Mesothelioma Asbestos Lawyer, DuBose Law Firm, PLLC

Main navigation

You are here: Home / Archives for Asbestos safety regulations

Asbestos safety regulations

Asbestos Contamination in NOLA Schools Strikes Again

By

Asbestos contamination in NOLA schools was revealed in at least the third incident this year. According to “The Lens” and “Louisiana Weekly”, this most recent find was at the Rosenwald school, set to open as Rosenwald Collegiate Academy in August of this year for high school students.

Though no students were present when the asbestos was detected, Senior Environmental Scientist Dwight Bradshaw told “The Lens”, “If you’re following the regulations you should not have had this contamination throughout the building. It shouldn’t have happened.” The asbestos contamination was found as contractors began evaluating damaged floor tiles.

A series of problems with asbestos contamination in NOLA schools

In 2016 and 2017, the Lafayette Academy building in Uptown New Orleans underwent remodeling that led to the disturbance of asbestos. In 2018, the building released uncontained asbestos into the air as protocols were once again not followed.

This led to Lafayette Academy students’ reassignment to the McDonogh 35 building on Kerlerec Street for the 2018-2019 school year. Parents were wary about this change as the McDonogh 35 building was older than the Lafayette building and also contained known asbestos and was undergoing remediation throughout the summer. The school opened in August, however parents were concerned that they were not allowed a walk-through before their children began classes.

The students who were to begin classes in the Rosenwald building are attending classes in a temporary location this school year while remediation continues in the Rosenwald building.

What agency is responsible?

The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) would like that answer – especially since there is a management plan for asbestos in place that any contractor working on a building should follow. The Rosenwald building was controlled by the Recovery School District (RSD). That responsibility transferred to the Orleans Parish School Board (OPSB) on April 1, 2018. In addition, the OPSD gave access to Collegiate Academies, the charter network planning to open Rosenwald Academy in the building this past August. Both the OPSB and RSD had workers in the building when asbestos fibers were released. The Collegiate Academies had contractors in the building to assess the floor tiles needing replacement. This is when the air quality was tested and determined to contain asbestos requiring abatement and remediation.

Clean-up at Rosenwald will cost the OPSD $1.3 million. In addition, a contract for $700,000 was approved between the OPSD and MMG, an environmental firm, to manage asbestos problems at Rosenwald.

Why spend so much on asbestos abatement?

Asbestos, left undisturbed, is not an immediate problem. However, when it is disturbed, such as in remodeling, storm damage, or wear and tear, asbestos fibers are released into the air. When inhaled, these fibers can embed into the lungs and linger for years, or decades, before creating havoc for the victim. This can show up as asbestosis, lung cancer, or the fatal malignant mesothelioma. No one should be knowingly exposed to this deadly fiber. The environment must be made safe or a new location found.

EPA Under Trump May Allow for New Asbestos Use

By

After bipartisan passage to improve the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 2016, asbestos was one of several initial chemicals that would come under review again. In the face of overwhelming scientific consensus established by more than a half century of research, it was widely anticipated that the TSCA review would finally result in a ban on the use of asbestos in the United States. Two years later, and a very different result is unfolding.

EPA proposed a “significant new use rule” for asbestos

On June 1, 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency under Scott Pruitt announced a proposed “Significant New Use Rule” (SNUR) for asbestos. SNURs are a tool under the TSCA that mandate EPA approval when a chemical is used in a significantly new way. To hear former Administrator Pruitt state it, he took an unprecedented stand by requiring importers to receive EPA approval before importing or using asbestos in the manufacture of products.

A look inside the SNUR

A closer look, however, establishes a twofold problem posed by the SNUR which may undercut the EPA’s conclusions at the end of its three year TSCA review of asbestos.

First, the EPA could have used the 2016 TSCA overhaul – which began under Obama and has continued under Trump – to ban any new uses of asbestos. Instead, with the SNUR, the EPA has laid the groundwork to expressly allow new uses of asbestos after evaluation based on “risk evaluation, select studies and use of the best available science.”

