When Does Your Asbestos Training Expire? Understanding the Difference Between Your Training Certificate and Your NYSDOL Hard Card

We recently had a dissatisfied customer who didn't understand the training requirements under the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Model Accredited Plan (MAP) and the New York State Department of Health's (NYSDOH's) 10 New York Code of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 73.  The individual registered for an asbestos management planner refresher course when his asbestos inspector training was in the grace period.  We had to explain that he couldn't take the asbestos management planner refresher course until he refreshed his asbestos inspector training.   

Based on that, we thought it was time to write a blog post that maybe others are confused regarding the issue of expiration dates, which is probably the number one question we are asked at Future Environment Designs, Inc. (FEDTC).  “When does my asbestos training expire?”  And, just as importantly:  “What happens if my training certificate expires?”

The confusion is understandable because there are multiple agencies involved in asbestos accreditation and certification in New York, and they do not all use the same expiration dates.  There is the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL), which issues the asbestos handling certificate—what most people in the industry call the “hard card.”  This card's expiration date is based on the last day of your birth month in relation to when you took your initial training.  NYSDOL may give you a hard card with an expiration date that may be over a year from your initial training expiration date.  This is not allowed under the EPA MAP.

Then there is the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH), which oversees asbestos safety training providers and the training certificate, DOH-2832 form.  This form follows the requirements for EPA's MAP and 10 NYCRR Part 73, requiring annual training based on the training completion date.

And, for those working in New York City, there is the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP), which has its own certification requirements.  NYCDEP certificates are valid for two years from the date of issuance, which is also based on birth month.  This, too, is not allowed under the EPA MAP.  So let's break this down.

First, Let's Talk About the NYSDOL Hard Card

NYSDOL oversees asbestos licensing and certification in New York State.  The company receives an asbestos handling license, while the individual receives an asbestos certificate, the hard card.

NYSDOL License and hard card

The important thing to remember is that the hard card and the training certificate (DOH-2832) are not the same thing.

Your NYSDOL asbestos certificate has its own expiration date based on the birth month.  NYSDOL's current information should be checked when determining the status of an individual certificate because the Department's certification requirements and administrative procedures can change.  And this is where people sometimes get themselves into trouble.  They look at the expiration date on their hard card and think: “I'm good until this date.”

Not necessarily.  Let's look at how that can get you in trouble federally.

EPA's 12-Month Grace Period Recommendation

An important piece of this discussion goes back to the EPA's asbestos accreditation requirements.  The EPA Model Accreditation Plan specifically recommends that states establish a 12-month grace period that allows formerly accredited individuals whose certificates have expired to complete refresher training and have their accreditation reinstated without having to retake the initial course.

Asbestos Pipe Insulation

That is important because the whole concept behind refresher training is to maintain competency.  The idea is not that someone suddenly forgets everything they learned the day their certificate expires.  The purpose of the refresher is to keep the individual current with regulations, procedures, technology, and changes in the industry.  And NYSDOL's current rules reflect that basic concept by providing the one-year grace period for completing refresher training after the last day of the expiration date, which is the last day of your birth month.  However, that only works if you took your initial training in your birth month.  NYSDOL's expiration date for the hard card can be after the expiration date of your DOH-2832 form.

A grace period does not equal authorization to perform asbestos work.  That is where we think some of the confusion comes from.

The DOH-2832 Is a Different Certificate

NYSDOH regulates the asbestos safety training providers and the training programs through 10 NYCRR Part 73.  The DOH-2832 is the official NYSDOH certificate of asbestos safety training completion.  This certificate has an expiration period of one year from the date you successfully completed the training and examination.  NYSDOH specifically states that asbestos workers must maintain current training by completing annual refresher training.  There is a one-year grace period based on the DOH-2832 form's expiration date.

DOH-2832 Training Certificate

NYSDOH training providers are required to verify initial and refresher training credentials submitted by individuals before their enrollment in a refresher program.  Verification of training credentials to ensure valid accredited training is a prerequisite for admittance into a NYSDOH-approved refresher training course.  What is valid accredited training?  The DOH-2832 form expiration date.  In other words, as long as you are in your grace period, you can take a refresher course based on a year from the DOH-2832 expiration date.    

