Skip to main content

Your health and safety matters…Water thrown on asbestos removal plan

Date Posted: November 12 2004

A brain-dead asbestos-removal scheme has received a well-deserved burial.

On Oct. 13, the city of Fort Worth, Texas abandoned the use of a "wet method" for asbestos remediation during the demolition of an old building. The city proposed to spray water on the site during the building's demolition, claiming that the water would prevent microscopic asbestos fibers from becoming airborne and inhaled by clean-up workers and local residents.

The Laborers Health and Safety Fund of North America reports that the Environmental Protection Agency actually gave "tentative authorization" for a contractor to tear down the building without employing safeguards normally required under federal regulations.

The Fund said the EPA withdrew permission after a series of internal memos were leaked to the media. EPA scientists also criticized the shoddiness of the project's proposed monitoring and tracking methodology. The city has now budgeted $1.1 million for the building's demolition.

"I understand the desire of cities to find a cheaper way to remove asbestos," said Laborers General President Terence M. O'Sullivan. "Many of them own tax-delinquent, asbestos-filled properties. However, it is the duty of the EPA to protect the environment, the public and, also, in particular, the workers who risk their health to remove this dangerous material. Unfortunately, the EPA continues to ignore the science and allows financial considerations to dominate its judgment."

Asbestos deaths on the rise

A study published in the July 23 edition of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control shows that deaths due to asbestos exposure are increasing in the U.S. and are now the most common lung-related deaths in the country.

The other major causes of pneumonoconiosis death, including silicosis and black lung, are in decline.

The increase in asbestosis occurred despite a sharp reduction in the use of asbestos in the U.S. due to regulations imposed in the 1970s. The researchers noted that asbestos mortality peaks 40 to 45 years after the initial exposure. In 1968, 77 deaths were attributed to asbestosis, compared to 1,493 in 2000. That number will continue to rise for another decade or so.

OSHA ignores recommendation on Portland cement.

Despite the recommendation of its own Advisory Committee for Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) failed to include a key provision in its proposed rule on hexavalent chromium that would have lessened the dangers of exposure to Portland cement.

Portland cement contains small amounts of hexavalent chromium as a contaminant. Persistent skin exposure among construction workers leads to contact and allergic dermatitis (skin rashes). In severe cases, this dermatitis can end a worker's career. Cement workers can protect themselves by wearing rubber gloves and other personal protective equipment that prevents direct skin contact with wet cement and by washing frequently with clear water and pH-neutral soap.

Years ago, the Laborers Health and Safety Fund of North America said, OSHA announced its intention to issue a rule on hexavalent chromium but failed to do so. The agency was sued, and the courts forced OSHA to issue a proposed rule this fall. A final rule must be completed by 2006.

Scott Schneider, Director of the Laborers' Occupational Safety and Health Division and a labor member of ACCSH, succeeded in uniting labor and management members on the need to include Portland cement in the proposed rule. OSHA claims that other standards and guidance adequately addresses this hazard.

NIOSH issues hand tool guide.

A new publication by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Cal/OSHA Consultation Service provides easy-to-use guidance for evaluating and selecting non-powered hand tools to reduce risks of job-related disorders from repetitive movements.

"Easy Ergonomics: A Guide to Selecting Non-Powered Hand Tools," includes user-friendly, illustrated discussions of factors to assess in choosing tools, and a checklist for comparing tools and making a selection.

The document is designed to help employers and employees evaluate different non-powered hand tools to identify those that can be used effectively with less force, less repeated movement, and less awkward positioning of the body for a given task.

By selecting a hammer, screwdriver, wrench, or other type of hand tool that meets such design and performance criteria, the risk of musculoskeletal injury can be reduced.

"A wise investment in the right tool can repay itself many times over through savings in medical costs, lost work time, and lost productivity, but selecting the right tool can be complicated and time-consuming without assistance, especially for small businesses that lack specialized in-house resources," said NIOSH Director John Howard, M.D. "We are pleased to partner with the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration to fill the need for such assistance in the concise, non-technical, easy-to-follow format that this new guide provides."

To the untrained eye, it may be difficult to evaluate tools from an ergonomic perspective, the new document notes.

"Easy Ergonomics: A Guide to Selecting Non-Powered Hand Tools," DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2004-164, is available on the NIOSH web page at www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-164/default.html or by calling the NIOSH toll free information number, 1-800-35-NIOSH (1-800-356-4674).