Excellant Article by Will Spates on Being an Expert Witness

I recently read Mr. Will Spate's article in Indoor Environment Connection's November issue (yes, I know, it takes me a month to catch up on my reading) on "Do You Qualify To Be An Expert Witness".  Mr. Spates is the President of Indoor Environmental Technologies, Clearwater, Florida and the article provided several pieces of information that I did not know.  Such as the difference between an expert witness and a percipient witness and the need for your reports to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.  I strongly recommend that if you are an environmental consultant that you read this article, because it applies even if you are not an expert witness.  You never know when you may end up in court to defend your reports and advice you gave.

Results of Northeast Regional Industrial Hygiene Conference

Image via Wikipedia

On December 4, 2009, we attended the Northeast Regional Industrial Hygiene Conference and Exposition of the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) sponsored the Philadelphia Section of the AIHA. The title of the conference was "The Business of EHS – A New Team Dynamic" for the list of speakers and their biographies visit http://www.philaaiha.com/Newsletters/2009NEIHCBrochure.pdf. The program was professional and interesting, though the focus of the presenters was on manufacturing and industrial applications. This left very little for someone focused in construction safety or indoor environmental issues. The presentations on the environmental health and safety (EHS) perspectives on the impact of the global supply chain, and business metrics (building EHS value and cost-benefit analysis for EHS) were advanced level presentations. Our favorite presentation was the first one on “Staying Safe While Making Money” by Ms. Maureen Modica, CIH, CSP of the United States Mint.
Mr. Aaron Trippler’s “Washington Buzz” presentation during lunch reinforced what we heard from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) representative at the PDC (see our Wednesday, November 25, 2009 blog). OSHA’s current budget is up 10% leading to hiring of 200 new inspectors for enforcement. Other interesting news was NIOSH’s focus on nanotech, risk management, and aerosol transmissible diseases indicates new research information will be available on these issues in the future.
The vendor exposition hall was very good and we thank 3M for providing us with two pair of safety glasses for our safety classes(one called Lightvision 2-LED Plano Eyewear (debating using this for work around the house) and the other called Nitrous CCS with hearing protection providing a noise reduction rating of 25 decibels, both excellent ideas). We also thank Nilfisk-Advance America Inc. for providing us with a new vacuum cleaner catalog for our asbestos classes.
Though the regional this year was interesting, the lack of a balanced program left individuals with our background in construction safety and indoor air quality with very little to bring back home. Some of you would ask why attend a meeting that had so little to offer, the topics were publicized ahead of time. Well first, Mr. Trippler’s presentation always gives us an idea on the pulse of what is happening in Washington, DC on the environmental safety and health front. Second the vendor exposition hall is always interesting to see what services and products the various companies in the area are offering. Saving the best for last, the most important reason is to network and meet with old friends and acquaintances and meet new people who are in different areas/regions of the industrial hygiene field. It is a lot of fun catching up with people you may only see at this event. It was a pleasure seeing and discussing different issues with Mr. Jack Springsteen, Dr. Jack Caravanos, Ms. Amy Gordon, Mrs. Debra Gul Haffner, and many others. The special treat this year was talking with Mr. Dave Robbins, who was in town from Alaska. Though the regional, this year, did not provide much information for the construction and indoor environment people, the networking opportunities are probably the best reasons to attend the Regional each year.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Dangerous Decisions introduces NIOSH Pocket Guide 1.0 for iPhone (themactrack.com)
• Lean Manufacturing and Safety Important to Manufacturers (prweb.com)

