and concerns about long-term accountability, become legitimate reasons for
asbestos management actions which go beyond the measures required for long term
protection of public health. Similarly, lack of internal expertise may make a one-time
removal look like the most attractive option to a school official compared with the time
and effort required to train staff to design and maintain a competent O&M: program.
"Informed" is a highly judgmental word in this context and must be used carefully. As
illustrated above, there are many legitimate reasons for removing asbestos that are
unrelated to concerns about public health. To the extent that some removals occur for
these reasons and not because of inaccurate information about EPA requirements, these
decisions can be termed "informed."
4. When schools are already inclined to undertake removals because of some of the
"value" factors described above, then the availability of funds becomes an important factor. •
Having funds available allows schools to carry through on their desire to have asbestos
removed, including asbestos in good condition. * *
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
106
SECTION m
MAJOR INFORMATION SOURCES
Information about asbestos health risks and management options is an important
"Input" to the school decision process. In this section, we discuss the major information
sources school officials are likely to rely upon.
A. WHAT THE SOURCES ARE
1. School officials tend to rely on multiple information sources rather than a single.
primary source. The sources schools are most likely to turn to for information are:
o State agencies (including but not limited to State AHERA designees)
o EPA Regional Offices
o Written documents from States and EPA
o private consultants/contractors
2. States and EPA Regional Offices are two of the most trusted sources that school
officials turn to for information about asbestos.
o States and EPA Regional Offices are sources of both technical and general
information. Both are consulted for written documents, verbal advice, and written
advice.
o The EPA Regional Offices appear to be the main source of information when school
officials need advice on particularly complex technical questions or interpretations of
regulatory requirements.
o The degree of reliance on states for information varies with the quality and level of
activity of the state program.
o Written documents from state programs and EPA are critical information sources.
These documents appear to be especially Important when school systems are working
to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.
3. Outside consultants and contractors are another critically important information
source
o Schools rely heavily on outside consultants, but when school officials receive
conflicting advice, they are more likely to turn to their State agency or Regional Office
rather than their consultant to help them resolve the conflict
o EPA's survey of 40 schools indicated that 27 percent of the respondents obtained a
second opinion on their consultant's recommendations. At first glance, this is a small
percentage, but given the additional cost involved and the fact that EPA has not
emphasized this option, this could be interpreted as a relatively significant percentage.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Dae IS September 91
-------
107
There are a number of secondary information sources. .Their importance varies across
school systems; in some cases, these will actually be primary information sources. These
sources include school consortia; the media; professional associations; informal contacts
with peers (e.g., fellow superintendents); trade associations: and trade journals.
5. Training courses and workshops can be expected to be an important source of
information for those who participate in them. The quality of these training courses will
determine their ultimate impact on the school decision process. Some shortcomings in
these programs have been Identified through the AHERA evaluation and a recent GAO
study; EPA is In the process of taking steps to address the identified problems.
B. INFORMATION CHANNELS AND RECEIVERS
Sometimes, school officials obtain information directly from EPA. Other times, they
obtain Information about EPA requirements and recommendations through other sources.
Those sources may pass the information on without altering it. or they.may act as "filters".
changing the message in subtle or dramatic ways.
Characteristics of message "receivers"
School officials are the major "receivers" of Information that we are concerned about in
this study. Some "receiver characteristics" may have a substantial impact on how school
officials Interpret information about asbestos and AHERA requirements, or whether they
even get the Information. For example: •
Turnover. Some schools have a high turnover rate In the designated person (DP)
position. When those schools do not make an effort to give the new DP all of the
: Information already sent to the school regarding AHERA requirements and asbestos
' management options, a breakdown occurs in the Information distribution efforts of
EPA. High turnover rates can complicate EPA's efforts to get Information to the school
'• officials who need it.
ii. . '
. Resistance to, and/or disagreement with, the EPA message. For a wide variety of
; reasons, some individuals may not agree with EPA's message about asbestos risks.
j Some people, because of personal characteristics and experience, may see higher risk.
while others see lower risk, than EPA describes. Some may trust other information
: sources more than EPA. and those sources may be providing information .which
conflicts with EPA's main messages (see discussion about asbestos health risk
! controversy in main text). In any of these cases, people may resist information
, contrary to their initial beliefs. This will affect their asbestos management choices.
Characteristics of private schools. Some types of private schools may be harder to
reach than public ones. For example, some of the very small sectarian schools appear
' to be among the least active in dealing with asbestos management. This low level of
; activity may stem from two factors, both of which may also be reflective of other
,i private schools: .
(1) they traditionally do not want government interference In their schools'
, management on any level for any reason;
REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 01
-------
108
(2) these schools are often very small and their resources are strained. Any non-
educational expenditure can pose a major problem for them, making them
resistant to undertaking costly asbestos inspections and abatement.
Characteristics of message channels
Some message channels are particularly important to the information exchange
"system" which has evolved under AHERA. The messages provided over time by some of
these sources are discussed in depth in other parts of this communications review. Here,
we discuss two particularly important information channels: the media, and contractors.
The Media. The media is one of the public's primary sources of risk information.
School officials, staff, and the parents of schoolchildren will rely on this source for
some of their information about asbestos. This can lead to problems, since media
coverage often over-simplifies complex risk Issues. Media stories tend to characterize
health,risks in black and white terms (i.e., asbestos is "safe", or it is "unsafe").
Coverage follows the latest controversy, but does not always analyze the issues which
underlie it, or the relative merit of each side's position. As a result, media coverage of'
asbestos Issues may not always tell the full story, or may tell an incorrect story. For
example, there have been many articles which incorrectly note that EPA requires
removals under AHERA. or that most schools remove asbestos (see content analysis
appendix for more information on this point).
