Industry News

Chemical Watch

Washington, DC – The US EPA has agreed to update its Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) in response to a recommendation by its Office of Inspector General (OIG).

Since 1973, under the NESHAP Regulation, the EPA has allowed buildings that are structurally unsound and in imminent danger of collapse to be demolished, without first removing regulated asbestos-containing materials, the OIG said in a report.

The agency’s alternative asbestos control method experiments show that this can result in the release of significant amounts of asbestos into runoff wastewater. The experiments also demonstrate that the amount of released asbestos “often exceeds the legally reportable quantity” of one pound in a 24-hour period, the OIG said, and recommended that the EPA should update its guidance to address such potentially harmful releases and assess the potential public health risk posed by them.

In response, the agency agreed that its guidance in the area was “dated and disparate” and said it would put together a team of asbestos experts to advise it in producing an “updated consolidated guidance document, which has practical application to the regulated community.”

The exposure of workers to asbestos has led to proposed fines totaling $81,000 for one employer. Commercial roofer Douglass Colony Group Inc. was cited for four repeat and seven serious violations by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration for failing to protect workers from exposure to asbestos at a Denver work site. “Asbestos is a dangerous material that can potentially cause lifelong, irreversible health problems if proper procedures are not followed,” said Herb Gibson, OSHA’s area director in Denver. “OSHA’s asbestos standard has a specific work practice covering roofing operations that the employer failed to follow, exposing workers to needless health hazards.” Three of the four repeat violations, with a $45,000 penalty, were cited for failure to provide a competent supervisor to oversee the removal of asbestos-containing material, conduct an asbestos exposure assessment and provide adequate training for workers performing asbestos removal duties.

The fourth repeat violation, with a $15,000 penalty, was cited for failure to remove asbestos-containing material properly to minimize potential release of airborne asbestos; use mist-cutting machines appropriately; and use ventilation for dust collection and proper containment and transfer of asbestos-containing material. A repeat violation exists when an employer previously has been cited for the same or a similar violation of a standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last five years. Similar violations were previously cited in June 2013.

Seven serious violations, with a penalty of $21,000, were cited for failing to conduct asbestos removal work within a regulated area; conduct daily air monitoring to determine employee exposure; provide protective respiratory equipment and clothing; identify and inform workers and others of the presence, quantity and location of asbestos-containing material; and label waste containers holding asbestos products. A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.

While this employer provided the proper fall protection and the focus of this inspection was asbestos exposure, OSHA advises all contractors in the Colorado roofing industry of the agency’s Fall Prevention Campaign to stop falls in construction. Douglass Colony Group, headquartered in Commerce City, was given 15 business days from receipt of its citations and proposed penalties to comply, request a conference with OSHA’s area director, or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

GALLUP, N.M. —A former state inspector and school workers are claiming asbestos was being yanked out of a ceiling where food is prepared at a New Mexico elementary school. “It was standard routine. If you came across asbestos, just remove it and go along with it,” said Brice Rohrer, a maintenance man with the Gallup-McKinley County School District. Rohrer said he’s worked in that position for 17 years. He said three years ago at Red Rock Elementary, a pipe broke in the cafeteria. He said a crew went to fix it, but two men stopped when they saw it was covered with asbestos. One did not.

He said asbestos went flying right into the cafeteria over the food counter during lunch, which caught the attention of a state inspector. Benny Kling, now retired from an environmental enforcement officer position, said Rohrer’s story is spot on “Asbestos was removed from the school during school hours without proper protection (and) without proper persons being trained and by contractors who were not licensed or trained to remove asbestos,” said Kling. He said he turned the case over to the feds.

A spokesman with New Mexico’s Environment Department said tests were done at Red Rock and samples were taken, but there was no evidence of asbestos. Kling said that’s because by then, the insulation labeled as asbestos had been removed. The school was built in 1966. John Hartog has worked at the school for more than 30 years. He’s been principal for 11. “I have no fear of asbestos being here,” he said. He said four years ago some was found in the gym plumbing, but it has been removed. He said there is none in the cafeteria, and parents should not be concerned. State Sen. George Munuz said parents hadn’t been properly notified for months. The state says the feds are involved. They were unable to be reached for comment.

By Ed Cahill
Vice President, Asbestos Division, EMSL Analytical Inc.

On June 22, 2012 the New York State Department of Health (NY DOH) issued a guidance letter outlining its policy on asbestos testing of materials containing vermiculite. This was a clarification and guidance with respect to an earlier FAQ the department released on April 8, 2011. To summarize, any loose fill vermiculite such as Vermiculite Attic Insulation (VAI), block fill, packing material etc. must be treated as Asbestos Containing Material (ACM). No analysis is necessary and in fact no laboratory analysis results will be deemed adequate to classify this material as non ACM.