So, essentially: Training expires → one-year grace period → refresher training must be completed → after the grace period, initial training is required.  That is a very important distinction.  The grace period does not mean you can continue performing asbestos work for another year.  EPA specifically states that once the training expires, the individual cannot be actively engaged in asbestos work during the grace period.

The Consequences of Birthdate versus Course Completion Date

According to EPA, you cannot do asbestos work in the grace period.  So if NYSDOL's hard card expires after your training expiration date, you are technically in a grace period for the purposes of EPA and should not be doing asbestos work.  It means you are in violation of EPA's MAP.  The problem can come if, for some reason, you go past one year after the expiration date of the DOH-2832.  If that should happen, you would need to take an initial training even if your hard card happened to be current or in its grace period.

There Is Another Important Requirement: Management Planners

There is also a reason we emphasize keeping your training current.  If you are an inspector and want to move into the management planner discipline, you cannot simply show up for management planner training after your inspector credentials have expired.  NYSDOH Part 73 specifically states: “Possession of current and valid inspector accreditation shall be a prerequisite” for admission to the management planner initial or refresher training program.

That means your inspector accreditation needs to be current.  This is another reason why waiting until the last minute—or allowing your credentials to expire—can create problems.

What About New York City?

If you work in New York City, you have another layer to consider.  The NYCDEP has its own asbestos certification program under Title 15, Chapter 1 of the Rules of the City of New York.  NYCDEP certifies asbestos handlers, restricted handlers, handler supervisors, and asbestos investigators.  NYCDEP currently states that these certificates are valid for two years.

Ancient NYCDEP hard card (new ones look similar to NYSDOL hard cards)

But here's the important part: A two-year NYCDEP hard card does not mean you only need asbestos training every two years.  EPA's and New York State's annual training requirements still apply.  So someone working in New York City may have: 

• NYSDOL certificate: its own expiration date based on birth month.
• NYSDOH training: annual refresher requirement based on training date.
• NYCDEP certificate: generally two-year certification based on birth month

Three different things.  Three different requirements.  And this is why we continue to get questions about expiration dates.

Don't Wait Until Your Card Expires

Here's our advice after all these years in the asbestos training business: Don't wait until your expiration date to start looking for a refresher course.  Check both your hard card and your DOH-2832.  Put the expiration dates on your calendar.  Talk to your employer.  And schedule your refresher training before you have a problem.

At FEDTC, we have always believed that training never ends.  A refresher course shouldn't be viewed as just another regulatory requirement that has to be checked off a list.  It is an opportunity to review what has changed, revisit what may have been forgotten, discuss what we are seeing in the field, and learn from the experiences of other professionals in class.

The asbestos regulations continue to evolve.  Sampling practices change.  Analytical technology changes.  Work practices change.  And, as we have been discussing in our recent classes, even something as seemingly simple as determining whether a material needs to be sampled can become complicated very quickly.  That is why staying current matters.

The Bottom Line

If you take only one thing away from this article, let it be this: Don't confuse your NYSDOL hard card with your NYSDOH training certificate.  They are separate requirements.

Asbestos O&M Initial Course

Your NYSDOL certificate has its own expiration requirements based on birth month, while NYSDOH asbestos safety training is required annually based on training date.  NYSDOH provides a one-year grace period after training expires, but individuals cannot actively perform asbestos work during that grace period.  If the grace period expires without completing the required refresher, the individual must repeat the initial training.

And if you are an inspector planning to become a management planner, remember that current and valid inspector accreditation is required for admission to management planner training.  There is really no reason to let your training lapse.

Know your dates.  Know which credential is expiring.  Know what agency issued it.  And, most importantly, don't wait until you are standing at the job site to find out that your credentials are no longer current.

At FEDTC, we would much rather see you in class for your refresher before there is a problem than have you calling us because you just discovered your training expired.  Hence the reason we send out reminders (snail mail & email) for refresher training based on the training date.

Training never ends—and neither should your commitment to staying current.

NYSDOL’s New Asbestos Survey Fact Sheet: When the “Guidance” Creates More Questions Than Answers!

Over the years, one of the things we have learned in the asbestos industry is that "details matter".  They matter when an asbestos inspector is conducting a survey.  They matter when a consultant is preparing a report. They matter when a contractor is bidding a project.  They matter when the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) Asbestos Control Bureau (ACB) reviews a project.  And, most importantly, they matter when workers are standing in a building getting ready to disturb material that may contain asbestos.