Contractors. Contractors are a very important information source for many school
systems. The accuracy of the information contractors provide thus is extremely
important both to school officials and to EPA. Distortion is possible at this information
exchange level if conflict-of-interest has not been addressed or the contractor's
professional, credentials are inadequate. The interviews conducted for this study
suggest that some school officials have, obtained Inaccurate information and "bad
advice" from contractors; the AHERA evaluation suggests that this is not as widespread
a problem as was originally thought.
SECTION IV
RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OP EPA INFORMATION
1. There is wide variation in people's perceptions of the consistency and clarity of EPA's
message over time regarding requirements under the asbestos-in-schools program. In
instances where EPA's message is perceived as either Inconsistent or unclear, the
influence of EEA information mav be adversely affected.
Perceived clarity
EPA's interviews with State AHERA designees and Regional Asbestos Coordinators
(RACs) showed marked variation in people's perceptions of whether or not EPA's
message about asbestos-in-schools has been clear. Some respondents felt that the
message has been clear only under AHERA and/or only in the past year in response to
the issues raised by recent scientific articles (e.g.. the Mossman. et al.. article in the
January issue of Science). Others held a directly opposing view, saying that the
message has been clear over time, not just since AHERA.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
109
Respondents to Hagler-Bailly's seven-state survey gave EPA materials reasonably
high ratings, but ones which clearly showed the possibility for improvement (on a
scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is "very clear" and 1 is "not clear," EPA materials consistently
were rated between 3.4 and 3.9).
Perceived consistency
Respondents to EPA's AHERA designee/RAC interviews were evenly divided on !the
consistency question as well. Half felt EPA's message had been consistent over time
(i.e. from the Orange Book, which was released three years before the inspection and
notification rule, through to the present): Half felt that the message had been
consistent only under AHERA.
The mixed responses regarding whether or not EPA's message has been consistent
over time may reflect incremental but marked changes in program scope and
requirements. The scope and emphasis of the asbestos-in-schools program has shifted
over time, expanding the universe of types of asbestos included, and shifting from
technical assistance to inspections and notification and finally to mandated
management plans. .
~2. EPA information clearly exerts an influence on school asbestos management decisions.
' but it competes with many other factors. In some instances, these factors may
overshadow the influence of information from EPA. Information from EPA can be
,i designed to more clearly explain AHERA requirements and recommendations, but
: information alone cannot assuage concerns about liability, change the value-based desire
to have an asbestos-free school, or Improve an LEA's ability to conduct O&M programs.
Regardless of how well EPA improves the quality of its informational materials, the
•' quality of information given to school officials from other sources not under EPA's control
twill remain a limiting factor. School officials rely on multiple information sources. There
" are many opportunities for messages to become distorted, confused, or contradictory.
1 EPA can adopt a policy of carefully, tracking major information sources and responding to
'• inaccurate information as it is found, but the scope of sources involved will make it
' difficult to do this for all sources.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
110
APPENDIX 4 (Background Information)
to Cor:iTnifn^cfl^ntf A^ycyt' Pfo^i JE^*^ fl**ft AffliMsst
EPA's Main
Asbestos
Messages
Today
For the purposes of clarity and simplicity, it may serve us to
illustrate what EPA's messages about asbestos control in buildings
are today. They are contained in what EPA has called the "Five
Facts about Asbestos:"
1: Although asbestos is hazardous, human risk of asbestos
disease depends upon exposure.
Asbestos is known to cause cancer and other disease if asbestos
fibers are inhaled into the lung and remain there. This conclusion
is based upon studies involving human exposure, particularly
exposure at high levels. While evidence is better for some types of
asbestos, there is no clear proof that other types are not as
hazardous. EPA, based on careful evaluation of available scientific
evidence, has adopted a prudent approach in its regulations of
assuming that all fibers are of equal concern. Although a recent
Science magazine article indicated exposure to chrysotile
(common white asbestos) may be less likely to cause some asbestos-
related diseases, various scientific organizations, including the
National Academy of Sciences, support EPA's more prudent
regulatory approach.
With respect to the so-called "one fiber can kill" image, the present
scientific evidence will not allow EPA to state unequivocally that
there is a level of exposure below which there Is a zero risk, but
the risk in fact could be negligible or even zero.
Moreover, the mere presence of a hazardous substance, such as
asbestos on an auditorium ceiling, no more implies disease than a
potential poison In a medicine cabinet or under a sink Implies
poisoning. Asbestos fibers must be released from the material in
which they are contained, and an individual must breathe those
fibers in order to incur any chance of disease.
While scientists have been unable to agree on a level of asbestos
exposure at which we. as public policy makers, can confidently say.
"there is nfl risk." this does net mean that all or any exposure Is
inherently dangerous. To the contrary, almost every day we are
exposed to some level of asbestos fibers in buildings or in the
outdoor air. Based upon available data, very few among us. given
existing regulatory controls, have contracted or will ever contract
an asbestos-related disease from these relatively low levels of
airborne fibers.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
111
2: Prevailing asbestos levels in buildings - the level that you
and I face as office workers or occupants - seem to be very
low. based upon available data. Accordingly, the health risk
to building occupants - you and me - also appears to be very
low.
Indeed, a 1987 EPA study found that airborne fiber levels in a
segment of Federal buildings with asbestos management programs
were so low as to be virtually indistinguishable from levels outside
these buildings. While these data are not conclusive and we are
seeking more Information through a major research effort, the
present evidence suggests that building occupants face only a very
slight risk. Severe health problems attributed to asbestos exposure
have generally been experienced by workers in industries such as
shipbuilding, where they were constantly exposed to very high
fiber levels in the air, often without any of the worker protections
now afforded to them under the laws.