Hudson River PCB Dredging – the Good, the Bad, & the Ugly

Image via Wikipedia

On May 15, 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the start of dredging operations on the upper Hudson River. The goal of this project is to remove approximately 113,000 kilograms of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from the river by 2015. General Electric Company’s (GE) Fort Edward and Hudson Falls plants legally released the PCBs into the river from 1944-1997. GE is conducting the dredging and related work under the terms of a November 2006 consent decree, after EPA ordered GE to dredge the tainted sediment from the river and dispose of it. The Hudson River covering a 200 mile stretch is the largest superfund site in the United States.
The Good – the ultimate goal of this dredging operation is to restore the health of the river, to enhance regional tourism and commercial opportunities, and improve commercial and recreational fishing in the Hudson River between Fort Edward and Albany currently prevented by the PCB contamination. The Hudson River dredging plan is based on a previous successful PCB dredging project along Lake Champlain in Plattsburgh, NY. The plan includes daily water sampling downstream from the dredging operations, these sampling results must average below 500 parts per trillion of PCBs, which is the same as the drinking water standard, for dredging operations to continue. On August 5, 2009 dredging operations stopped because sampling results exceeded the standard. A review of the operations called for enhanced engineering controls. The enhanced engineering controls allowed dredging operations to resume on August 11, 2009. There have been no reported problems since.
The Bad – transporting the PCB sediment to its eventual resting place in Texas will take a 2,000 mile trip through a number of states. The PCB-sediment will be dewatered in Fort Edward packed onto a 81-car train and tightly wrapped in heavy-duty plastic. EPA deemed rail travel as the safest method of transporting the soil. The national rail traffic will determine the ultimate route of the train and it will take about five days to get to Texas. The Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club notes in their release dated February 11, 2009, “that an environmental impact statement has not been prepared for the proposed rail shipment. The shipment poses a potential for serious accident hazards in or near dozens of urban areas and states through which trains would pass. One major rail accident could lead to a catastrophic contamination event if drums were breached and highly concentrated PCBs were released.” According to The Saratogian article “Hudson River PCBs en route to West Texas”; the Federal Railroad Administration’s safety data, 726 accidents involving trains carrying hazardous materials occurred in 2008, more than half of those in the rail yard. Everything from a slight bump in a rail yard to a major derailment qualifies as an “accident” in that report. Examples of the type of derailments covered by the report include, the 2 that occurred within 24-hours of each other on September 26 & 27, 2009 in Montana and Wyoming. These derailments involved minimal spillage and the cars remained erect. While other derailments like the one that occurred on January 22, 2002 that caused a toxic cloud of anhydrous ammonia near the town of Minot in North Dakota, still have an effect on the people who live there, even years later. That derailment required the digging up of 97,000 tons of contaminated soil and 25,000 square feet of river ice and more than 1,000 people affected according to USA Today. An Environmental Impact Statement would at least look at the possible consequences of a derailment and try to anticipate a derailment that would be catastrophic.
The Ugly – the final resting place for the estimated 2.65 million cubic feet of PCB-contaminated sediment is Waste Control Specialists (WCS) in Andrews, Texas. Rural Andrews County, Texas is a desolate desert county just over the New Mexico border and consists of 1500 square miles and a population of about 14,000 people. Andrews, the only incorporated city in the county, has a history more than a decade long of hazardous waste disposal. A study commissioned by the town and performed by the professors at Texas Tech University determined that hazardous waste disposal was a suitable industry for the city and county, because the red-bed clay found there is a natural impermeable liner and the area where WCS located their site does not overlap the Ogallala Aquifer. WCS as an EPA permitted toxic waste facility accepted the first load of PCB sediment on June 28, 2009. Prompting a backlash, from the people in the area, regarding the feasibility of dumping the PCB-contaminated sediment at the WCS facility. The Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club wrote a letter to the EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson urging a halt to the shipping of the PCB wastes to Texas. Is it a case of “not in my backyard” (NIMBYism)? Maybe not, there seems to be a disagreement on whether the WCS facility is over or close enough to the Ogallala Aquifer (a sensitive underground water resource). The claims range from 14 feet to 500 feet to the nearest water table. The Ogallala Aquifer stretches from South Dakota to Texas and is the largest aquifer in North America. It seems that the concerns of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club may be justified. It seems that EPA should have checked to make sure how close this waste facility actually was to the Aquifer.
Like all hazardous material/waste situations, cleaning up the problem brings up many questions some good, some bad, and some downright ugly. However, if we ask the questions and we look at the problems carefully and thoroughly, we can eventually solve these problems to the satisfaction of all concerned and involved.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Phase 1 of PCB removal on Hudson River completed (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Phase 1 of PCB Removal on Hudson Wrapping Up (abcnews.go.com)
• Making Nice: GE and Browner (blogs.wsj.com)
• This weekend on Capital Green Scene (timesunion.com)

Results of the Metro NY AIHA's EHS Global & Local Update Meeting

On November 19, 2009, the Metropolitan New York Chapter of the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) sponsored the Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) – Global and Local Updates: Asbestos, Fire/Life Safety and EHS program at the Pfizer Conference Center.  For the list of speakers and their biographies click on the title above. The program was excellent and each of the speakers provided a lot of valuable information.  Because of the recent activity by regulatory agencies regarding asbestos, the three speakers speaking on asbestos drew a large crowd.  The speakers were:

• Mr. Carlstein Lutchmedial speaking on the revisions to the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYC DEP) asbestos regulations;
• Mr. Chris Alonge speaking on the proposed revisions to the New York State Department of Labor Industrial Code Rule 56 (NYS DOL ICR56);
• Mr. Kevin Malone speaking on the New York State Department of Health’s asbestos training program and their program on performing audits/inspections of schools regarding their compliance with the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA).

