SACC Raises Concern Over Narrow Scope Of EPA’s Draft Asbestos Analysis

April 8, 2020

EPA’s science advisors are raising concerns over the narrow scope of the agency’s draft evaluation of asbestos, prompting changes to the charge questions they will consider when they assess the draft during a peer review meeting later this month so they can formally discuss their concerns. During an April 7 conference call to discuss the draft of the charge questions that the panel will discuss at its upcoming meeting, members of EPA’s Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) raised questions over how EPA handled background asbestos exposures and why it excluded some diseases associated with asbestos exposure in the draft. There is “not a clear indication what proportion of asbestos exposures in the workplace or community [are] covered by this [draft evaluation],” Henry Anderson, the former chief medical officer for Wisconsin and a SACC member said.

“There should be some mention of the magnitude of the comparable exposures,” he added. The SACC is slated to meet April 27-30 to peer review the agency’s draft evaluation of asbestos, which found that that multiple evaluated uses of the substance pose “unreasonable” cancer risks via inhalation exposure to workers in several industry sectors, occupational non-users and consumers. But the draft has already drawn stiff criticism from environmentalists and a key House lawmaker, who are stepping up their efforts to have Congress approve legislation banning the mineral in part because EPA’s analysis is too narrowly focused and ignores multiple aspects of asbestos risk. Chemical industry officials have also criticized the draft for overstating risks to workers. During the SACC’s preparatory meeting, Anderson and others also raised concerns that EPA had precluded some exposure pathways, such as water ingestion, or exposures to air discharges from facilities that work with asbestos. EPA’s assessment largely focuses on occupational exposures to asbestos, and a few consumer uses, and Anderson voiced concern that the assessment is “not talking about chrysotile fibers that may be in the home, in the plants, chrysotile from drinking water…”

SACC Chairman Ken Portier, a statistician retired from the American Cancer Society, reminded Anderson of EPA’s general policy to exclude from its risk evaluations any exposures or hazards that can be regulated through other statutes, or fall under the jurisdiction of other agency offices or federal agencies. “I’m familiar,” Anderson replied. “I just think that there should be some mention” of the issue. Portier said that SACC has “included that [recommendation] in the past three reviews the committee has done.” Anderson’s point was supported by another panelist, Ruthann Rudel, research director at Silent Spring Institute, who suggested adding a question to SACC’s charge asking “whether EPA has adequately described the overall opportunities for exposure and shown which ones are being addressed and which ones are not very clearly and providing a little more information about the relative importance of the things that are being addressed and the things that aren’t?” Advisors and EPA staff discussed several changes to the charge that the SACC sought to allow panelists to better address areas of concern, or areas that EPA had not addressed in the charge. A final set of charge questions is due to the panel’s designated federal official, Diana Wong, by April 13, Wong said.

Background Exposures Tweet  4/9/2020 SACC Raises Concern Over Narrow Scope Of EPA’s Draft Asbestos Analysis |’s-draft-asbestos-analysis 2/3

Panelist Kenny Crump, an independent statistical consultant, and others also raised concerns about how EPA handled background exposures in the draft evaluation, picking up on issues raised by public comments at the April 7 meeting. Crump noted that asbestos is a naturally-occurring mineral, can be found in high levels in dirt in some areas, particularly in western states — and that individuals exposed in EPA’s conditions of use scenarios are also exposed to these background levels of asbestos. “One of the issues that has come up with background levels and occupational exposures is the extent to which the background is additive to the occupational exposure,” Crump said. He added that any kind of construction that disturbs dirt in areas with asbestos in it could increase exposures — from home construction to new roads. “We are focused on conditions of use that we know exist and are purposeful. I get that many different [asbestos] fibers are naturally occurring. There are high levels in some background exposures, but it is not purposeful,” Louis Scarano, EPA’s chemical manager for asbestos, said of the draft TSCA evaluation, though he added that staff “spent a fair amount of time” discussing the issue in relation to the consumer conditions of use in the draft. Another panelist, Brad Van Gosen, a U.S. Geological Survey research geologist, also expressed concern with some of the exposures omitted from the draft evaluation, questioning why EPA has “limited the list to the sources you have. Consumer exposure wouldn’t just be limited to brakes…” Van Gosen urged EPA in the evaluation to be clear about why it is excluded some sources of exposure. And he noted that some asbestos exposure sources do not have clear regulatory overseers. “The natural occurrence [of asbestos] in rock or a hillside … that’s always been a gray area, who’s responsible, other than California doing it as a state,” he said. “After all these years I’m still not sure where that fits in.”

Portier said that the issue of “the extent to which ambient levels of asbestos impinge on these occupational exposures” is one that SACC has discussed with other chemical evaluations the panel has reviewed over the past year “quite often.” He encouraged the panelists to write down and remember the issues raised for the peer review meeting later in the month. “If you don’t see what you want there it’s fair game to comment on it,” he told the panelists. The comments came after one public speaker, Brett Kynoch managing director of the Environmental Information Association (EIA), a group concerned with environmental and occupational health hazards in the built environment, protested EPA’s decision to evaluate risks posed by “legacy” uses of asbestos in a separate supplemental evaluation – after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit directed EPA to address such uses. “A supplement will not adequately address the exposures and concerns that are still used throughout the U.S.,” Kynoch said, adding that excluding them will underestimate cancer rates.