3: Removal Is often not a building owner's best course of action
to reduce asbestos exposure.
In fact, an improper removal can create a dangerous situation
where not previously existed. It Is important for everyone to
understand that EPA asbestos regulations for schools under the
Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) do no! require
removal of asbestos.
Although we believe most asbestos removals are being conducted
properly, asbestos removal practices by their very design disturb
the material and significantly elevate airborne fiber levels. Unless
all safeguards are properly applied and strictly followed, exposure
in the building can rise, perhaps to levels where we know disease
can occur. Consequently, an ill-conceived or poorly conducted
removal project can actually increase rather than eliminate risk.
EPA only requires asbestos removal in order to prevent
public exposure to asbestos during building
: . renovation or demolition.
' i ••••.•
Prior to a major renovation or demolition, asbestos material that is
! likely to be disturbed or damaged to the extent that significant
* amounts of asbestos would be released must be removed using
: approved practices under EPA's asbestos National Emission
' . Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). -Demolishing a
building filled with asbestos, for example, would likely result In
1 significantly increased exposure and could create an imminent
hazard. Clearly, asbestos removal before the wrecking ball swings
-1 into action Is appropriate to protect public health. However, this
I * cannot be said of arbitrary asbestos removal projects, which, as
noted above, can actually increase health risk unless properly
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
, Due IS September 91 .
-------
112
performed. This, in part, is why EPA has not mandated asbestos
removal from buildings beyond the NESHAP requirement, which
has the effect of gradually and rationally taking all remaining
asbestos building materials out of the inventory.
5: EPA does recommend la-place management whenever
asbestos is discovered.
Instead of removal, a pro-active la-place management program will
usually control fiber releases, particularly when the materials are
not significantly damaged and are not likely to be disturbed.
In-place management, of course, does not mean "do nothing." It
means, first, that the building owner or manager should identify
asbestos, through a building-wide Inventory or on a case-by-case
basis before suspect materials are disturbed by renovations or other
actions.
After the material is Identified, the building owner or manager can
then institute controls to ensure that the day-to-day management
of the building is carried out in a manner that minimizes the
release of asbestos fibers into the air and ensures that when
asbestos fibers are released, either accidentally or intentionally.
proper control and cleanup procedures are implemented.
Another concern of EPA and other federal. State and local agencies
which regulate asbestos is to ensure proper worker training and
protection. Maintenance and service workers in buildings, in the
course of their daily activities, may disturb materials and can
thereby elevate asbestos fiber levels, especially for themselves, if
they are not property trained and protected. For these persons,
risk may be significantly higher. Proper worker training and
protection, as part of an active in-place management program, can
reduce any unnecessary asbestos exposure for these workers and
others.
In addition to these steps outlined above, an in-place management
program will usually Include notification of workers and occupants.
periodic surveillance of the material, and proper record keeping.
While the management costs of all the above activities will depend
upon the amount, condition, and location of the material, such a
program does not have to be extraordinarily expensive. In sum. an
in-place management program may be all that is necessary to
control the release of asbestos fibers, until the asbestos-containing
material in a building is scheduled to be disturbed by renovation or
demolition activities.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
113
ts Uses . ' ' \ _ ••'
Asbestos has been around for many centuries. The Romans wove asbestos
into tablecloths that could be tossed into the fire for cleaning: Marco Polo
described the amazing textile in his writings. In the twentieth century.
we have seen a substantial exploitation of asbestos in commercial
products because of its high tensile strength and resistance to fire, heat
and corrosion.
Asbestos commonly refers to six distinct types of silicate minerals, and
this leads to some of the controversy surrounding the subject today. One
of these, chrysotile. belongs to the serpentine family, meaning that its
fibers are curly and pliable; it curls upon Itself and grows to form long
hollow tubes. The other types, known as amphlboles. all have needle-like
fibers.
Most asbestos is mined in Canada, the Soviet Union and South Africa.
Imports of asbestos into the United States in 1985 totaled about 85.000
metric tons. In 1973. however, use of asbestos in the United States had
reached 800,000 metric tons, attesting to the popularity of the mineral
and its characteristics-especially for the building trade. In schools and
other buildings, asbestos can be found most commonly in spray-applied .
fireproofing. pipe and boiler Insulation, acoustical and decorative
insulation and floor and ceiling tile.
About 95 percent of the asbestos being produced today is chrysotile. or
the "white" curly asbestos. Most asbestos used in building products and
materials is chrysotile asbestos.
Asbestos: Science .
& Controversy
Asbestos fibers, microscopic in size and very lightweight, can remain in
the air for many hours if released from asbestos and
asbestos-contalnlng-matertals or products. Friable asbestos products
(those than can be reduced to powder when crumbled by hand) are most
: likely to release fibers Into the air. .
When asbestos fibers are inhaled, they can disrupt the functioning of the
lungs. In the 1960s, concerns about asbestos hazards centered on
'•' , workers who had been exposed to large amounts of fibers in their Jobs.
i Epldemiologlcal studies by Selikoff of Mount Sinai School of Medicine and
Hammond of the American Cancer Society showed that insulation
workers who had dealt with asbestos for many years were dying of cancer
and the complications of asbestosis at alarming rates. In addition.
> inhalation of asbestos fibers were also linked to mesothelioma and lung
cancer, and asbestos tile weavers and shipyard workers were other
-' . occupations which showed significant relationships between high
:' . exposure levels and disease.
