Do any NEW materials nowadays contain asbestos?
Our hazardous materials consultant has contracted with the owner to test new construction materials coming on to the jobsite to ensure that they do not contain asbestos.
There was something a few years back ('01?) regarding gypsum board in the south that had come from Mexico and contained asbestos. That was the last thing I heard and I don’t know if it’s an issue anymore.
The hazmat consultant wants to test the following materials:
gypsum plaster
gypsum backer board
fiber-cement backer board
Portland cement plaster
gypsum wallboard
moisture-resistant wallboard
joint materials
gypsum wall sheathing
gypsum soffit sheathing board
building paper
gypsum shaft liner
mortar
grout
liquid trowel applied waterproof membrane
self-adhering waterproof membrane
acoustical ceiling panels
acoustical surface applied ceiling tile
acoustical tile adhesive
linoleum
linoleum adhesives
terrazzo tile
leveling compound
patching compound
floor adhesive
rubber flooring adhesives
carpet adhesive
construction adhesive
marker board adhesives
corner guard adhesive
pipe gaskets
pipe joint compound
pipe insulation inserts
HVAC flexible connectors
acoustical insulation
acoustical sealant
factory applied all-service jacket for fiberglass insulation
joint tape
I will bet anyone here $1000 that he finds no asbestos in any of these materials.
Any takers?
I thought somebody was just trying to justify his fee, but there may be some truth behind his request.
I found this paper on the Environmental Working Group’s website (http://www.ewg.org/reports/asbestos/documents/pdf/asb-bans2.pdf) that clarifies use of asbestos in some products and materials. Apparently the “ban” isn’t as strong as it is made out to be.
In your case, David, I guess it’s a matter of whether or not the Owner wants ANY asbestos in his project–banned or not.
This begs the question of what will the hazmat consultant do if they find new asbestos containing materials? Of course they will reject it and not let it be installed on the job, but can they sue the manufacturer? Will they notify EPA of applicable government authorities?
What if the specs clearly state that “ABC Adhesive” is acceptable and the adhesive is found to contain asbestos? Is the architect then liable?
It is also interesting that the hazmat consultant is not testing for lead, PCBs or other hazardous materials.
From http://www.nsc.org/ehc/indoor/asbestos.htm -
The following:
Where Is It Found?
Most products made today do not contain asbestos. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) have banned several asbestos products, and manufacturers have voluntarily agreed to limit the use of others. Any products made that still contain asbestos are required to be clearly labeled. However, many types of building products and insulation materials made before the 1970s contain asbestos. These products include pipe and furnace insulation materials; asbestos and cement shingles, siding, and roofing; millboard; resilient floor tiles, the backing on vinyl sheet flooring, and floor tile adhesives; soundproofing or decorative material; patching and joint compound; fireproof gloves and stove-top pads; and automobile brake pads and linings, clutch facings, and gaskets.
And this has a date of April 14, 2006. (underlining mine)
Lynn,
Thanks. I assumed that if a product HAS to contain asbestos that it would be clearly labeled…and indicated several times.
So what the heck is the hazmat consultant doing testing new products? I can see if we got some obscure product from some little know Third World Country, but USG, Armstrong, Johns Manville, WR Grace, etc. are not going to risk letting asbestos get into their products (again).
I think that am going to start up a new consulting service where I will test materials for Kryptonite.
Why not consider requiring manufacturer’s certificates that the products they are supplying are asbestos-free?
And what about MSDS? Wouldn’t they show what’s in the product?
Seems to me there should be standard type documentation from the big guy manufacturers that would satisfy your owner’s concerns.
Also, I’m not clear if your owner sought out the consultant to do all these tests, or if the consultant marketed these services to the owner.
I think the consultant is marketing the services to the owner. I also think the owner is convinced that by hiring the consultant the will be assure that no asbestos contain materials will be installed on the job. (Something he would have received for free.)
Someone once said “there’s one born every minute” or something to that effect…
Years ago at a SCIP meeting I heard of a manufacturer suing a spec consultant for specifying their products on the project. Something about the specifier should have known not to specify those products in that situation. I remember hearing that it nearly bankrupted the guy trying to fight the lawsuit.
Can anybody help me out here with details?
I was there (in 93, 94 or 95, if I remember correctly). I remember it this way: The large conglomerate material supplier’s legal department sued the architect and its spec consultant (separately) for specifying sprayed-on fireproofing that contained asbestos (it contained vermiculite made from a mineral deposit with a small–may have been a trace–amount of asbestos). I believe it sued the owner too–seems to have been intended as a pre-emptive strike to put would-be litigants on notice that they would fight back with countersuits.
The various phases of the suit dragged on for several years, and involved hundreds of hours of searching records, preparing a case, testimony, etc. If the architect’s liability insurance carrier had not agreed to cover the specifier under the architect’s policy, the specifier’s out-of-pocket expenses for defense would have been devastating. As it was, the devastation was mainly to the specifier’s time and health, but devastating it was, nevertheless–severely so.
Needless to say, the conglomerate’s marketing department was appalled. But they were powerless against their legal counterparts.
It left a really bad taste in the mouths of many of us, some of which lingers to this day when the name of that company is mentioned. For years, I avoided specifying that company’s products whenever possible. I do specify some of its other products now–not without some lingering emotion–but I don’t specify its fireproofing if I can help it. Who wants to specify the product of a company that might sue you for specifying it?
I believe other forum participants were there. Does that sound about right?
Robert,
Thanks. Please e-mail me the name of the company. I think I know who it is though…there are not that many to choose from.
what must also be rememebered is that part of this suit was particular to Canadian tort law; the same conditions and legal requirements are not part of the American tort system.
I seem to remember that David actually sat in on the SCIP meetings where this was discussed.
Robert,
Could you also e-mail me the name of the company.
I’ve had my own issues with at least 2 over the past few years…although nothing in the legal realm…more on the product substitution side.
Thanks.
rmatteo@tbparchitecture.com
please email the name also…thanks
mmiller@usaarchitects.com
Please send the name to me, too -
ljavoroski@hga.com
Hi Robert:
I’m a “me too”, could you also send the name to me as well?
Thanks.
Some mirror mastics contain asbestos, or did as recently as 2004. Apparently it is a convenient mineral fiber to maintain the high build for spot application without shrinkage. And if the mastic never becomes friable, it’s not a particular danger. (You’re in more danger from the mirror falling off the wall if the mastic becomes friable than you are of lung cancer from the asbestos.) Still, we now spec asbestos-free mirror mastic.