NYSDOL Fact Sheet on Asbestos Surveys

That is why we were interested in reviewing the NYSDOL Asbestos Control Bureau fact sheet titled “Expectations for Contents of Asbestos Surveys and Assessments.”  We introduced this fact sheet in our blog "Regulatory Updates, Industry Concerns, and Straight Talk from OSHA and NYSDOL – Day 3." The intent of the fact sheet appears straightforward: to provide asbestos inspectors and consultants with additional direction on what NYSDOL expects to see in an asbestos survey or assessment.

Unfortunately, when you start comparing the information in the fact sheet with the actual requirements of Industrial Code Rule 56 (ICR56), federal requirements, laboratory analytical methods, and the realities of performing asbestos inspections in the field, there are several areas that deserve closer examination.

Some of the information is useful.  Some of it appears to go beyond what the regulation actually says.  And some of it is internally inconsistent with other information NYSDOL has provided to the industry.

As someone who has been involved with asbestos inspections, abatement, consulting, training, and regulatory issues for decades, we believe these issues need to be discussed—not to criticize for the sake of criticizing, but because inspectors, consultants, contractors, building owners, and regulators all need to be working from the same set of rules.

The Importance of Getting the Survey Right

An asbestos survey is not simply a report that gets placed in a project file.  The survey is the foundation upon which the project is built.  The owner uses it to understand what asbestos-containing materials (ACM) may be present.  The designer uses it to develop the project specifications.  The contractor uses it to prepare a bid and develop an abatement plan.  The workers rely on it to understand what they may encounter.  If the survey is incomplete, everything downstream can be affected.

We have spent years as an asbestos abatement consultant and trainer.  In class and when reviewing other consultants' work, we know what happens when the survey doesn't identify materials that should have been identified:

• Change orders,
• scope changes,
• delays,
• disputes,
• additional engineering controls,
• additional sampling, and
• additional abatement.

And sometimes, much worse, workers discover ACM after the project has already started.  That is why we have always believed an asbestos survey should be conducted with the understanding that you are not just documenting a building—you are developing the information everyone else will depend on.

  

Our book "The Role of Asbestos Inspections in Construction Safety"

With that in mind, we developed a comprehensive “Asbestos Bulk Sampling Package” designed to provide practical, field-ready guidance. Click here to purchase the package.  The package includes:

• An eLearning/On-Demand training course,
• A comprehensive reference book,
• A durable laminated bulk sampling table designed for field use.

The goal is simple: provide asbestos inspectors with a clear understanding of sampling requirements, sampling strategies, homogeneous area determinations, suspect materials, and regulatory expectations.  Too often, inspectors rely on incomplete information, outdated guidance, or interpretations that may not withstand regulatory scrutiny.  We wanted to create a resource that inspectors can use both during training and while conducting actual field inspections. 

Problem No. 1: “At Least Two Samples” Does Not Mean Two Samples Are Enough

One of the most concerning statements in the fact sheet is under "Minimum Samples Required."  The fact sheet states:

• “At least two samples of each homogeneous material must be taken to disprove the presence of asbestos.”

It then states that this is consistent with federal sampling requirements.  This is an oversimplification.  The number of samples required for an asbestos survey cannot simply be reduced to a blanket statement that "two samples are enough."
Sampling requirements depend upon the material, the homogeneous area, the size of the homogeneous area, and the purpose of the survey.  See our blog post "The Role of Asbestos Inspections in Construction Safety: Don’t Miss the Asbestos Inspection Panel at PACNY’s Environmental Conference!" for the specifics of asbestos bulk sampling.

Sprayed-on fireproofing requires the 3-5-7 rule for samples, or 9 samples are recommended

AHERA sampling requirements, for example, have specific sampling protocols for surfacing materials, thermal system insulation, and miscellaneous materials.  OSHA also has requirements that must be considered depending upon the project.  The bigger problem is what happens when someone reads this fact sheet and interprets it as:

“NYSDOL says I only need two samples.”

That is not how a competent asbestos inspection should be performed.  Two samples may be appropriate in some circumstances.  Two samples may be inadequate in others.  The inspector needs to exercise professional judgment and conduct sufficient sampling to adequately characterize the material.  The goal should not be to meet the minimum number of samples.  The goal should be to adequately characterize the building materials that will be impacted by the project.  There is a big difference.

