Reducing environmental risk associated with laboratory decommissioning and property transfer

Our plain-English summary of Reducing environmental risk associated with laboratory decommissioning and property transfer, by R. Dufault, E. Abelquist, S. Crooks, et al (Environmental Health Perspectives, 2000).

The study

• Authors: R. Dufault, E. Abelquist, S. Crooks, D. Demers, L. DiBerardinis, T. Franklin, M. Horowitz, C. Petullo, G. Sturchio
• Journal: Environmental Health Perspectives
• Published: 2000;108 Suppl 6(Suppl 6):1015-22
• Cited by: 2 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

Abstract

The need for more or less space is a common laboratory problem. Solutions may include renovating existing space, leaving or demolishing old space, or acquiring new space or property for building. All of these options carry potential environmental risk. Such risk can be the result of activities related to the laboratory facility or property (e.g., asbestos, underground storage tanks, lead paint), or the research associated with it (e.g., radioactive, microbiological, and chemical contamination). Regardless of the option chosen to solve the space problem, the potential environmental risk must be mitigated and the laboratory space and/or property must be decommissioned or rendered safe prior to any renovation, demolition, or property transfer activities. Not mitigating the environmental risk through a decommissioning process can incur significant financial liability for any costs associated with future decommissioning cleanup activities. Out of necessity, a functioning system, environmental due diligence auditing, has evolved over time to assess environmental risk and reduce associated financial liability. This system involves a 4-phase approach to identify, document, manage, and clean up areas of environmental concern or liability, including contamination. Environmental due diligence auditing includes a) historical site assessment, b) characterization assessment, c) remedial effort and d) final status survey. General practice standards from the American Society for Testing and Materials are available for conducting the first two phases. However, standards have not yet been developed for conducting the third and final phases of the environmental due diligence auditing process. Individuals involved in laboratory decommissioning work in the biomedical research industry consider this a key weakness.

In plain English

This article was not a study of people or of asbestos disease. Based on a 1999 conference presentation, it described a four-phase process, called environmental due diligence auditing, for assessing and cleaning up laboratory space before renovation, demolition or property transfer. The four phases were historical site assessment, characterization assessment, remedial effort and final status survey. Asbestos appeared only briefly: once as an example of a risk arising from the building itself, and once as an example of material handled by complete removal for disposal. The authors reported that American Society for Testing and Materials standards existed for the first two phases. They also reported that there was no industry standard or guidance for the remedial phase, or for final surveys after chemical cleanup. They illustrated the process with six composite case examples covering perchloric acid salts, radioactive substances, arsenic, mercury in plumbing (described as theoretical) and hood ductwork. None of the examples concerned asbestos. The authors concluded that general practice standards were needed for the third and fourth phases.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Descriptive guidance article (not an original research study), illustrated with composite case examples
• Who was studied: No human population was studied. The subject was laboratory space and property undergoing renovation, demolition or transfer. The paper was based on a presentation at a November 1999 conference in Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
• Exposure: Environmental hazards in laboratory facilities in general. Asbestos was mentioned only as one example of a facility-related risk, alongside underground storage tanks and lead paint. No fiber type was named.
• Main results:
  • The authors described environmental due diligence auditing as a four-phase approach to identifying, documenting, managing and cleaning up areas of environmental concern or liability.
  • Asbestos-containing materials were given as the example of the 'complete removal' decontamination method, in which the contaminated surface or structure is removed intact for disposal.
  • According to the authors, there was no industry standard or guidance for the remedial-effort phase, so a literature search had to be done to choose a decontamination method.
  • According to the authors, there was no industry standard or guidance for final status surveys after cleanup of chemical contamination of surfaces or equipment.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that general practice standards needed to be developed for Phase III (remedial effort) and Phase IV (final status survey) of the laboratory decommissioning process.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The case examples in the appendices were composites and did not represent any one specific case.
  • The mercury-in-plumbing example was described as theoretical.
  • The authors stated that deciding whether to sample ductwork required a professional examination beyond the scope of the article.

Related studies

• Evaluation of airborne asbestos exposure from routine handling of asbestos-containing wire gauze pads in the research laboratory — E. Garcia, D. Newfang, et al. (2018)
• A proposal for harmonising laboratory performance assessment criteria in national asbestos fibre counting schemes — M.C. Arroyo, J.M. Rojo (2001)
• Within-laboratory quality control of asbestos counting — T.L. Ogden, T. Shenton-Taylor, et al. (1986)
• A PC-based quality control (QC) program for an industrial hygiene laboratory — D.K. Verma, K. Ferguson, et al. (2006)
• Statistical uncertainties in asbestos-laboratory classification through the RICE scheme — T.L. Ogden (1984)
• Government laboratory worker with lung cancer: comparing risks from beryllium, asbestos, and tobacco smoke — C. Steinmaus, J.R. Balmes (2000)

Browse more research in Environmental Health Perspectives, or return to medical research.