Mesothelioma Blog

Under peer review, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) experiment with a supposedly more cost-effective asbestos-containing material removal methods exposed several potentially dangerous flaws that could expose the public to asbestos.

Asbestos exposure has been conclusively linked to a set of serious health conditions, including mesothelioma, a deadly form of cancer. In response to the dangers of asbestos exposure, the EPA developed standards for asbestos abatement that were meant to shield the public from exposure to asbestos fibers when asbestos containing materials were disturbed as part of building repair, renovation or demolition.

In 1990, the EPA revised the National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) to require the removal of all regulated asbestos-containing materials from buildings slated for demolition. Unfortunately, the removal process specified by the NESHAP regulations is costly and time-consuming, so the EPA has been researching alternative methods of asbestos removal that are meant to save time and money while still protecting the general public and abatement workers from the hazards of asbestos exposure.

In April 2006, the EPA commissioned a study of an alternative demolition procedure which allows abatement workers to leave certain types of asbestos containing materials, including gypsum wallboard, inside a structure before demolition. The structure is wetted down before and during the demolition process, and then the debris is hauled away for proper disposal. Early results of the study were promising.

When subjected to internal peer review, the promise of this alternative removal method quickly faded. Reviewers expressed concern over a host of issues that lessened the perceived benefits of the new method.

Reviewers noted serious overestimates of the cost of standard asbestos removal practices. Many of the reviewers had extensive backgrounds in asbestos abatement, and offered the opinion that the nine days required for the standard removal procedures was far too long.

Other concerns were voiced about the failure to include total costs of removal in the price of the alternative removal method. Reviewers noted that much of the promise of the new removal method was negated once the pricing mistakes on both sides of the study were taken into account.

More seriously, the alternative method of asbestos removal produced several potential exposures to asbestos not found in the standard method. Since the alternative method involves the use of large volumes of water to soak down the structure before and during the demolition process, the issue of water contamination is critical.

In the study, a large soil berm was erected to contain the water and prevent release into a storm drain system. However, in urban areas, the space to construct such a berm may not be available, limiting the alternative method’s applicability.

Ultimately, the EPA’s peer reviewer declined to endorse the alternative method of asbestos-containing material removal. In 2007, the EPA tested a refined version of the alternative method in Forth Worth, Texas.