!r These studies created a shock wave of concern about asbestos in the
i United States. Legislators, public health officials, product manufacturers.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
114
insurers, bankers, concerned parents and government regulators all
began to examine the exposure and effects of this product that was so
well known and so popular a part of our consumer culture. In recent
years, the shock wave has been carried forward by the momentum of over
115,000 pending personal Injury lawsuits.
As disturbing to many, were the revelations in the 1980s of a widespread
conspiracy by corporate scientists and officials over.several decades to
suppress health effects found in workers in the asbestos mining and
manufacturing industries. These revelations documented a long-term
effort to conceal evidence of the harmful effects of high-level exposure to
asbestos fibers. This contributed a great deal to polarize antagonism
between asbestos businesses and labor unions. In retrospect, it becomes
apparent that the very research initially used by industry to keep workers
in the dark, later offered these same workers a powerful ally In Selikoff
and a weapon with which to fight back.
In the late 1980s, however, the controversy took another turn. In
December 1988, a symposium was held at Harvard which reviewed
existing medical literature and concluded that asbestos in buildings poses
very small risks to occupants. It criticized EPA's asbestos policies and
emphasized that the general public has "fiber phobia" concerning
' asbestos. The symposium was sponsored by the National Association of
Realtors, the Safe Buildings Alliance, the Urban Land Institute and the
Institute of Real Estate Management. The report from the Harvard
Symposium was released in August 1989.
In June 1989. an article appeared in the New England Journal of
Medicine which reviewed existing medical literature on the health effects
of asbestos exposure and concluded that health risks from
non-occupational exposure to asbestos in buildings are small. The article
was written by Mossman. an associate professor of pathology at the
University of Vermont, and Gee. a professor of pulmonary medicine at
Yale University. This marked the first major public shift in thinking about
asbestos hazards.
The authors argued that the needle-like amphibole types of asbestos.
which are relatively rare, have been demonstrated to have the most
serious health effects. They suggested that amphiboles are a more
important cause of lung cancer and mesothelioma. a rare, fatal cancer of
the abdominal lining and other organs. Curry chrysotile asbestos, on the
other hand, which accounts for 95 percent of the world's production of
asbestos, has been shown to be far less of a health threat, the authors
argued.
The article criticized current regulations for failing to make distinctions
among the health threats posed by different types of asbestos. The
authors said current policies also fail to take into account fiber sizes,
levels of respirability. and different airborne concentrations of fibers.
Mossman and Gee leveled a general attack on efforts to remove asbestos
materials from buildings, arguing that epidemiological data and risk
estimates fall to justify the "unprecedented expenses on the order of
$1OO billion to $150 billion that could result from asbestos abatement."
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
115
In January 1990, Science magazine, the journal of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, published an article written
by Mossman, Gee. et. al. that also reviewed existing medical literature and
was again critical of EPA's asbestos policies. The article indicated
exposure to chrysotlle (the common curly asbestos) may be less likely to
cause some cancer-related diseases. It commented on the "asbestos
panic" in the United States.
Lest the debate become one-sided. The Collegium Ramazzini, an
International organization of professionals concerned with occupational
health, held a three-day conference in June 1990 In New York City
entitled. "The Third Wave of Asbestos Disease: Exposure to Asbestos In
Place." Asbestos experts Including Sellkoff and Landiigan of the Mount
Sinai School of Medicine In New York addressed the participants on* the
"third wave" of disease affecting maintenance, custodial and abatement
workers.
Major Legislative
? Asbestos Activity
With the passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Clean
Air Act. both in 1970. Congress directed the federal government to
spearhead the drive to reduce exposure to asbestos. Much of the impetus
to take action came from the pioneering epidemlological work by SelikofT
and Hammond.
1976: The passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) gave
the EPA new powers to move against public health hazards.
With regard to asbestos, however, little was known about
actual exposure levels. Monitoring for asbestos fibers was an
inexact science unless the levels were very high. Abatement
procedures, short of actual removal were untested. Few
persons were trained in asbestos inspections and abatement
procedures. A great deal needed to be done in order to
address the asbestos situation in an estimated one million
buildings in the United States.
1984: The Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act (ASHAA)
mandated EPA to carry out a substantial loan and grant
program for public and private schools. Funds were to be
awarded on the basis of two Congressional criteria: financial
need and the severity of the asbestos hazard.
r-
1986: With the passage of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency
Response Act (AHERA). Public Law 99-519. Congress set
significant new requirements and .deadlines in dealing with
asbestos in schools. Without debate in the hearings held in
.the summer of 1986. the law passed by unanimous voice vote
in Congress and reflected a new urgency on the part of
Congress to protect school children and avert future charges
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer frff***™^11!^
Due IS September 91
-------
1990:
116
that Congress or EPA may not be taking its public health
responsibilities seriously enough. The new law required EPA'
to develop regulations for school Inspections and
management plans within one year of passage and to develop
a model plan within six months to accredit inspectors,
planners, workers and contractors. It .also directed EPA to
report to Congress within three years about asbestos in
public and commercial buildings. Including an assessment of
the extent of the problem: how workers and the public are
affected; and whether a program similar to AHERA should be
Implemented in buildings other than schools.
The Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Reauthorization Act
(ASMARA) was enacted to reauthorize the loan and grant
program under ASHAA by authorizing $200 million annually
through 1995.
EPA's Asbestos
Enforcement History
1971:
1973:
1970s:
EPA listed asbestos for regulation under its new National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).
contained in the 1970 Clean Air Act.