Problem No. 2: Using Linear Feet for All Thermal System Insulation

Another issue we noticed in the NYSDOL fact sheet is the way asbestos quantities are identified. The fact sheet states:

“Linear Feet (LF): Thermal system insulation (TSI). Square Feet (SF): All other ACM, debris and contaminated surfaces, if applicable.”

At first glance, this may seem like a simple way of identifying quantities.  However, all thermal system insulation is not measured in linear feet.

Linear feet is appropriate for measuring pipe insulation because the pipe itself is generally identified by its length, as noted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its letter to the City of Newport News in Virginia.  But TSI is a much broader category.

Linear feet (LF) is only for pipes

ICR 56 defines TSI as insulation applied to pipes, fittings, boilers, breeching, tanks, ducts, or other structural components to prevent heat gain or loss.

So, how do you measure the asbestos-containing insulation on a boiler?  What about a tank?  A duct?  Breeching?  These materials must be quantified by using square feet.

For example, a project may contain 500 linear feet of asbestos-containing pipe insulation, but it may also contain asbestos-containing insulation on boilers, tanks, ducts, and fittings. Those materials are better quantified in square feet or by the individual component, depending upon the material and the purpose of the quantity measurement.

This distinction becomes important when developing an asbestos abatement design and determining the amount of material that needs to be removed.  The fact sheet should not imply that all TSI is measured in linear feet.  A more accurate approach would be to identify pipe insulation in linear feet, while other TSI components should be quantified using the measurement that accurately represents the material being addressed.

This may seem like a minor issue, but anyone who has prepared an asbestos abatement estimate knows that how you quantify the material directly affects the scope, bid, work plan, and ultimately the cost of the project.

Again, the goal should be accuracy—not simply putting everything into a convenient measurement category.

Problem No. 3: “Fair” and “Poor” Conditions Instead of the AHERA Damage Classifications

Another issue with the fact sheet involves the terminology used to describe the condition of asbestos-containing materials.

The fact sheet provides the following classifications:

• Intact: No visible damage.
• Good: No visible or very limited damage.
• Fair: Some visible, but not extensive, damage.
• Poor: Extensive damage and/or deterioration.

The problem is that “fair” and “poor” are not the terminology we would expect to see used when documenting asbestos material conditions based on the training requirements of the EPA Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) for asbestos inspectors.

Damaged or Significantly Damaged?

The AHERA terminology is based on whether asbestos-containing material is damaged (less than <10% evenly distributed or <25% localized) or significantly damaged (greater than >10% evenly distributed or >25% localized).  That distinction is important.  An asbestos survey is not simply a property-condition assessment where we are deciding whether something looks good, fair, or poor.  We are trying to determine the condition of the asbestos-containing material and whether it has been damaged to the point where the regulatory requirements associated with that condition are triggered.

There is a significant difference between saying:

“The pipe insulation is in fair condition", and saying:

“The pipe insulation is damaged.”

The first statement is subjective.  The second statement has a regulatory meaning, and there is a quantity associated with the determination.

What one inspector considers “fair,” another inspector may consider “poor.” One consultant may consider “some visible damage” insignificant, while another may determine that the same damage requires corrective action.  That is exactly why regulatory terminology matters.

If AHERA wants inspectors to document conditions using “damaged” and “significantly damaged,” then those are the terms that should be prominently identified in the fact sheet.  We already have enough confusion in asbestos reports without introducing another set of condition classifications.  The purpose of an asbestos survey is not to give the ACM a real-estate-style condition rating.  The purpose is to accurately document the condition of the asbestos-containing material and provide information that can be used to make the appropriate regulatory and project decisions.

Problem No. 4: Another Missing Requirement: NVLAP in Addition to NYSDOH ELAP

Perhaps one of the more important omissions in the fact sheet is the discussion of laboratory accreditation.  The fact sheet correctly identifies the New York State Department of Health Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (NYSDOH ELAP) and states that bulk asbestos analyses must be performed by an ELAP-accredited laboratory using an approved methodology.