Mr. Lutchmedial, the Director of Enforcement for NYC DEP, discussed the new asbestos regulations, filing requirements, and the new regulation’s relationship with what occurred at the Deutsche Bank Fire. The key points of his presentation were:

• New filing requirement and process for ACP7s (see our Autumn 2009 Newsletter for further information on this process http://futureenvironmentdesigns.com/newsletter.htm );
• The new regulations are aligned with the fire code and specific fire safety requirements;
• There is no grandfathering of the regulation. If you had a project that started before the regulations took effect (November 13, 2009), you must bring your project into compliance with the new regulation;
• Preparation of the work area must be in the order the regulations are written (i.e., occupant notification, posting of floor plan with location of all fire exists, vacate area, shutdown electric, worker decontamination enclosure, erection of barriers);
• Added a section defining unprofessional conduct;
• No longer need a variance for floor tile removals;
• All variances must be designed by a NYS certified Asbestos Project Designer.

Mr. Alonge’s, the DOSH Associate Safety and Health Engineer NYS DOL and author of the current ICR56, presentation was similar to the PACNY presentation (visit http://www.labor.state.ny.us/workerprotection/safetyhealth/DOSH_CODE_RULE_56_TRANSITION.shtm if you want to see the presentation and see my blog post on that presentation at http://futureenv.blogspot.com/2009_03_01_archive.html ). In our refresher classes we’ve been discussing Mr. Alonge’s presentation since he was kind enough to provide us with a copy of the presentation. The big difference with this presentation is he provided a rough timeline for when the new regulations may come out and eventually go into effect. The key points of Mr. Alonge’s presentation were:

• The new regulation will have several references to the current NYS fire and building code. Mr. Alonge views many of changes to ICR56 as already being required by the fire and building code, with a few exceptions (i.e., negative air unit disconnect switch);
• An audience question brought on a discussion regarding the use of dust samples in determining the extent of incidental disturbance. Mr. Alonge’s view was that Asbestos Inspectors should rarely use dust sampling. When dust sampling is necessary then it should follow the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard method D5755 for sampling and the analysis must follow NYS DOH Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) methodology (this methodology provides you with qualititative results of positive or negative for asbestos).
• Expected dates: Draft is currently at Counsel. Once Counsel is completed, anticipate submittal to the Governor’s Office of Rules and Regulation (GORR) around Jan/Feb 2010. Publish for comments April 2010. Final version by July 2010.

Mr. Malone’s, Section Chief of the Asbestos Safety Training Program of NYS DOH, discussion was on the asbestos training program and the audit/inspection program of NYS schools determining compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) AHERA regulation. Key points of his discussion were:

• NYS DOH issued 26,000 asbestos certificates in New York State through 72 training providers.
• Mr. Malone’s discussion of NYS DOH’s audit/inspection program for EPA highlighted several areas where schools are not complying with the AHERA regulations. These are:
• Recordkeeping
• No warning labels
• Short term worker notification
• Custodial/Maintenance Staff Training
• Not identifying all ACBM
• Project Designer
• Clearance Sampling
• The last two are significant in that once Mr. Malone discussed what was required, most people in the audience realized in regards of the last two not a single school in NYS is probably doing them. Visit our discussion group at http://groups.google.com/group/fed-forum?hl=en for a copy of the spreadsheets that Mr. Malone provided the attendees on this topic.
• AHERA requires project designs developed by a Certified Asbestos Project Designer for all projects greater than a small scale short duration or minor fiber release (less than or equal to 3 linear feet (LF) or 3 square feet (SF)). Meaning in a school, even a NYS minor asbestos project (less than or equal to 10 SF or 25 LF) would require an asbestos project design written by a certified asbestos project designer.
• Clearance testing for projects greater than 3 LF to less than 260 LF or greater than 3 SF to less than 160 SF require 5 inside air , 5 outside air and 3 blank samples analyzed by phase contrast microscopy. As you can see from the spreadsheet, this is a NYS State Education Department requirement. AHERA on the other hand would require only 5 inside and 2 blanks samples analyzed by PCM.

