According to Fast Company, the Environmental Protection Agency is attempting to make the use of asbestos in manufacturing much easier. In June, under Scott Pruitt's leadership, the agency proposed the Significant New Use Rule (SNUR)—open for comment until August 10—that would allow for new uses of asbestos-containing products on a case by case basis.
Although banned in more than 55 countries, the United State has left use of the dangerous carcinogen open, choosing instead to heavily restrict and regulate the fibrous mineral. Despite efforts under the 1973 Clean Air Act and the 1989 Asbestos Ban and Phase Out Rule—the latter of which was overturned in 1991—asbestos, today, is still allowed in hundreds of consumer goods as long as it accounts for less than one percent of the product.
In addition to SNUR, the EPA also announced it will no longer review exposures from abandoned uses of asbestos. During the Obama Administration, under an amendment to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, asbestos became one of ten prioritized substances for evaluation. The agency has indicated that it will dramatically scale back these safety evaluations.
News of the decisions has caused plenty of outrage due to the materials link to lung cancer, mesothelioma, asbestosis, and other diseases. Recent data, released only a few months before the EPA released its new proposal, placed total asbestos-related deaths in the U.S at nearly 40,000 per year.
Once considered a miracle material of the construction industry, one of the substances most prominent uses has been building construction; asbestos was used in almost every public and commercial building constructed before the 1980s.
Recognizing the decision's relevance, Donna Sink echoed concerns in a tweet Tuesday pressuring the AIA to speak out. "This raises the question of professional ethics. #architects are part of the construction industry. I’d like my professional organization @AIANational to weigh in on this proposed change."
Sink's call to action brought about much support, provoking the Architecture Lobby, the firm Brooks+Scarpa, and many others to weigh in. This morning, in response, the AIA tweeted out its commitment to submitting public comment on the proposal.
Asbestos' comeback might seem odd if we did not live under an administration run by a veteran 'asbestos' conspiracy theorist. In the Art of the Comback, Trump claimed the movement to remove asbestos was the work of the mafia. And as recently as 2012, our President subscribed to the theory that the collapse of the World Trade Centers was due to a change made part way through construction to not use asbestos above the 14th floor.
1 Comment
I feel like I need to clarify my opinion a little, so thank you Archinect for offering a longer platform than I can do in a tweet! (I'm terrified to try threading).
Asbestos has a bad history. But I have also advised clients not to completely panic if they find it in their existing building, and then advise whether encapsulation or remediation is an appropriate approach.
Within AIA we *must* have experts or access to experts, knowledgeable of not just the material and its use, but also the specifics of the proposed EPA rule change and the liability architects might face if asbestos returns. I feel like a holistic approach to a topic like this is what AIA could do really well, and that a smart response to it can validate our reputation as knowledgeable professionals, and not just expensive people who make pretty things.
I'll reiterate that I think AIA learned a LOT from their (our) bungled press release after the 2016 election, and this kind of situation offers a way for us to respond publicly and well.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.