That is important.  However, the fact sheet does not adequately address the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) requirement.  This is not simply a technicality.  The creation of the asbestos fiber analysis Laboratory Accreditation Program (LAP) was mandated by the AHERA, which requires laboratories that analyze asbestos samples taken from public or private elementary or secondary schools to be accredited by NVLAP.  By extension, any federal regulation that references AHERA for the purpose of asbestos surveys then requires NVLAP accreditation for sample analysis.

For asbestos bulk analysis, the laboratory needs to meet the applicable New York State requirements, but asbestos bulk analysis under certain federal programs also involves the NVLAP requirements.  This is particularly important for inspectors and consultants working on projects where both state and federal requirements apply.  The problem with leaving NVLAP out of a document titled “Expectations for Contents of Asbestos Surveys and Assessments” is that an inspector reading the document could come away with the impression that having an ELAP-accredited laboratory is the only laboratory qualification that needs to be considered.  It isn't that simple.

We have to look at what type of sample is being analyzed, what analytical method is being used, what regulation applies, and what accreditations are required for that analysis.

The laboratory's accreditation needs to match the work being performed.  This is another area where the fact sheet could have been much more useful to the industry by clearly explaining the relationship between NYSDOH ELAP and NVLAP, rather than mentioning one and leaving the other out.

Problem No. 5: The Statement Regarding Debris Is Particularly Concerning

The fact sheet states:

“There is no approved method for sampling debris.”

This is an area where the industry needs significant clarification.  In our recent asbestos inspector and designer classes, we have been discussing exactly this issue because dust and debris are identified under Industrial Code Rule 56 as suspect miscellaneous asbestos-containing materials.  The obvious question becomes:

If dust and debris are suspect ACM, how are inspectors supposed to determine whether they contain asbestos?

The fact sheet says that mixed heterogeneous or indistinguishable debris cannot be thoroughly sampled and therefore must be assumed to contain asbestos.  But there is a difference between heterogeneous debris that cannot reasonably be characterized and settled dust or identifiable debris that can be collected and submitted as a bulk sample.  That distinction matters.  For a discussion regarding this issue see our After the Refresher Podcast with Dr. Martin Rutstein and Mark Rutstein of Env. Consulting & Mgmt. Services.

For example, an inspector may encounter a pile of identifiable building material debris.  It may be possible to collect representative portions of that material and submit them for bulk analysis.  There are also established techniques for collecting settled dust from surfaces, including micro-vacuum and wipe sampling methods.  For more discussion about this issue, see our blog post "Update of Dust and Debris Sampling in New York State: What Asbestos Inspectors Need to Know".

Bulk sampling tools.

However—and this is where things get interesting—the analytical method and the regulatory purpose of the sampling have to be carefully considered.  

Problem No. 6: “If Asbestos Is Detected, It Must Be Addressed”

The fact sheet states that micro-vacuum and wipe sampling cannot be used to disprove the presence of asbestos.  It then states that if these methods detect asbestos structures, they must be included and addressed in the contamination assessment.  That creates another question:

What does “addressed” mean?

Does the presence of an asbestos structure automatically mean the entire surface is contaminated?  Does it mean the surface is 

ACM?  Does it mean the area requires abatement?  Does it mean the material is Regulated Asbestos Containing Material (RACM)?  Those are very different regulatory determinations.  Finding an asbestos structure on a surface does not automatically tell us:

• Where the structure originated;
• How much asbestos is present;
• Whether the material from which it originated is ACM;
• Whether the material is friable;
• Whether the asbestos is currently capable of releasing fibers;
• Whether the contamination resulted from a previous abatement project;
• Whether the contamination is localized or widespread; or 
• What level of response is appropriate.

The analytical result is one piece of the puzzle.  It should not automatically become the entire puzzle.

Problem No. 7: The Fact Sheet's Treatment of Layered Systems

The fact sheet states that layered systems must be sampled so that each layer can be analyzed separately.  We agree with the underlying concept.  Inspectors need to understand what materials are present in a layered assembly.  However, the statement that:

"If one portion of the system is asbestos the entire system must be removed as asbestos containing”

That statement needs careful consideration.  Consider a roof assembly.  You may have:

• Roofing membrane;
• Built-up roofing;
• Asphalt;
• Insulation;
• Vapor barrier;
• Deck;
• Flashing;
• Adhesive; and
• Other components.