In addition to the above speakers, Ms. Gee Kay, acting Director of the Manhattan area office, representing OSHA informed us that the Obama Administration increased OSHA’s budget by 10% increasing inspections to 6,000 and allowing OSHA to hire more Compliance Safety and Health Officers. There are currently 20 CSHO in Manhattan and 5 in Queens. She also informed us of OSHA’s increased activity in rule making including the hazard communication, combustible dust, and acetylene standards. Mr. Julian Bazel, Counsel and Mr. James Hansen, Director of Code Revision, of the NYC Fire Department discussed the new fire code in NYC. Ms. Nancy Orr, Director - Global Environment, Health and Safety for Becton Dickinson, spoke about developing a global health and safety process/netrics in a de-centralized multinational corporation.  While our host Mr. Michael West from Pfizer spoke on climate change and occupational hygiene; the whole day was very informative and entertaining. The Metro Chapter did a great job putting this program together. The program was well worth the trip into Manhattan and meeting some old friends made it even better.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Province taking 2nd look at asbestos complaint (cbc.ca)
• Work-Related Injuries Underreported (nytimes.com)
• Report: Sugar Company Ignored Dangers Before Blast (abcnews.go.com)

Paragon's Asbestos Superisor Pleads Guilty

Image via Wikipedia

As those of you who take our refresher classes know on May 29, 2009, Certified Environmental Services, Inc., an asbestos air monitoring company and laboratory, were indicted on charges of providing false and fraudulant air monitoring results while the asbestos contractor performed illegal asbestos removal.  The dominos are starting to fall, as the supervisor for Paragon pleaded guilty and is cooperating with investigators in regards this investigation.  This is the first time we are seeing not only the owners of the company being charged but the individual air monitors are also being charged.  This case may show the extent of the liability an individual air monitor has in performing air monitoring/sampling.  Air monitors (Asbestos Project Sampling Technicians) should follow this case because it will show the level of individual liability in performing air sampling/monitoring.

NYC DEP Posts New Forms for Asbestos Projects

Image via Wikipedia

New York City Department of Environmental Protection has posted new forms on their website that are required as part of the new asbestos regulations that started going into effect in October 13, 2009.  Today, all the new asbestos rules (work procedures and practices) went into effect.  Additional operational changes go into effect November 16, 2009, including the use of the Project Monitor’s Report (required to be submitted to NYC DEP by an NYS Asbestos Project Monitor within three weeks of successful clearance air monitoring) and the new ACP 9 form -variance application (NYS Asbestos Project Designers are required to file this report).  These new forms are designed to be used with the new electronic filing system "Asbestos Reporting and Tracking System (ARTS) that has been in effect for projects more than or equal to 1,000 feet since October 13, 2009.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Asbestos killing more Canadians than ever; like old 'landmines' (ctv.ca)
• U of Winnipeg to remove asbestos (cbc.ca)
• Asbestos ruling sees firms face huge claims (telegraph.co.uk)
• Libby official: EPA must pay for lost buildings (sfgate.com)

Guest Blogger on Hillary Topper's Blog Talks About "Are Followers Really Friends?"

Image by enda_001 via Flickr

Those of you who use facebook and other social media sites should read this blog about the dangers of too much familiarity with friends you've made on facebook.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Evolution of Friendship (momblognetwork.com)
• Entrepreneur: How Many Friends are Enough? (startupprofessionals.com)

National Safety Council: OSHA’s Top 10 Most Cited Violations | EHS Today

At the National Safety Council's annual meeting in Orlando, OSHA unveiled its list of OSHA’s Top 10 Most Cited Violations EHS Today reported.  They are:

1. Scaffolding, General – 9,093 violations
2. Fall Protection – 6,771 violations
3. Hazard Communication – 6,378 violations
4. Respiratory Protection – 3,803 violations
5. Lockout/Tagout – 3,321 violations
6. Electrical, Wiring – 3,079 violations
7. Ladders – 3,072 violations
8. Powered Industrial Trucks – 2,993 violations
9. Electrical, General – 2,556 violations
10. Machine Guarding – 2,364 violations

Items 3, 4, & 5 on the list are easy to resolve, though most companies are ignoring these safety hazards.  Contact us and we can help you avoid these violations.