EPA finalized its first asbestos regulations, under NESHAP,
requiring all asbestos to be removed from buildings before
demolition or renovation to avoid widespread, uncontrolled
release into the ambient air. It also required notification of
asbestos removals: and certain work-practice standards such
as wetting and encapsulating the asbestos during removal. In
addition, the rules banned spray-applied asbestos for most
friable materials (acoustical, fire-proofing, thermal
insulation) and established a "no visible emissions" standard
for milling, manufacturing and demolition of asbestos.
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s. EPA frequently enforced
the demolition and renovation regulations with great fanfare.
Studies showed that the airborne fibers released in an
improper demolition or renovation placed the public as well
as the workers at significant risk. Not only were the fibers
kicked up during this activity plentiful, but they traveled
great distances and stayed in the outdoor air for considerable
periods. One of the most effective ways of reducing public
exposure to asbestos fibers was to enforce the demolition
and renovation rules. Numerous attempts were made to
publicize violations and penalties, including a major press
conference as recently as August, 1989 when heavy fines
were levied on several school districts and asbestos
companies failing to notify authorities of an asbestos removal
and other improper procedures.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Doe 15 September 91
-------
117
1979:' EPA Initiated a regionally-based technical assistance and
outreach program. Through placing full*time Regional
Asbestos Coordinators in EPA's 10 regional cities (Boston.
New York, Philadelphia. Atlanta. Chicago, etc.). the Agency
sought to develop and distribute technical guidance to
improve the quality of asbestos identification, assessment
and abatement activities and to promote a better
understanding of asbestos risks.
1982: EPA issued its first set of asbestos regulatory requirements
since the NESHAP rules almost ten years earlier. Under the
new Toxic Substances Control Act. EPA Issued an asbestos
inspection and notification rule which required all public
and private local education agencies to inspect buildings for
the presence of friable asbestos; post warning signs in
maintenance and common areas; and to notify parents.
teachers and other building occupants of the presence of
friable asbestos. The rules did not require the schools to
remove or repair It. only to Inspect and notify.
1980s: Between this 1982 rule and the AHERA legislation of 1986
which superceded it. EPA conducted major enforcement
activities to penalize schools violating the inspection and •
notification rule. The Agency, as a matter of course over this
period, frequently reduced penalties for violations of the
inspection and notification rule in exchange for violators'
commitments to remove asbestos.
1984: Under the technical assistance program. EPA was continuing
its research on asbestos levels and effective abatement
procedures. A national survey of buildings was completed in
1984. with the results showing indoor levels usually as low as
outdoor levels.
1985: EPA began awarding about $50 million in loans and grants
under ASHAA. Between 1985 and the present, the Agency
has distributed over $296 million in loans and grants to
' 1.125 local education agencies to perform over 2.600
asbestos abatement projects in 1.900 schools. EPA
estimates over 21 million weekly-exposure-hours have been
eliminated as a result of these projects. Because of the
statutory criteria, only the most seriously damaged friable
materials were funded for abatement. The projects were
almost always removal actions. EPA conducted the first
phase of its research into assessing the efficacy of removal
techniques.
A network of self-sustaining university asbestos
information and training centers was also being
established, with the naming of the first two of five
. national centers.
As importantly, the infrastructure of state asbestos
TERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
118
programs was. being developed with EPA
assistance. Through grants and technical
assistance, EPA was encouraging state sufficiency
in contractor certification and accreditation
programs. During the three-year period 1985-87,
EPA awarded $2.5 million to 39 states for asbestos
contractor certification programs.
1987: With the passage of AHERA in 1986, EPA began the
task of Implementing a major new regulatory
program under considerable time and knowledge
constraints. Bringing together parties to the
asbestos issue-health officials, business and
Industry Interests, maintenance and custodial
worker unions, school offlcials-EPA published the
new model plan less than five months after passage
of the law.
EPA Issued its new asbestos-in-schools regulations
in October. Just one year after passage of
AHERA-an almost Impossible feat in the open and
participatory rulemaking process used at EPA.
EPA continued its technical assistance program by
developing a fee-based system with the National
Conference of State Legislatures for state asbestos
support activities.
1988: EPA issued $1 million In grants to 17 states for
AHERA inspector accreditation programs. The
number of states with asbestos program was
growing rapidly. From four states in 2985. the
number rose to 47 by 1990.
EPA Issued its 1988 Report to Congress on Public
and Commercial Buildings outlining its knowledge
about asbestos hazards and recommended Congress
refrain from new legislation establishing
AHERA-like requirements for as many as 700.000
public and commercial buildings besides schools
estimated to contain asbestos. The Agency
requested a three year period before reporting
back with its recommendations.
1989: EPA concluded more than a decade of examining
asbestos risks in society by issuing a rule under the
Toxic Substances Control Act by banning asbestos
manufacture. Import and commercial distribution
in three phases over a seven-year phase-out period.
The rule had a long history of development. After
the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned
many asbestos-containing consumer products in
TERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due IS September 91
-------
119
1978. EPA moved to consider regulation of
commercial uses of asbestos. It issued an advance
notice of rulemaking in 1979 and a reporting rule
in 1982 to collect Information on industrial and
commercial uses of asbestos. In 1986 and 1988.
EPA proposed an asbestos ban under several
options for further comment and additional
information collection.
Finally, in July 1989. the Agency promulgated its
ban and phase-out rules. They effectively banned an
estimated 94 percent of all remaining
asbestos-containing product manufacture, import
and commercial distribution through three phases.
