Asbestos removal, health hazards, and the EPA. Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association

Our plain-English summary of Asbestos removal, health hazards, and the EPA. Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association (JAMA, 1991).

The study

• Journal: JAMA
• Published: 1991;266(5):696-7
• Cited by: 1 article, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed

Abstract

Resolution 193 (A-90), which was adopted by the House of Delegates of the American Medical Association, called on the Council on Scientific Affairs to study the situation regarding asbestos abatement, the risks to health, and the appropriateness of Environmental Protection Agency regulations, policies, and control measures. This report reviews the current status of asbestos abatement as applied to schools and public buildings, which currently accounts for the major expenditure of public funds.

In plain English

This report by the American Medical Association's Council on Scientific Affairs, requested by a House of Delegates resolution, presented no original data. It reviewed asbestos abatement in schools and public buildings, its health risks, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policy. It noted that EPA policy did not necessarily require asbestos removal. It noted EPA figures that nearly 94% of public school districts and private schools had met initial requirements of the 1986 Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act. It cited an EPA estimate for schools, public and commercial buildings of $53 billion "discounted at 10% over 30 years," and even as high as $150 billion. Building occupants were presumed at relatively low risk of exposure, though asbestos still in place posed a potential risk of indeterminable magnitude. Custodians, fire fighters, and maintenance, repair and demolition workers, it said, will encounter fiber concentrations (type unknown) that "meet or" (next word lost in scan) OSHA-permitted levels. The authors concluded that an early-1980s National Institutes of Health consensus conference might have better focused EPA efforts and that physicians should stress greater risks, such as smoking.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Council report (policy review) by the AMA Council on Scientific Affairs; no original data
• Who was studied: Asbestos abatement in US schools and public and commercial buildings, reviewed at the request of AMA Resolution 193 (A-90); literature as of December 1990
• Exposure: Asbestos in schools and public and commercial buildings, and its removal (abatement); fiber type not specified for building exposures
• Main results:
  • The report stated that EPA policy did not necessarily require removal of asbestos
  • The EPA announced that nearly 94% of public school districts and private schools had complied with initial AHERA requirements
  • Cost estimates cited by the report: at least $3.4 billion initially for about 107 000 primary and secondary schools; an EPA estimate including public and commercial buildings of $53 billion "discounted at 10% over 30 years" and even as high as $150 billion
  • The EPA believed an additional 733 000 sites (about 20% of government, residential, and private nonresidential buildings) contained some form of friable asbestos
  • Asbestos still in place posed a potential risk of indeterminable magnitude. Building occupants in general were presumed to be at relatively low risk of exposure.
  • Custodians, fire fighters, and maintenance, repair and demolition workers will encounter situations where ambient asbestos fiber concentrations (type unknown) "meet or" levels permitted by OSHA. The word after "meet or" is missing in the scan.
  • OSHA's proposed rule of July 17, 1990, would reduce the workplace permissible exposure limit from 0.2 to 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air
• The authors' conclusion: The Council suggested that, in hindsight, a National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference in the early 1980s might have helped the EPA better focus its regulatory efforts. It said physicians should keep stressing far greater causes of illness and death, such as smoking, drug and alcohol abuse, improper diet, and inadequate exercise.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The report reflects the scientific literature only as of December 1990 and is not intended as a standard of medical care

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Abatement.

Related studies

• The health hazards of asbestos removal — L. MacDonald (1992)
• An assessment of the Environmental Protection Agency's asbestos hazard evaluation algorithm — M.E. Findley, V.E. Rose, et al. (1983)
• EPA and asbestos removal — J. Berry (1990)
• A review of scientific literature examining the mining history, geology, mineralogy, and amphibole asbestos health effects of the Rainy Creek igneous complex, Libby, Montana, USA — B.R. Bandli, M.E. Gunter (2006)
• EPA as a public health agency — B.D. Goldstein (1988)
• Asbestos in New York City public school buildings--public policy: is there a scientific basis? — R. Wilson, A.M. Langer, et al. (1994)

Browse more research in JAMA, or return to medical research.