HomeMy WebLinkAboutEQCB Min 1987-11-17
'.
.
.
November 17, 1987
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
Environmental Quality Control Board
Department of Development Services
SUBJECT: Asbestos In the Home
BACKGROUND
On August 18, 1987 the Environmental Quality Control Board
discussed the issue of asbestos in the home, and the
identification of construction materials containing asbestos in
some Seal Beach residences. To aid the Board in their efforts,
Jeff Benedict of the Orange County Environmental Health Division
attended the meeting and gave a background report on the subject.
Mr. Benedict's comments are summarized in the minutes of the
meeting, which are enclosed with this staff report.
At the conclusion of the meeting,
staff to prepare a summary of
indoor asbestos in Seal Beach.
summary, with an analysis of the
approach.
the Board moved to request
possible actions to deal with
This report presents such a
benefits and drawbacks of each
DISCUSSION
At the outset, the Board should be keep in mind that its role in
this matter, and in any other, is advisory; the EQCB may not take
final action on any item under its consideration. Rather, the
Board has the power to study and investigate any potential
threats to the environment, and recommend affirmative steps or
legislation to maintain or improve the quality of the environment
to the City Council. Consequently, should the Board choose to
move on any of the options presented herein, the motion should be
in the form of a recommendation to the City Council.
Through the Board's discussion on August 18, 1987 a number of
possible approaches to dealing with the home asbestos issue were
suggested. Among these were a mass mailing advising citizens of
the possible danger, distributing information on asbestos in the
home through the Building Department, providing home inspections
to locate asbestos-containing materials upon the resident's
request, and requiring tests or inspections for th~ presence of
asbestos as a condition of all demolition permits. To these
options, staff has added the obvious default of doing nothing.
r'
Staff's analysis is as follows:
Option 1. Conduct a mass mailing advising citizens of the
possible danger of asbestos in the home.
..
.
.
STAFF REPORT
November 17, 1987
Page Two
Pros:
Educates residents who may not have been aware of issue
Recognizes that even slightest exposure could have
health-threatening impacts (one fiber theory)
Enables citizens to act before asbestos-containing
materials become a hazard; may encourage careful
monitoring of ducting, ceilings, etc.
Cons:
Furnishes limited information due to space and cost
constraints ,
Gives no immediate opportunity
recipients' questions and concerns
respond to
to
Reacts on large scale to problem of undefined scope:
indoor asbestos not a conclusively demonstrated threat
to health; extent of asbestos use in local construction
not clear
Option 2. Distribute information on asbestos in the home and
proper construction procedures through the Building Department
upon receipt of applications for building permits.
Pros:
Targets population most likely to encounter friable
asbestos (i.e., asbestos in its hazardous form) in the
home
Gives recipients immediate opportunity to discuss
questions or concerns with knowledgeable personnel or
be directed to appropriate resources
Addresses problem before it is likely to occur
Cons:
Does not contribute to identification of scope of
problem
Fails to reach illegal construction jobs and jobs not
requiring permits
.'.
.
.
STAFF REPORT
November 17, 1987
Page Three
option 3. Offer home inspections for a fee upon homeowner's
request to identify materials containing asbestos in the home
Pros:
contributes to understanding of extent of use of
asbestos in local construction
Allows staff to comment on degree of hazard and suggest
course of action
Provides a resource to persons other
involved in remodeling
than those
Suggests more responsive participation; citizens
requesting assistance are motivated to take action
Uses resources presently available to City
Cons:
Fails to reach all homeowners involved in construction
projects
Discourages homeowners with illegal property conditions
(i.e., bootleg units) from participation
Provides
citizens
offered
remedies
help to those most able to help themselves;
informing themselves of issues and city-
solutions will be aware of alternative
Option 4. Require tests and/or inspections for the presence of
asbestos in the home prior to issuance of demolition permits for
remodels or new construction
Pros:
Targets population most likely to encounter friable
asbestos
Enjoys some support on County Health Department staff
Provides conclusive information on presence of
asbestos; stronger measure than warning (Option 2)
...
.
.
STAFF REPORT
November 17, 1987
Page Four
Adds to City's knowledge of extent of asbestos in the
home
Cons:
Fails to reach illegal construction jobs and jobs not
requiring permits
Increases expense of construction and demolition; may
not be necessary in many cases
Requires specific action on an issue not yet fully
understood; lack of knowledge on degree of hazard makes
justification of expensive action difficult
Duplicates Cal/OSHA requirements; employer or
contractor already required to determine whether
asbestos is present before beginning a job
by County Health
local testing
conclusion of
Precedes (at this time) full analysis
Department; request to institute
requirements will be forthcoming upon
Health Department's study
Option 5.
Do nothing
Pros:
Recognizes limits of current knowledge on asbestos in
the home
Corresponds to South Coast Air Quality Management
District regulations: residential construction
projects involving asbestos are exempt from reporting
requirements
Imposes no additional costs or obligations on Citi or
residents
Cons:
Does not recognize possible danger of exposure to
asbestos
Relies on local enforcement of state and regional
guidelines
.
.
.
STAFF REPORT
November 17, 1987
Page Five
Clearly, this analysis and any forthcoming conclusions are
predicated upon some fundamental points. First, the state of
scientific knowledge on the effects of asbestos in the home is
incomplete. County Health Department staff have indicated that
two studies performed within Orange County have found that the
presence of asbestos in residential construction materials has
not led to elevated levels of ambient asbestos. Hence, the
County's tentative conclusion is that such materials are not
harmful when maintained in good condition. Still, the fact
that asbestos is a known carcinogen leads Health Department.staff
to qualify its assertions regarding safety.
In addition, the regulatory environment surrounding indoor
asbestos is sketchy, and at times contradictory. The South Coast
Air Quality Management District does not regulate construction
projects where asbestos has been located if those projects are
residential in nature. Cal/OSHA requires reporting of
construction projects where asbestos has been found, but only if
over 100 square feet of asbestos-containing materials are
involved. Such guidelines do not recognize the theory that a
single fiber of asbestos can result in impaired health.
CONCLUSION
In reviewing the options described above, the EQCB should keep in
mind that the extent of asbestos in Seal Beach homes is as yet
undocumented. It would be irresponsible, and alarmist, for the
City to presume that the health of the City's entire population
is at risk when the County Health Department finds and acts
otherwise. Yet it would be equally irresponsible not to
recognize that there may be a hazard of some degree. Therefore,
staff urges the EQCB to opt for an alternative that expands upon
our present knowledge of the issue, that targets a group likely
to be exposed to friable asbestos in the home, and that
represents the most reasonable approach to a difficult problem.
7d'!!-~ ~ )fa..e~
Pamela G. ker
Administrative Aide
~2 .~}~
Edward M. Knigh r ~J
Director of Development Services