In 1990, felt products, including pipeline wrap and
roofing/flooring felt, cement sheet products, floor
tile and clothing containing asbestos could no
longer be manufactured. Acceptable substitutes
were readily available. In 1993. the ban extended
to some friction products, such as clutch and
transmission components and gaskets. (Beginning
with the 1994 model year, automobiles and trucks
will no longer contain asbestos materials in brake,
clutch and transmission parts.) In 1996. the final
phase is implemented. The ban extends to the
manufacture and Import of coatings, remaining
friction products, paper products and cement pipe
and shingles. Bans on distribution occur one year
later.
In announcing the ban and phase-out. EPA
Administrator William Reilly said.. This is pollution
prevention. We're eliminating a known
cancer-causing substance from the marketplace."
tbestos-in-Schools
With the passage of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Abatement
Act of 1986 (AHERA), EPA was required to implement a major
new regulatory program shortly after the law's passage. In
October. 1987 EPA issued its new final rules which now started
the process of compliance with the burden of the term
"Hazard." found in AHERA's title, placed on the shoulders of
local education agencies (LEAs) by Congress.
Within 12 months, every local education agency, from large
public school district to small private schools, had to select and
train a designated asbestos person—either an employee or
contractor—to oversee the AHERA program in their school.
Next an AHERA-accredited inspector had to conduct an initial
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer CftiT"T>fntB <*
Due 15 September 91
-------
120
inspection of all buildings within the school for friable and
non-friable asbestos and assess the condition of all asbestos
materials. In most cases, schools chose from the rapidly
growing list of contractors that had completed training in an
EPA-accredited course for inspectors. The rush was on to fulfill
the immense need for qualified people to handle the thousands
of inspections required for almost 200,000 schools across the
United States.
Upon completion of the inspection, an AHERA-accredlted
management planner must recommend to the local education
agency appropriate steps to control asbestos and develop a
management plan. Large and small companies alike vied for a
share of the lucrative market for developing asbestos
management plans.
Several other requirements were levied upon local education
agencies by EPA's negotiated rules. Training of all maintenance
and custodial workers in buildings with asbestos had to be
accomplished. Warning signs had to be posted in all
maintenance areas where asbestos was present.
Parents, teachers and employees were required to be notified by
the local education agency about the availability of the asbestos
management plan.
Where asbestos was present and damaged, surveillance activities
were required every six months to monitor the condition of the
asbestos. Reinspection by an AHERA-accredlted inspector had
to be accomplished every three years, as long as asbestos and
asbestos-containing building materials were present in the
schools.
Under statutory deadlines, all of these activities had to be
accomplished by October 1988—within one year of publishing
EPA's asbestos-in-schools rules.
School officials were required by statute to implement
management plans by July 1989 (nine months later), using only
AHERA-accredited professionals to conduct any response
actions other than operations and maintenance activities..
to Schools
The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) school
rule was promulgated in October 1987. within a year of
enactment (October 1986). The proposed rule was developed
through a regulatory negotiation with interested groups,
including a wide variety of school organizations. Schools, under
the law, had only a year, until October 1988. to conduct their
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
121
inspections and develop management plans. The Agency
conducted many activities during this period to help them
:: comply, many of which are listed below. (Those marked with an
1 . asterisk [*] are of particular note.)
j .
• The Agency: '
Mailed the new AHERA school rule, with explanatory
preamble, directly to all public school districts and
private schools. (October 1987)
Provided $5 million in grants to 12 States, under a new
Asbestos Inspection and Management Plan Assistance
Program (AIMPAP). for programs which provide funds to
schools for AHERA inspections and management plans.
(October 1987)
' •
Produced a listing of EPA-approved university and private
training programs for asbestos Inspectors and
management planners, also mailed to all schools. (October
1987)
Began a series of national speaking opportunities,
including those for the National School Boards
Association (NSBA). the American Association of School
Administrators (AASA). and the National FTA, as well as
professional groups, such as the National Asbestos Council
(NAG). In addition, the EPA Regional offices addressed
various state and local school groups across the country.
(Throughout the period)
Authored, or worked with school groups to produce, a
series of articles on AHERA. This Included a NSBA
advisory and a feature article in Education Week.
(Throughout the period)*
Granted approvals to nine State accreditation programs.
so inspectors and management planners could be trained
and accredited by their states as well as by EPA-approved
private trainers. (Throughout the period)
Funded and co-hosted, with the National Conference of
State Legislatures (NCSL), a special national meeting on
AHERA policy, attended by officials representing more
than 30 States. (November 1987)
Established a clearinghouse for EPA-developed model
training courses for asbestos Inspectors, management
planners and abatement supervisors, available to school
officials and others at cost. All schools were advised of
this service. (November 1987)
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Due 15 September 91
-------
122
Developed and mailed to aJJ schools a one-page alert of
"Immediately enforceable" AHERA provisions, to
encourage rapid school compliance. (December 1987)
Provided asbestos program grants totalling $1.1 million to
17 States for various accreditation programs. (December
1987)
Developed, with NCSL. a comprehensive list of State
asbestos program activities and contacts, which was made
available to schools. It included dozens of training
organizations nationwide which EPA was screening and
auditing. (January 1988)
Developed and mailed to all schools an easy-to-read
booklet, known as the "LEA Guide," describing the new
rule to schools officials, including checklists and
reference materials available from EPA. (February 1988)
Produced a revised listing of EPA-approved training
providers, as well as approved State programs, and
mailed it directly to all schools. (February 1988)
Developed, in conjunction with AASA and MAC. a two-
hour awareness video describing AHERA requirements,
particularly in-place management of asbestos. It was
made available by AASA and NAC to all schools. (March
1988)
Hosted a 90-minute national tele-conference, broadcast
by satellite and live over many of the nation's public and
educational TV* stations, describing AHERA requirements
and allowing school officials to call in with questions.
