Minneapolis Bridge Collapse: Now Can We Fix the Infrastructure?

You know what’s a really comforting feeling these days in America? Being in your car at a stoplight underneath a railroad overcrossing with a train going over it, and inspecting the crumbling concrete and peeling lead-based paint on the girders. I saw this post in the DMI Blog a few weeks back, after the steam pipe blew out in New York City last month. I bookmarked it for use later as a point of departure for a post about the public health implications of infrastructure – roads, pipelines, water and wastewater treatment plants, and so forth. Things being what they are, the topic got set aside and the post never got written.

As you have probably heard by now, a freeway bridge across the Mississippi River collapsed in Minneapolis this evening during rush-hour traffic. There are injuries, and three fatalities so far. This sort of thing should not be a surprise. In 2005, the American Society of Civil Engineers report card gave U.S. infrastructure an overall “D” average, and concluded that an investment of $1.6 trillion was needed over the next five years for infrastructure improvements.

Of course, we’re heading in the opposite direction. On the ASCE web site, there was also a news item that the Highway Transportation Fund could experience a $4.3 billion shortfall by 2009 (of course that begs the question of why we’re investing in highways with the onset of Peak Oil, but that’s a discussion for another day). The impending infrastructure decay isn’t surprising. The failed disaster response and reconstruction effort from Hurricane Katrina didn’t shake the Bush Administration from its torpor, and this event probably won’t either.

If the idea of a freeway bridge folding up underneath you isn’t a sufficiently graphic depiction of infrastructure collapse, maybe this is.

Formaldehyde in Trailers and Other Things You Thought Were Taken Care of Years Ago

It’s been a bit of a surprise to hear about this issue of refugees from Hurricane Katrina being exposed to formaldehyde emissions from the wood paneling in their trailers. Not because of the fact that thousands of people are still living in emergency trailers two years after the disaster; indifference and sometimes callous behavior, especially directed at the most vulnerable members of society, is a calling card of the Bush Administration. Not because FEMA’s lawyers advised not performing air sampling because it would imply FEMA ownership of the problem; I’ve seen lawyers give that kind of advice before. But that 20 years after this problem had first been discussed, we’re still having the problem of people breathing formaldehyde emitted from pressed-wood products. The IARC has concluded there is sufficient evidence both in humans and laboratory animals that formaldehyde is carcinogenic.

Air monitoring sponsored by the Sierra Club has shown that 83 percent of the trailers tested in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama have concentrations of formaldehyde in air above 0.1 ppm. This study reported formaldehyde concentrations as high as 0.34 ppm, which is higher than the ACGIH short-term exposure limit (it is recommended that worker exposure to the short-term exposure limit be held to 15 minutes, with no more than four excursions per day). NIOSH recommends a short-term exposure limit of 0.1 ppm. These are worker exposure limits, intended for use by industrial hygienists for controlling workplace exposures, and not for use with the general public. For the public, ATSDR has developed Minimal Risk Levels for different durations of exposure. The MRL for “intermediate” duration exposure (from 14 to 365 days) is 0.03 ppm, while a MRL for “chronic” duration exposure (365 days or greater) is 0.008 ppm.

According to testimony given yesterday at the House Oversight Committee hearing, what FEMA was using as a level of concern was 0.3 ppm. Now, there isn’t any statement describing what action is taken if that level was achieved, but one hopes it was to relocate the residents to safer housing. However, there is a whiff that FEMA’s response was to largely study the problem to death, and figure out methods for mitigation. However, some of what they came up with for mitigation was laughable, including increasing ventilation with outside air, while keeping indoor temperatures and humidity low – a bit of a challenge under Gulf Coast conditions. The industrial hygienist who testified yesterday hit on the solution, being that FEMA should focus attention on getting residents into permanent housing, and out of the trailers for good.

In demonstration of the power of the Intertubes, someone has started a blog focusing on the issues of indoor air quality in “temporary” trailers.