LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY'S RECENT ACTIVITY TO DEVELOP GUIDELINES FOR NATURALLY OCCURRING ASBESTOS INVESTIGATIONS

A principal reason for the existence of state geological surveys is to assist their stakeholders by providing accurate, useful and unbiased technical information on emerging geological issues. California has recently experienced a rising concern over potential public exposure to naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) that may result from human activities in areas where NOA may be present. In response, the California Geological Survey (CGS) developed guidelines for geologic investigations of NOA in California. A review of the process used to create these guidelines provides insights about the necessity, consequences and costs of the approaches used that should benefit similar future projects.

The guidelines were developed with the assistance of a committee of volunteers, some from out of state, with recognized expertise in various fields related to the geologic investigation of NOA. Meeting and post-meeting communications were facilitated through the University of California, Davis. Committee members participated in a daylong field trip to view NOA areas before meeting for two days to draft an outline for the guidelines and assign writing tasks. During this time, government, industry, and consulting stakeholder group representatives presented their NOA informational needs to the committee. After the initial meeting, all committee communications occurred via a secure website and teleconferences. Prior to release, geologists and other scientists representing consulting, industry, and various government agencies reviewed the draft guidelines. Some special-interest groups and individuals attempted to direct the guidelines into non-geological areas and have them advocate particular positions on health risk, regulation or other issues. These attempts were necessarily rejected because such advocacy was outside of our guideline’s scope and purpose.

The above process resulted in the NOA guidelines being well received as a useful source of unbiased information on NOA and on conducting geological investigations for NOA. Committee members indicated the fieldtrip and stakeholder presentations were an essential part of our process. Both internal committee and external reviews were necessary, but the time for these reviews and resulting revisions was underestimated.