Three separate mailings, providing various AHERA
materials, were sent directly to all schools. Tapes were
made available for replay to both public TV stations and
schools. (April 1988)
Provided an additional $11.8 million in grants to 14
States, under a second AIMPAP allocation, for programs
which provide funds to schools for AHERA inspections
and management plans. (April 1988)
Appointed and advised all schools of the new AHERA
ombudsman office in EPA. which includes a toll-free line
to address school questions and concerns. (April 1988)
Developed and mailed to all schools a new guide to the
100 most frequently asked questions about the schools
rule, known as the "100 Questions.*' The guide,
accompanied by an update of various other AHERA
activities, addressed the key 100 policy issues raised by
schools since the rule was published. (May 1988)
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
123
> ' o Provided an additional $3.2 million in grants to five
states, under a third AIMPAP allocation, for programs
which provide funds to schools for AHERA inspections
and management plans. (May 1988)
* Developed and conducted, with the assistance of state
officials from Maryland and Connecticut, training for state
officials designated by AHERA to review school
management plans. Several hundred people from nearly
all states attended six meetings nationwide. Materials.
including a comprehensive inspection and management
plan checklist, were provided to all State officials.
regardless of attendance. (July 1988)
Congress, in July 1988. passed a law allowing schools until July
1989. instead of the original October 1988 deadline, to
complete their inspections and management plans.
* Advised all schools of the new AHERA extension law. and
provided an update on AHERA activities. The mailing also
included a comprehensive management plan checklist.
developed as part of the state training program to help
school officials check the work of their contractors.
(August 1988)
o Published a third listing of accredited State programs and
approved AHERA training providers. (August 1988)
; These activities were accomplished before the original AHERA
:, compliance deadline of October 1987. and well before the July
1989 extension.
: Further, the Agency's school asbestos efforts also included
; during this period:
o Its fourth loan and grant program under the Asbestos
School Hazard Abatement Act (ASHAA). which screened
hundreds of applications in early 1988 and awarded
• $22.6 million to 103 schools for 226 individual abatement
projects in April 1988.
o An interim report to Congress on financial assurance for
schools and asbestos abatement contractors conducting
hazard abatement activities in their buildings, issued in
August 1988.
i
v Unfortunately, the Agency was not able to produce all the
v AHERA implementation materials It Intended on schedule. For
example, EPA's ABC's of Asbestos in Schools booklet, produced
Jointly with the National PTA and the National Education
, ' Association (NEA). did not appear until June 1989 - a month
- before the extension's compliance deadline.
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Due 15 September 91
-------
124
At the AHERA deadline of July 1989, the States and EPA
estimated that 94 percent of all public school districts and
private schools had conducted their initial AHERA inspections
and developed asbestos management plans. While the Agency
has discovered deficiencies in many of these plans through its
AHERA evaluation, schools were nevertheless able to get a firm
foothold on their asbestos problems. Further, the AHERA
evaluation does seem to suggest that most schools did get a
primary message ~ that most asbestos could be managed
successfully in place, in that in-place management was by far the
preferred approach to dealing with most asbestos material.
EPA's 1988
Renort to Congress
The 1988 Report to Congress on Asbestos in Public and
Commercial Buildings, called for in AHERA. was supposed to
characterize the nature of asbestos hazards in buildings and
considered public policy approaches to address them. EPA,
however, was not prepared to meet this Congressional deadline.
The Agency presented its Report to Congress in February 1988
containing several Important elements of Information and asked
Congress for additional time to assess and improve the quality of
the nation's asbestos-related activities.
First. EPA estimated that friable asbestos is present in about
44,000 school buildings and another 20 percent of the nation's
3.6 million public and commercial buildings—about 700,000
more buildings. Secondly, the Agency did not recommend
proposing a comprehensive rule for asbestos in public and
commercial buildings, asking instead for three years to examine
what had been accomplished and what remains.
EPA estimated that full compliance with AHERA would cost
approximately $3 billion over 30 years. It cautioned that a new
regulatory program modeled after AHERA would cost in excess
of $50 billion. Other organizations have estimated this figure to
be as high as $150 billion.
Hie Agency recommended that it would take several steps in
the three years before it reported back to Congress with its
recommendation oh what to do about other public and
commercial buildings.
First EPA would move even further to enhance the nation's
technical capability in asbestos management and abatement. It
would do this by increasing the number of professionals
qualified to perform asbestos tasks: and it would help building
owners better select and apply asbestos management and
abatement actions in their buildings.
TERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
125
To cany out this first step, by April 1991, EPA had approved
1,300 AHERA accreditation training courses, 550 laboratories
for asbestos analysis, and 29 state accreditation programs. It
had provided states with model accreditation legislation;
distributed over $5 million to states to enhance certification
and accreditation programs: and completed development of an
in-place management guide for public and commercial building I
owners. In addition. EPA completed development of an |
asbestos management kit for federal building managers.
I The second step to which EPA committed Itself was to focus
attention on Thermal System Insulation (TSI) asbestos, the
' most common form of asbestos likely to be damaged and
therefore contribute to potentially dangerous exposure. The
Agency consolidated its knowledge about the presence of
Thermal System Insulation asbestos in the nation's buildings
' through a re-analysis of data collected during its 1984 survey of
> asbestos levels in public and commercial buildings. EPA also
» began developing guidance and Instructional materials on TSI
repair and abatement techniques.