Related articles by Zemanta

• OSHA issues record $87 million fine to BP (sfgate.com)

CDC Reports on Insufficient Rest or Sleep Among Adults

Image by driki via Flickr

The information below was recently published by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC):

"An estimated 50-70 million Americans suffer from chronic sleep and wakefulness disorders. Sleep disorders and sleep loss have been associated with mental distress, depression, anxiety, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol and certain risk behaviors including cigarette smoking, physical inactivity and heavy drinking. A new report from the CDC found that data collected from adults in all 50 United States, DC, and 3 U.S. territories found that 1 in 3 adults (30.7 percent) in 2008, reported no days of not getting enough rest or sleep in the past 30-days. However, 1 in 10 adults (11.1 percent) reported not getting enough rest or sleep everyday during the past month. Females (12.4 percent) were more likely than males (9.9 percent) and non-Hispanic blacks (13.3 percent) were more likely than other racial/ethnic groups to report not getting enough rest or sleep. State estimates of 30 days of insufficient rest or sleep ranged from 7.4 percent in North Dakota to 19.3 percent in West Virginia."

Related articles by Zemanta

• Sleep Disorders Linked to Aviation Accidents (sleepdoctor.blogspot.com)
• Sleep Disorder Tips To Save Your Health Now (thindependence.com)
• Why Sleeping On It Helps (huffingtonpost.com)
• Lack of sleep plays key role in Alzheimer's, researchers say (nationalpost.com)

Environmental Protection Online Salary Survey

Visit Environmental Protection Online and take the 2009 Salary Survey.  Obviously the more participation Environmental Protection gets with this type of survey, the better information they will produce and we can get a better picture of the industry we are in. 

Construction worker at 270 Park Avenue site dies on eve of court hearing | The Real Deal | New York Real Estate News

Construction worker at 270 Park Avenue site dies on eve of court hearing The Real Deal New York Real Estate News

Posted using ShareThis

Safety work has more than enough pressure and stress, to make it harder without adding sexual harassment to the mix. Now we may never know what really happened.

NYC DEP Revisions to Title 15 - Asbestos Regulations, Part 1

The Autumn issue of Future Focus is now posted on our website. In Part 1 we cover the revisions in the permitting process for the NYC Department of Buildings, NYC Department of Environmental Protection, and NYC Fire Department. Most of these changes and revisions attributable to the Deutsche Bank Fire. Click on the title of this post and it will take you to Future Environment Designs newsletter page.

NYC DEP New Asbestos Regulations Go Into Effect

New York City Department of Environmental Protection's Asbestos regulations have been promulgated. The new asbestos regulations go into effect October 13, 2009 and the full regulations go into effect November 13, 2009. Visit the NYC DEP website to get a copy of the new asbestos regulations. Once we have read through it we will write a post for this blog and an article in our next newsletter on the new regulation.

Mayor Bloomberg Signs Legislation Impacting Asbestos Projects in NYC

On June 29, 2009, Mayor Bloomberg signed several pieces of legislation (introductory numbers 1001-A, 1002, 1003-A, 1005 & 1007) that will impact asbestos abatement projects in New York City (NYC). The legislation and what they regulate include:

• 1001-A - prohibits smoking on any floor where asbestos abatement activity is taking place. The regulation also prohibits tobacco, lighters, and matches at asbestos abatement work sites.


• 1002 - prohibits smoking at construction sites.


• 1003-A - establishes a permitting requirement for asbestos abatement jobs that pose the greatest risk to the safety of workers, first responders and the general public.


• 1003-A - a. creates a NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) office (Asbestos Technical Review Unit (A-TRU)) to review and permit significant abatement projects.


• 1003-A - b. NYC Fire Department will receive automatic notification for all jobs requiring a permit and will dispatch the local fire company to inspect the site.


• 1003-A - c. authorizes the NYC Fire Department to delegate to the NYC DEP authority to enforce the fire codes at abatement sites, so that NYC DEP inspector can issue violations for dangerous conditions.