The real surprise however was that in addition to loose fill vermiculite, any building material with >10% vermiculite as a component must also be treated as ACM! Fortunately this applies to relatively few types of building materials. Unfortunately one of the sample types it does apply to is spray-on fireproofing. The implications here are great for many large building owners.

Spray on fireproofing is, as the name implies a fire proof insulation that is literally sprayed onto the structural steel of buildings to protect it in case of fire. In an intense fire this insulation can make the difference in whether a building remains standing or collapses. Asbestos was an obvious component to add to spray on insulation since it is fireproof and an excellent thermal insulator. Due to the now well understood hazards of asbestos inhalation the EPA banned the use of sprayed on insulation containing asbestos in 1973. New formulations were created after that with no asbestos deliberately added. Ironically asbestos was still often present due to asbestos contamination in the vermiculite used. The most common source of vermiculite for over 70 years was the now closed vermiculite mine in Libby Montana. Vermiculite from this mine can contain a considerable amount of asbestos, both regulated and non-regulated. Since vermiculite is only one component in common spray on insulations such as W.R. Grace’s Monokote 5 or Isolatek’s Cafco 300, the final percentage of asbestos is often determined to be <1% by a typical asbestos analysis by PLM. Other components can include gypsum, calcium carbonate, cellulose, cement and mineral wool.

With the policies outlined in the June 2012 guidance document many New York building owners are facing a new reality, including major financial implications. Spray on fireproofing that was determined to be non-detect or <1 percent asbestos (non ACM) from surveys and lab analyses performed prior to the revised NYS guidance, now would be classified as ACM (asbestos containing material) because the vermiculite content is estimated to be >10 percent!

Beyond the June 22, 2012 letter little additional guidance was provided and asbestos consultants and laboratories struggled to interpret the guidance and strive for compliance. In response to growing concerns from all corners of the industry the Department of Health issued another three page guidance letter dated July 9, 2013 which allowed for an interim testing alternative to be used on materials with >10% vermiculite. This alternative testing method is the existing NY ELAP (Environmental Laboratory Approval Program) method 198.6 Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) method that is used for non-friable organically bound samples such as floor tiles and mastics. With this method a material with >10% vermiculite may be classified as non-ACM, but with a catch. If this alternative method is used, the following “conspicuous disclaimer” must be added to the sample report.

“This method does not remove vermiculite and may underestimate the level of asbestos present in a sample containing greater than 10% vermiculite.”

Ironically this disclaimer must be placed on the report even if the material is determined to be >1% asbestos and classified as ACM!

The guidance letter explains that this alternative method is to be used “until new testing methods are established that effectively remove vermiculite from test samples and accurately identify asbestos.”
No information is provided as to when that might happen or what that final method might look like. There are existing procedures, such as the one outlined in Analysis of Amphibole Asbestos in Chrysotile and Other Minerals by Addison and Davies (1990). These involve hazardous chemical digestions with sequential boiling in acid and then a base. These are procedures best performed in a chemistry laboratory not your typical small scale asbestos analysis laboratory.

The unfortunate consequence is a current state of uncertainty and limbo in the industry on this issue. The requirement of placing the strong disclaimer on all reports when using the alternative testing method negates the ability to technically classify the materials as non-ACM for many end users of these data. In the face of this uncertainty building owners and their consultants are taking many various approaches:

Approach 1

• Cancel or delay asbestos surveys if possible until final regulations are in place. This is likely affecting and delaying many real estate transactions.

Approach 2

• If initial analysis determines vermiculite content >10% they are stopping. The material is treated as ACM.

Approach 3

• If initial analysis determines vermiculite content >10% they are proceeding on to the alternative (additional) test method (ELAP 198.6) to determine the ASBESTOS percentage. Materials are classified as ACM or non-ACM accordingly and the disclaimer is tolerated or ignored.

Approach 4

• Approach 2 or 3 are followed for regulatory compliance and then various additional preparation and analysis steps are requested. Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) analysis is very often part of this process as an effort to demonstrate the use of “Best Available Technology”.

As stated previously all loose fill vermiculite including Vermiculite Attic Insulation (VAI) and block fill insulation must be treated as ACM. There are no New York approved methods for the analysis of vermiculite and none may be used to try and classify this material as non-ACM. This ELAP position is aligned with the current EPA stance that there are currently no validated and approved analytical methodologies to accurately analyze and quantitate asbestos concentrations in vermiculite. The ASTM D22 Committee is currently working on a draft method for the qualitative analysis of asbestos in loose fill vermiculite by TEM. This method will likely go to ballot by years end and could possibly be finalized in 2014.

The steps necessary for compliance with the New York State policies regarding vermiculite containing materials are outlined in the latest guidance letter as a flowchart seen below.

For all friable (can be crushed by hand pressure) building materials the process begins with NY ELAP Method 198.1 Polarized-Light Microscope Methods for Identifying and Quantitating Asbestos Bulk Samples. This method is similar in many ways to the more widely used EPA 600 PLM method used in other states. With the new policies the first step is to examine the sample for its vermiculite component.

