Best Methods for Asbestos Floor Tile Removal
Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral that was commonly used in many building materials, including floor tiles and mastic, which is the adhesive used to apply the floor tiles. Use of asbestos started to become regulated in 1972 after it was clearly established and widely acknowledged that exposure to asbestos causes serious illnesses, such as mesothelioma, asbestosis and lung cancer.
Asbestos, when intact and in good condition, does not pose a health threat. However, when disturbed or damaged it can become friable, or airborne. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines “friable” as any material that contains more than 1% of asbestos that, when dry, can be reduced to powder by hand pressure.
When asbestos becomes friable, fibers can enter the body and lodge in the lining of the lungs, heart or abdomen and cause mesothelioma, an incurable form of cancer. Symptoms of mesothelioma do begin to appear until ten to fifty years after exposure, and can be difficult to accurately diagnose. Prognosis for mesothelioma is poor, usually less than a year from time of diagnosis.
Because of the dangers associated with asbestos, agencies regulate the use, removal and disposal of any asbestos containing materials in buildings. Floor tile and mastic removal in non-school buildings falls under the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations, first imposed in 1973 by the EPA.
To date, there are two methods approved to remove floor tiles and floor mastic: chemical stripping and wet grinding. A study was recently undertaken to determine if one technique was more effective, especially in health care settings where the population’s health is generally more compromised.
The researchers had the advantage of two different healthcare facilities similar in size and condition needing asbestos abatement of floor tile and mastic. They chose to use the chemical stripping method at one site and wet grinding at the other, keeping variables fairly consistent between sites.
They found that both techniques had advantages. The chemical stripping method was faster, less costly, and more effective at removing in hard to reach spots. The disadvantage was that the “no-odor” chemicals still indeed did have a smell that negatively impacted some of those in the vicinity of the work. The smell associated with this method caused nausea, eye irritation, headaches, etc., similar to symptoms of allergies.
The wet grinding method took longer, costs more and has controversy over whether it effectively removes in hard to reach spots or where floors are uneven. There also exist questions about the method itself, of grinding a material and making it friable, versus keeping it intact. Despite its drawbacks, the end result is very similar to the chemical stripping and there is absolutely no odor or side effects caused to anyone in the area.
Therefore, researchers recommend both as viable techniques for the safe removal of asbestos tiles and mastic, however make two suggestions. One is to continue to explore odor free chemicals that could be used to chemically strip the tile and mastic. The other is to use the wet grinding method where the population in the removal area may be sensitive to odor or have their health compromised, especially in healthcare settings.
Further research is also needed to determine whether the type and level of asbestos in floor tiles and mastic actually present a threat that should be regulated. With the amount of knowledge and concern over the link between exposure to asbestos and mesothelioma, for the present time, all precautions should be taken by contractors removing these materials.