• 1005 - requires NYC DEP to promulgate rules giving guidance to contractors on how to maintain safe abatement project sites. NYC DEP, NYC Department of Building (NYC DOB), and Fire Department of NY (FDNY), in collaboration with the Office of Operations, have developed new rules that will soon be promulgated to strengthen safety at abatement jobs.


• 1007 - requires NYC DEP, FDNY, and NYC DOB to establish a procedure to share information regarding violations issued as a result of building inspections that meet agreed-upon criteria.

OSHA Issues Clarifications on PPE

Sorry for the long lead time on this issue. However, this issue seems like it should be common sense. On December 12, 2008, OSHA published a final rule clarifying emloyers' duty to provide personal protective equipment (PPE) and train each employee. This rule revises the OSHA standards to clarify that, for employers to be in compliance, they must provide PPE and hazards training for each employee covered by the standards. Each employee not protected may be considered a separate violation and penalties assessed accordingly. The revison is consistent with language in other standards for which per-employee citatiuons have been upheld.

In addition, realize by May 15, 2008, OSHA also required all employers to provide PPE at no cost to their employees (the employer must pay for the PPE). These requirements addressed many kinds of PPE, such as: hard hats, gloves, goggles, safety shoes, safety glasses, welding helmets and goggles, faceshields, chemical protective equipment, fall protection equipment, and other types of safety equipment. Certain safety equipment were excluded from the provision of employer payment of PPE, these excluded items are certain safety-toe shoes and boots, prescription safety eyewear, and logging boots. OSHA considers these three items personal in nature, are used from jobsite to jobsite (employer to employer), and are typically used off the jobsite.

Proposed Settlement Regarding Asbestos in CSI Toy

A nationwide class action against CBS Broadcasting, Inc. and major toy retailers, if approved, would give cash refunds to consumers and effectively implement a nationwide recall of toy science kits, based on the popular "CSI" television drama series. Click on the title to see the press release. To request a claim form visit www.csitoyssettlement.com. The class action covered two toy kits "The CSI: Crime Scene Investigation Fingerprint Examination Kit (CSI Exam Kit)" and "The CSI: Crime Scene Investigation Forensic Lab Kit (CSI Lab Kit)." Both toys were made by now-bankrupt Planet Toys, Inc. The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization conducted tests in 2007 on the white fingerprint powder in the toy kits and found tremolite asbestos. Consumers seeking refunds must submit claim form to a claims administrator by January 14, 2010.

Prevent Mold From Growing During Rainfalls

In the last few months we have seen significant rainfall in the northeast. This rainfall is causing some minor problems with our plants and grass (how many times are we going to have to cut the grass this year?). These problems are a nuisance; however they are easily resolved with very little expense. When this rainfall enters our homes or business establishments, these problems can lead to some significant costs for repairs and if we ignore the problems then mold can grow. We have seen previously several articles, when the rainfall was previously significant and it intruded into buildings, regarding tenants or occupants having to move or close their businesses because of the water damage to property or equipment. To prevent this from happening in this current period of significant rainfall, remember the following tips from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):

• Fix all leaks in the building envelope (i.e., roof leaks, foundation cracks)
• Look for condensation and wet spots, fix the cause and dry these areas quickly
• Prevent condensation by either reducing surface temperature (by insulating or increasing air circulation) or reducing moisture level in air. Reduce moisture levels by either increasing ventilation (if outside air is cold and dry) or dehumidify (if outdoor air is warm and humid).
• Keep heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) drip pans clean, flowing properly, and unobstructed.
• Clean and dry wet or damp spots within 48 hours
• Do not let foundations stay wet. Provide drainage and slope the ground away from the foundation.
• Any water damaged materials that remain wet for more than 48 hours should be disposed of or hire a water restoration expert to handle the situation.
• If you have significant water damage, contact your insurance company immediately.
• Many insurance companies exclude mold growth in their policies. The sooner you notify the insurance company of your claim, excluding your claim becomes less of likely.

Handling Vermiculite Insulation for Building Inspections and Air Monitoring

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent decision to declare a public health emergency at the Libby asbestos site in Montana has brought vermiculite insulation back in front of people’s minds. EPA’s announcement did not mention what to do if you have this type of insulation. Remember there are some major issues with this type of insulation. First it seems the vermiculite can actually hide the tremolite asbestos from detection, leading to false results. When individuals disturb the vermiculite insulation it can release tremolite asbestos at significant levels into the air.