Step three was to improve the integration of activities to reduce
imminent hazards, including improved coordination among
federal, state and local agencies responsible for implementing
asbestos programs and policies as well as enhancing EPA's
enforcement capabilities. The Agency sponsored the Federal
Asbestos Task Force, a working group of officials from federal
agencies with asbestos program responsibilities. In late 1990,
EPA issued a revision of the asbestos NESHAP rule which
enhanced the enforcement and compliance provisions in the
standard concerning demolition and renovation. A second
revision is also planned.
The final step in preparing for the future report to Congress was
to objectively assess the effectiveness of the AHERA schools rule
and other current activities to determine its effectiveness and
the appropriateness of this approach .for other public and
commercial buildings. The Agency was committed to filling gaps
which limited its ability to make regulatory decisions about
asbestos In public and commercial buildings.
To accomplish this fourth step, EPA undertook several
activities. It began a series of studies called the AHERA
Evaluation Project to evaluate the effectiveness of AHERA for
schools and the efficacy of a similar type of regulation for other
public and commercial buildings.
EPA's principal effort to learn more about asbestos exposure
levels in buildings centers around a joint public-private research
project now being conducted under the auspices of the Health
Effects Institute, The Health Effects Institute-Asbestos
Research project (HEI-AR) will complete a systematic literature
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Due 15 September 91
-------
J26
review in 1991 and will then examine other research projects
over the next 3-5 years, based on gaps found in the literature
review.
The Agency has continued its own research efforts, completing
a study of asbestos levels in the air in federal buildings in 1988.
Lastly, EPA decided that a policy dialogue with all affected
parties would assist In clarifying the desires and concerns about
asbestos in public and commercial buildings. To help
determine the most appropriate programmatic or regulatory
action, the Agency held a series of public sessions with building
owners and managers, labor unions, federal, state and local
government program managers, asbestos abatement and control
professionals, former and current manufacturers of asbestos
products, mortgage bankers, insurers and realty organizations.
TERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
127
Major Contributors
to This Report
Office of Communications and Public Afiairo
Lewis S.W. Crampton. Chairman
Margery Knight
Mary O1. Popkln
Roy Popkln
Christian Rice
Office of Policy, Program Evaluation
Frederick (Deny) Allen
Katharine Dawes
Lynn Luderer
Office of Toxic Substances
David J. Kllng
Michael Stahl
For additional information regarding this study or EPA and asbestos:
Office of Communications and Public Affairs
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street. SW. Washington. DC 20460
Phone (202) 382-4454
# # #
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
Reviewer Comments
Due 15 September 91
-------
-------
FIGURE 1
M
}
jl
"a. i
_ '.. v «<
]«!i
6 « « M U
58
i
I
S?c-
«'E 2-tj
2-=M
ma
H *
s' -
5 a
r L
Six — uj
MM MM
is s
*g "
:! :
p Ut • «
ig :-^-
a
i
p |i
i i!i!ii
.
!
i
9
H
Pi
4*
f
M
O
ea
r:-li s*?-
•• 2 i'
j i i
* r *
« I -
III
) i
•
•
•I"
s !§,
MiiriFT'
V,
S:
2?
41
i
I
3
i!
e II ..iSnii*
i II i II
P
,.t
; *
i •
^
2l
2?s
i II
ill I«*1I!
EB>Q o-^ •• » c *
L_
-------
-------
FIGURE 1 (Continued)
I ft
. •! "i5's|5-E|5*s»r
i!! i fli\\Mrn
1 Is «"8i«3l3-18fe«S
I Is -Sfc^as*-R-.s»s
! i) i^j'wn'ls*
2 a| $~8i §•"--,. a B-sS gas
S f€ * Is8 SfeL-ifil
.. II « a*r. «f=*3*-£S&
•«»
if l i lli iillii
i n>: ifrH i
I
liilMmiffiJ
9
•H
Pi
K
II
!« =
I *l
•I §£»* HSIsH
8 — * c --* 5 -8 • — I
-- 51?8 l»it*^>
II iuifMl'ilij
MI jajHP^iSi
! li s?i!il»|tt |]
1
!i
*l*i!!
•• »« B KE
i i\z iiriiii
ili K
^ «
8|
|8a
S^«
__
S
1
3
2
4*
0
! 1
4
«
i
f*
1
1 83
1! 11'
if K s
i ~£i i s
i 3.*J .- i
- *-! 1 "
» *s| . Is
« • « 9) c
*^ 2 ^ ^^1 ~
I"*?! = . = •
*lp is 3'
Jl 1« «fc
1? "-2 SS
i I 51 "8 "«
f 9 2 S. .*••»-
-------
-------
"•
'
a
fa
.00)
•M 0
a1
a 0
O fa
x 0
-
i
? jj
fe 0 ^
a -i
« a"
en 0V
0 0 >
£ K 0
5 "*,
s
•3
•
•
' fa
0 *^
43 pH
•H «H
4 0
a
S,
4*
fa
1
*"
^^ i
'l
i"
i
"^^''V '"
1
FH a :
0 O -H i
o a u i
C «•» •** 0 C i
oo* jj ja 3 i
•* C ' 0 10 0
a 4> 5 . z < o
§ J53 V_ ,
•H O 0
e 041
3n «^i
•0 ^^
ar i
fa 05 0
O -H
ja js • . -o
0*1. 0
-^ •* D» e
« .
o a
43*-*
- " •
S J
F-l 0 41
0 fa 0
> 0 fa C
0 4* 0 O
^ O«O 3
0 0 0 fa
-------
-------
FI GURU 3
-------
Information Resources Csntsr
US ERA (8404)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460 ,
------- |