Scenario 1 Vermiculite <10%

• If the vermiculite is determined to be ≤10% then the sample is treated like any other friable sample and analysis by method 198.1 continues in order to determine asbestos percent.
• NOTE 1: Method 198.1 and the guidance letter mandate that quantitation be performed by a point counting procedure. The point count technique can be a more accurate quantitation technique than the more common calibrated visual estimation (CVE) technique used in most circumstances in other states. But it requires a microscope slide preparation that is as close to a monolayer as possible. Due to its relatively large size vermiculite in most cases is not conducive to a good (and accurate) point count.
• NOTE 2: This critical part of the analysis is being applied unevenly from lab to lab with some labs attempting to differentiate between vermiculite and other micas that might be in the sample. The result can be large discrepancies in vermiculite estimates from lab to lab.
• Vermiculite Attic insulation (VAI) by PLM

Scenario 2 Vermiculite >10%

• If point counting by method 198.1 determines the vermiculite content to be greater than 10% this analysis is terminated (no asbestos determination is performed).
• The analyst proceeds with analysis via ELAP method 198.6 Polarized-Light Microscope Method for Identifying and Quantitating Asbestos in Non-Friable Organically Bound Bulk Samples
• This method requires special preparation steps to remove and track the weight loss of organic and acid soluble matrix material prior to analysis. It will not remove vermiculite unfortunately.
• Asbestos analysis by PLM is performed on the resulting residue. The weight loss is included in the calculation of the final asbestos percent.
• NOTE: Differentiation between the regulated and non-regulated asbestos types that are found in the common Libby vermiculite can be difficult by PLM. TEM is superior for this.
• Regardless of whether or not the material is determined to be ACM (>1%) or non ACM (<1%) the following disclaimer must be added:

“This method does not remove vermiculite and may underestimate the level of asbestos present in a sample containing greater than 10% vermiculite.”

The current uncertainty in regards to vermiculite containing materials is unfortunate and has many agencies, regulators, building owners and consultants sitting on the sidelines waiting for more clarity. Those that are proceeding are faced with inconsistent application of existing guidance and the potential that their samples may need to be re-analyzed once the “final” method is adopted.

The Tennesseanby Jim Morris

International – Although asbestos use in the US plummeted from a peak of 885,000 tons in 1973 to 1,609 tons in 2008, the nation’s epidemic is far from over. As many as 10,000 Americans still die of asbestos-related diseases each year; one expert estimates that 300,000 or so will die within the next three decades.

After a long battle, the “Ban Asbestos in America Act” was finally passed in the Senate in October, much to the relief of advocates for asbestos victims and many others fighting to cease use of the known carcinogen. Celebrations for the ban will have to wait, however, since the final draft of the bill fails to block all asbestos-containing products. As a result, many who initially favored the bill are now disputing its approval.  In early October, every Senate member voted for the Act, first introduced by Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.). Scientists and physicians supported it as well, along with victims and widows who have suffered from the effects of the dangerous substance. Proponents of the bill were disappointed to learn that the language had been watered down and much of what they had fought for had been omitted.

A test in December 2007 of a new method for tearing down asbestos-contaminated buildings is probably safe, but concerns still exist, according to experts assembled by the federal government.  The Oak Hollow Apartments are secured as Fort Worth and the EPA prepare to demolish them this week. An experimental method will be used to dispose of the buildings with asbestos, with hopes that the method is safer and more cost-effective.  The Environmental Protection Agency, with cooperation from the city of Fort Worth, will demolish a portion of the vacant Oak Hollow Apartments using an updated version of what’s called the “wet method,” or “Fort Worth method.” The method, which is still in the experimental stages, has drawn the opposition of some environmentalists, who said Monday that they could not garner enough support to stop the testing.  A successful test could help pave the way for federal approval of the first new asbestos abatement method in decades and potentially make it cheaper to demolish buildings that have become eyesores and neighborhood dangers nationwide.

Sen. Patty Mrray (D-Wash.) will launch her push this week for a nationwide ban against asbestos when she chairs a hearing and introduces new legislation on the topic.

The substance has not been completely banned in the United States. The United States currently imports over $100 million worth of asbestos products annually, including brake pads and linings, cement pipe and floor tiles, according to Murray’s staff.

An EPA attempt to ban asbestos under the Toxic Substances Act failed in October 1991, when the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revoked the ban because EPA hand not chosen the “least burdensome regulation” to protect public health and environment as required by the act.

The hearing is set for 10:00 a.m., Thursday March 1 in 430 Dirksen.

(08/06/07) SAN FRANCISCO — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently fined seven Tucson charter school operators a combined total of $67,240 for Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act violations.

In May 2006, EPA inspectors discovered the school operators all failed to conduct inspections to determine if asbestos-containing material was present in school buildings and failed to develop asbestos management plans.