Secondly, the way in which the EPA will evaluate that risk is problematic. In May 2018 , the EPA published a “Problem Formulation of the Risk Evaluation for Asbestos” which the EPA will use in evaluating these new uses of asbestos. Importantly, the problem formulation will not include information from existing, or “legacy” uses of asbestos – all of the ways in which millions of Americans have been, and will continue to be, exposed to asbestos from existing asbestos products and asbestos in place. This approach will ignore decades of scientific research establishing an overwhelming scientific consensus about the health risks from the legacy uses of asbestos such as exposure to drywall joint compound, plaster, floor tiles, pipe covering and many other existing, in place asbestos products.

This may serve to severely limit the types of exposures the EPA will include in formulating the potential risk of new asbestos uses.

As reported by the New York Times, such limits on the EPA’s review will necessarily create a flawed analysis of the threat posed by asbestos under the EPA TSCA re-evaluation. “It is ridiculous”, said Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, former EPA scientist, speaking to the New York Times. “You can’t determine if there is an unreasonable risk without doing a comprehensive risk evaluation.”

EPA may allow new asbestos use

While the EPA’s re-review of asbestos is still in the second year of the three year process, the limitations the current administration have already placed on the review will likely result in an outcome that does not protect human health – the core mission of the agency. Instead, by not considering the existing, wide-body of scientific evidence concerning asbestos, the ultimate EPA conclusion will likely find lower levels of risk and as a result impose fewer restrictions or prohibitions. Hopes for a U.S. ban on asbestos – one of the most widely recognized human carcinogens – are sadly diminishing.

Lafayette Natural Science Museum and Planetarium Demolition Delayed Because of Asbestos

By

The Lafayette Natural Science Museum and Planetarium demolition delayed because of asbestos, increased the time to tear it down from 72 days to a delay of seven months. It also added a 40 percent increase to the demolition contract, increasing it from $295,500 to $412,591.

Demolition delayed because of asbestos adds to history of the building

The building was constructed in 1969, a time when asbestos was widely used. However, by 2001 it had fallen into disrepair and was vacated in 2001. In the past 16 years, the place became a place for curiosity seekers and others who abused the abandoned structure.

By 2015, the City-Parish Council approved demolishing the building and replacing it with a green space for residents. Delays occurred in the years since as drainage improvements were added to the scope of work, followed by the asbestos discovery.

A lesson for all

This type of scenario is not unique to Lafayette, Louisiana as thousands of buildings across the country were built during the years asbestos was freely used in construction of government, commercial, and residential building.

This unfortunate surprise happened because the city’s engineering department assumed that there was no asbestos since the air-conditioning system was reported to be clear of the mineral. However, because the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality required a DEQ permit that included an asbestos assessment before demolition, asbestos was discovered in the walls as a waterproofing material.

The lesson for anyone who intends to disturb a building built from the 1930s through the 1970s, is to check for asbestos before any work is begun. Proceeding without an inspection, and possibly abatement, can cost considerably more than expected in both money and the lives of those who may be exposed to the fibers.

There is no safe level of asbestos exposure and the result can include lung cancer, asbestosis, and the fatal disease malignant mesothelioma.

Health Risks from Baby Powder Use

By

Johnson & Johnson, along with other companies, were handed a jury verdict for failing to warn consumers about possible health risks from baby powder use. The plaintiffs, a couple who alleged the wife’s pleural mesothelioma was contracted from baby powder use, were awarded $25.75 million by a California jury. As a frequent bowler, the plaintiff used the powder for years on her hands and in her shoes. She also was exposed to asbestos while watching her husband work on his car.

Mesothelioma is a deadly cancer almost always caused by exposure to asbestos.

Mining of talc

Talc and various forms of asbestos are often co-located, making the mining of talc without including asbestos in the final product, a difficult task. A study published in the “International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health,” October, 2014 showed asbestos fibers in the cosmetic talc samples tested. The types found were in various combinations of asbestiform anthophyllite, asbestiform tremolite, and chrysotile fibers. One specific, and unnamed, brand of cosmetic talcum powder was used in all tests.

“Our findings indicate that historic talcum powder exposure is a causative factor in the development of mesotheliomas and possibly lung cancers in women.”

Johnson & Johnson’s defense

The Johnson & Johnson company continues to assert that their products do not contain asbestos and will continue to fight in court.