“The supplemental risk evaluation will do nothing if it is not integrated into the rest of the evaluation.” Another public speaker, a physician and epidemiologist, questioned EPA’s decision to exclude from the evaluation diseases other than lung cancer and mesothelioma. He urged the agency to consider pleural disease, which he said “occurs at low doses, comparable to those that would be at increased risk for malignancy … I’m suggesting it should be looked at because it could occur at lower numbers and pleural disease is something we want to avoid.” Noncancer Diseases Some panelists also appeared concerned that EPA did not consider noncancer diseases associated with asbestos exposure, with Van Gosen asking why asbestosis was not in the evaluation, prompting SACC member Holly Davies, a toxicologist with Washington state’s health department, to urge EPA to add a charge question for the panel about noncancer effects. Tom Bateston, an epidemiologist with EPA’s research office, told SACC when EPA crafted the problem formulation for the asbestos evaluation in 2018, “our initial calculations were that cancer risk would be the risk driver overall and that is why we focused on cancer. We do make mention in the draft risk evaluation that there can be risks for noncancer and that was considered in the risk determination of deaths.” EPA staff also committed to adding another question to the charge, after Davies noticed that the draft charge did not contain any questions about physical chemical properties of the asbestos, and said it “seems like there should be a question on physical chemical properties.”

Limited data on chemical properties have been an area of concern for 4/9/2020 SACC Raises Concern Over Narrow Scope Of EPA’s Draft Asbestos Analysis |’s-draft-asbestos-analysis 3/3 several of SACC’s peer reviews among the first eight TSCA draft evaluations the panel has reviewed. Especially in areas with limited information, EPA has used properties to guide modeling or assumptions about hazard and toxicity. Crump agreed with Davies, particularly for a mineral like asbestos that exists in varying fiber types. “It’s important to ask whether the physical chemical properties of asbestos you’re regulating are similar to the asbestos you used [to develop the risk evaluation] … like dimensions and those kind of properties,” Crump said. Scarano committed to Portier that he would ensure a new question about properties will be added to SACC’s charge. -Maria Hegstad (

CDC Offers Instructions for Cleaning Your Workplace Or Facility – Includes Recommendations for Training in the Use of PPE, Handling of Chemicals and Pathogens


Washington, DC – The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have published guidelines for steps and considerations in workplaces and facilities that have been infected by the COVID-19 outbreak. Included in their guidelines are recommendations that all workers be trained in the use of PPE, OSHA guidelines for the handling of hazardous chemicals and the OSHA standards on bloodborne pathogens.

KC-Based Remodeling Show ‘bargain Mansions’ Cited by EPA for Mishandling Lead Paint

by Mike Hendricks
Kansas City, KS – The company behind the popular home renovation TV show “Bargain Mansions,” based in the Kansas City area, has reached a settlement with the Environmental Protection Agency for improper handling of lead-based paint stripped from old woodwork. The EPA said Wednesday that it had cited Growing Days LLC, the company that produces the DIY Network show, for allegedly violating rules governing the removal of lead paint. Also cited were four local contractors who performed work on the show, which is hosted by Leawood rehabber Tamara Day. All were accused of multiple violations of the rule requiring the safe handling and disposal of lead-based paint. 

Moline Business Fined by EPA Over Lead Paint


Davenport, IA – EPA has reached a settlement with a Moline busines for its failure to provide proper disclosure of lead paint at residential properties in Davenport. The EPA says Selby Enterprises LLC will pay a penalty and complete an environmentally beneficial project for its violations of the Real Estate Notification and Disclosure Rules under the federal Toxic Substances Control Act.The matter was referred to EPA by the Scott County Health Department. The company has also agreed to complete abatement and clearance testing of lead-based paint at a Davenport house built in 1905, through a certified lead abatement contractor at the cost of $14,250. 

GAO: HUD Should Strengthen Physical Inspection of Properties and Oversight of Lead Paint Hazards

US Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC – By the end of 2018, over 4 million low-income households were being served by the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s three largest rental assistance programs. HUD must ensure that housing units provided under these programs are safe and sanitary. However, in this statement for the congressional record we reported that HUD needs to improve its efforts to address lead paint hazards in these housing units as well as its process for inspecting properties to identify physical problems.

Asbestos Ban Bill Gets House Panel’s Ok, But Senate Fate Less Clear


National – A House committee approved legislation Nov. 19 to ban asbestos but allow certain chemical manufacturers to transition away from use of the cancer-causing mineral. The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved on a 47-1 vote H.R. 1603, an amended version of the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act of 2019. The bill would ban the mineral, with a few exemptions, within one year.