Because of these technical issues EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) both recommend that if you find vermiculite insulation that you not test it for asbestos. Instead they recommend you assume the vermiculite insulation is from Libby and assume it contains asbestos. The Libby mine was the source for over 70% of the vermiculite sold in the United States from 1919 to 1990. EPA and ATSDR feel that the technical issues involving vermiculite sampling can complicate testing for the presence of asbestos fibers and interpreting the risk from exposure. This is a significant statement and interesting that it has not been published more.

Based on this, as an asbestos inspector, environmental inspector, home inspector, and/or air quality consultant, you must evaluate vermiculite insulation as containing asbestos (without sampling). In addition, you must inform the owner that sampling the material will not provide a definitive answer. EPA and ATSDR both recommend that professional asbestos abatement contractors handle any disturbance of the vermiculite insulation. The best practice for air monitoring and analysis of these projects, for the protection of the public, is Transmission Electron Microscopy. As these issues are not well known, even in the asbestos industry, it is important for owners to be aware of this potential problem and take the precautions necessary.

Public Health Emergency Declared in Libby, Montana

As with everyone else who is aware of this tragedy we applaud the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision on June 17, 2009 to declare that a public health emergency exits at the Libby asbestos site (vermiculite mine contaminated with tremolite asbestos) in northwest Montana. The New York Times, Newsday and other newspapers covered this press release and the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization issued their own release covering this issue. The documentary film “Dust to Dust” directed by Michael Brown told the Libby story (we have watched this film in some of our classes). As the press release indicates, this announcement, which is long overdue, will provide funds for the continued clean-up of the contaminated areas in the towns of Libby and Troy. In addition, the Department of Health and Human Services will provide grant money to provide medical care for the area residents impacted by the contamination.

Different Regulations for Different States on Asbestos-Cement Pipe

One of our regular clients, during a class, provided us with a copy of the article linked to the title above. The title of the article is “End of the Line” by Kent Von Aspern, P.E. Public Works magazine published this article in March 2009. One of the first things we need to note about the article is that the author works in Northern California and we should not take this article as the requirements for every state. Each state may and can handle asbestos in their state differently. For example, the New York State Department of Labor under Industrial Code Rule 56 regulates asbestos cement or transite pipe. Under this regulation, only licensed companies (even a sewage or water district or Department of Public Works are required to be licensed to handle asbestos) can handle any quantity of asbestos containing material (ACM). In addition, only workers/employees certified by NYSDOL as operations and maintenance, handlers, or supervisors can handle ACM. The size projects handled by the workers would dictate which certificate the workers are required to have. NYSDOL does not stop at just licensing and certification requirements it also dictates the work procedures. Under the Guidance Document version 2.0, question 237 indicates the work procedures for cement/transite pipe. It indicates that abandoned asbestos containing cement/transite pipe cannot remain in the trench. According to ICR56 buried asbestos cement or transite pipe must be removed and disposed of in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) regulation as Category II nonfriable asbestos containing material and under New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (NYS DEC) asbestos waste regulations. Remember when you read information on the internet or in national magazines or industry publications it is difficult for one author to know all the requirements in each state. Many times the author is writing specifically of experiences they have in their state. That experience many times may not apply in a different state or states.

W. R. Grace acquitted in Libby, MT Asbestos Case

New York Times reported on May 9, 2009 the acquittal of W. R. Grace and three of its former executives on all charges that they had knowingly contaminated Libby, Montana a small mining town, with asbestos, and then conspired to cover up the deed.
In some of our classes we have watched the documentary film “Dust to Dust” directed by Michael Brown. The film told the story of the town’s experience with exposure to tremolite asbestos that contaminated the vermiculite mine which many of the town’s people worked at. The film documented the effects on the town, hundreds of miners, their family members, and townsfolk have died, and at least 1,200 have been sickened from exposure to the asbestos-containing ore. These health effects also threaten workers, their families, and residents everywhere the ore was shipped and people living in millions of homes nationwide where it was used as insulation. The W. R. Grace trial mentioned above was the result of the government’s investigation into the Libby, Montana situation.
Based on the New York Times article, it appears the government’s case was very difficult to prove and that several errors by federal prosecutors, during the trial, made it even more difficult. It really is a shame that the people of Libby, Montana will suffer from the effects of asbestos exposure and many of them will die from this exposure for many years to come, while it seems prosecutors are unable or incapable of providing justice for them.