Carol Goodrich, spokeswoman for Johnson & Johnson said, “We are disappointed with the verdict and we will begin the appeals process. We will continue to defend the safety of our product because it does not contain asbestos or cause mesothelioma. Over the past 50 years, multiple independent, non-litigation driven scientific evaluations have been conducted by respected academic institutions and government bodies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and none have found that the talc in Johnson’s Baby Powder contains asbestos.”

Plaintiff’s response

David Greenstone, an attorney for the plaintiff stated, “We are extremely pleased that our clients have found a measure of justice, although nothing can truly compensate them for what they have lost. Our clients are hopeful that this verdict can further bring light to this unbelievable example of corporate misconduct.” Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder “has contained asbestos for decades. People need to know about this.”

Health risks from baby powder and other talc-based products

Lobbyists and employees of companies mining or using talc in their products continue to promote the safety of their products to both the government and consumers.  However, talc may be present not only in talcum powder, but in eye shadow, blush, foundation, and many other cosmetic products to this day.

For safety’s sake, look for products marked talc free because according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), “There is no ‘safe’ level of asbestos exposure for any type of asbestos fiber. Asbestos exposures as short in duration as a few days have caused mesothelioma in humans.”

Effects of Cosmetics are More than Skin Deep

By

In the 16th century, a Swiss physician and philosopher, Paracelsus, stated that any substance applied to or in the body can cause harm, given the right circumstances. In other words, “the dose makes the poison.” This is true especially with the wide range of chemicals, nano particles, asbestos contaminated talc, and other substances used in the manufacture of cosmetics.

Revenue from cosmetics is projected at $265 billion worldwide in 2017 for an industry that has potential for harm, but very little oversight. The FDA has an office of Cosmetics and Colors within their Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Yet, that group is seriously underfunded with a $13 million budget for fiscal year 2017 and has a very limited scope of authority.

Except for color additives, there is no legal requirement for pre-market approval of new products. There is no regulatory group that checks the safety or effectiveness of cosmetic products. In addition, there is no legal requirement for the cosmetic industry to collect or report adverse issues.

What ingredients could be harmful?

Dr. Robert M. Califf, former commissioner of the FDA, along with two other experts said, “For products that are used routinely, small effects over time within large populations can be almost impossible to detect without active surveillance. Even when health risks are substantial, as with tobacco products, the path to identifying and interpreting those safety signals clearly enough to justify regulatory action is often long and tortuous.”

However, that long scientific road has already been traveled with respect to asbestos – still an ingredient in some modern cosmetics. Decades of medical and scientific research long ago reached a consensus that asbestos is a human carcinogen. Yet, a recent investigation revealed asbestos contaminated cosmetics still being sold at a national retail chain that markets to teens. The retailer has since pulled the contaminated product from stores after one third-party found asbestos. A third-party lab hired by the retailer found none – possibly because various batches can contain different constituents. The message is that some asbestos, and other harmful ingredients, can find their way into these non-regulated cosmetics.

More about talc

Talc, a common cosmetics ingredient, is a mineral often mined in close proximity with asbestos and can be contaminated with asbestos. However, due in part to heavy lobbying in the 1970s and 80s, lax regulations allowed asbestos contaminated talc to still be utilized in cosmetics.

Are your cosmetics safe?

If you believe you have been harmed by a cosmetic, report the problem to the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition’s Adverse Event Reporting System (CFSAN) an FDA database for foods, dietary supplements, and cosmetics. When they notice a number of similar reports, they can investigate. This database is also open to the public, so is available to search for adverse health events from your current cosmetics. Unlike foods, there is little ingredient information on cosmetic packaging. Even when there is, dangerous chemicals can be disguised by using scientific names. This makes knowing exactly what you’re using difficult, but there are a few sites such as www.ewg.org with information on a limited number of products.

New legislation

Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Susan Collins, R-Maine recently introduced legislation creating a mandatory registration of products and facilities. The bill would also increase FDA funding using industry fees, and give other tools to the FDA as protection from risks of personal care products. Making your congressional representatives aware of your support of this bill could help give consumers visibility to dangers.

Meanwhile, check websites for your cosmetics for possible ingredient lists. If no ingredients are shown, email or call the company for more information. If enough people let these companies know that we care about what is put on our bodies, perhaps there will be more effort to using clean ingredients in their products.