Preliminary Guidance Document Available for Contractors Assisting With COVID-19 Concerns


National – The restoration industry has extensive experience in assisting individuals and organizations when their lives have been disrupted by catastrophic events such as floods and fires. Many clients are turning to restoration professionals to assist them in properly responding to the coronavirus pandemic referred to as COVID-19. In such circumstances it is imperative that restoration professionals be clear about what their services can, and cannot, accomplish for the client. This document has been prepared by a wide range of experts from the cleaning and restoration industry to assist contractors in managing the risks arising from efforts to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic.

Click to access RIA_Preliminary_Report_for_R.pdf

OSHA Issues Workplace Guidance for the Coronavirus (COVID-19)

National – The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) developed this COVID-19 planning guidance based on traditional infection prevention and industrial hygiene practices. It focuses on the need for employers to implement engineering, administrative, and work practice controls and personal protective equipment  (PPE), as well as considerations for doing so. This guidance is intended for planning purposes and is not a standard or regulation

Click to access OSHA3990.pdf

EPA finds asbestos poses cancer risks for workers, reigniting calls for ban

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that asbestos poses an unreasonable risk of cancer to both workers and consumers who inhale it, ramping up pressure on the agency to ban the substance.  In a draft risk assessment published this week, the EPA said that workers who inhale asbestos from certain uses of the substance in the Chlor-alkali industry, chemical production industry, oil industry and automotive industry had risks of lung cancer and mesothelioma.  It also found that consumers who were exposed to asbestos from automotive brakes and linings had these risks. 

The analysis comes nearly a year after the agency finalized a rule which it says will limit the use of asbestos. Critics, however, say that the rule could open the door to some uses since it stopped short of banning it.  The EPA has said the rule closes a loophole from a 30-year-old law that prevented the agency from limiting the sale of some asbestos products.  This week’s assessment heightened the calls for a ban. 

“It is now clear that this EPA has no intention of addressing this dangerous, proven carcinogen,” said a statement from House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.).  “Therefore, Congress must pass the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act and put an end to this public health threat once and for all,” he added, referring to legislation that would ban asbestos.   Linda Reinstein, president and co-founder of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, also called for a ban on the substance. 

“That EPA found this level of risk, despite the severe limitations and deficiencies of their evaluation speaks volumes,” she said in a statement. “We have repeatedly noted their flawed approach fails to fully recognize and evaluate the public health threat of asbestos which is why Americans can’t wait for the EPA to get it right.”  An EPA spokesperson told The Hill in a statement that “one of EPA’s priorities is to protect the public from adverse health effects of asbestos.” 

“The draft risk evaluation represents the agency’s initial review of the scientific data on this chemical and will be peer reviewed by independent, scientific experts as well as open for public comment,” the spokesperson said, noting that the analysis was only a draft.   Officials have known for decades that asbestos causes illnesses including lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis.  “If there is any unreasonable risk, the EPA will regulate, and our regulation could take the form of a ban,” an EPA official told The Hill last year

Asbestos Draft Risk Evaluation for Asbestos Available for Public and Scientific Review

EPA has already exceeded the statutory deadline for finalizing the risk evaluation for asbestos, and is now in the 6 month extension period allowed by the law. The clock runs out entirely in June 2020, which is likely why EPA has issued this long-awaited risk evaluation, even when there have been calls to wait until the coronavirus pandemic has ended. This is the ninth of the first 10 chemical compounds evaluated by EPA under the revisions to TSCA as a part of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.   

EPA is moving ahead with a planned scientific review of its just-released draft evaluation of asbestos, which found the substance poses an unreasonable risk to workers, consumers and others. EPA finds that asbestos poses and “unreasonable” cancer risks via inhalation exposure to workers in several industry sectors, occupational non-users, consumers or bystanders from consumer use. 

Completely missing from this draft risk assessment is any response to the recent court decision in Safer Chemicals Healthy Families v. EPA, Nos. 17-72260 et al. (9th Cir. 2019), which requires the EPA to consider legacy exposures to asbestos-containing materials that currently exist in the nation’s buildings, facilities and homes. EPA states that it ” intends to consider legacy uses and associated disposal in a supplemental scope document and supplemental risk evaluation.”

EPA did not find risk to the environment. For all the conditions of use included in the draft risk evaluation, EPA has preliminarily found no unreasonable risks to the environment under any of the conditions of use.

Upon publication of the Federal Register notice, the draft risk evaluation will be available for public comment for 60 days in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0501. Please submit comments on the draft risk evaluation by April 22, 2020 to allow the SACC time to review and consider them before the peer review meeting. Comments received after April 22, 2020 and prior to the end of the oral public comment period during the meeting will still be provided to the SACC for their consideration. Anyone submitting written comments after April 22, 2020 should provide an electronic copy to the DFO listed below. EPA will continue to accept comments on the draft risk evaluation until the end of the 60 day public comment period. The agency will consider all comments received on the draft risk evaluation by the end of the public comment period when developing the final risk evaluation. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at

EPA will hold a preparatory virtual meeting on April 7, 2020 for the panel and public to comment on the clarity and scope of the draft charge questions for the April meeting. Register to attend the virtual preparatory meeting.

To download the document, click below.