If one component contains asbestos, that does not necessarily mean every component in the entire roof assembly is an asbestos-containing material.  The fact sheet does provide an exception where a portion of a layered system exists only in a specific area and can be reliably identified.  But again, the language invites broad interpretations.  The survey should identify "what material contains asbestos and where it exists".  That is much more useful than simply declaring an entire assembly ACM.

So if the patch is ACM and the rest of the roof is not, does it mean it all has to be treated as ACM?

Problem No. 8: Conflicting Laboratory Results

Another interesting section involves conflicting laboratory results.
The fact sheet states that if one sample is found to contain greater than 1% asbestos, the sampled material and all associated homogeneous materials must be classified as ACM.
Again, this is an important concept.  You cannot simply ignore a positive sample because another sample tested negative.  .  

• But what happens when the laboratory results are genuinely inconsistent?
• Was the material actually homogeneous?
• Was there laboratory contamination?
• Was there cross-contamination?
• Was the sample representative?
• Was there a preparation problem?
• Was the material layered?
• Was there a different material embedded within the sample?
• Was the sample location properly documented?

These questions need to be answered before simply declaring that the entire homogeneous area is ACM.  The fact sheet suggests that a contractor may attempt to address a questionable positive result through a site-specific variance.  But a variance should not become the substitute for proper sampling and laboratory quality control.

Problem No. 9: Pre-Demolition Surveys and Destructive Sampling

One of the more useful portions of the fact sheet discusses pre-demolition surveys.  The fact sheet correctly emphasizes that a pre-demolition survey needs to identify PACM, suspect miscellaneous ACM, and ACM throughout the structure.  It also says that inaccessible materials should be assumed to contain asbestos rather than simply placing a disclaimer in the report stating that only accessible materials were sampled.  We agree with the basic premise.  However, this raises another practical issue.  How far should an inspector go with destructive sampling?
The fact sheet recommends determining whether walls, ceilings, and floors contain ACM before implementing destructive sampling methods to determine whether ACM exists behind those systems.
That is good advice.

The last thing an inspector should do is disturb an asbestos-containing material simply to determine whether another asbestos-containing material is located behind it.  This is where experience becomes extremely important.  An inspector needs to understand building construction, recognize suspect materials, anticipate concealed conditions, and plan the investigation accordingly.  Sometimes that means coming back to the building more than once.  A thorough survey is not always a one-day event.

Problem No. 10: The Definition of “Survey” Versus “Assessment”

Another issue that we believe needs additional clarification is the distinction between a survey and a contamination assessment.
These are not necessarily the same thing.

An asbestos survey is intended to identify asbestos-containing materials that may be impacted by a planned project.  A contamination assessment is intended to evaluate areas where asbestos-containing material has already been disturbed or where contamination may exist.

When the two concepts are blended together, the result can be confusion regarding:

• Sampling requirements;
• Analytical methods;
• Quantification;
• Delineation;
• Abatement requirements;
• Variances; and
• Final clearance.

The industry needs clear definitions and clear expectations.

The Biggest Problem: The Fact Sheet Should Not Replace the Regulation

This may be the most important point we can make.  A fact sheet is useful.  Guidance is useful.  Frequently Asked Questions are useful.  But guidance should not create requirements that do not exist in the regulation without clearly identifying the legal basis for those requirements.

Industrial Code Rule 56 is the regulation.  The fact sheet should help inspectors understand the regulation—not create a parallel regulatory system.  When consultants and contractors begin treating a fact sheet as though it is itself a regulation, we have a problem.  And when different NYSDOL documents appear to provide different answers to the same question, we have an even bigger problem.

Why This Matters to Building Owners

At the end of the day, these aren't simply academic arguments.
They have real financial consequences.  If an asbestos survey says an area is contaminated when it may not be, the owner could spend hundreds of thousands of dollars addressing an unnecessary condition.  If a survey fails to identify ACM, the contractor could discover the material during construction.
That could result in:

• Change orders.
• Project delays.
• Additional abatement.
• Additional air monitoring.
• Additional design costs.
• Potential regulatory violations.

And, most importantly, "potential exposure to workers and building occupants." Neither extreme is acceptable.  We need accurate information.

Experience Still Matters

This is why we continue to emphasize the importance of experience in asbestos consulting.  

• You can teach someone how to take a sample.
• You can teach someone how to fill out a chain of custody.
• You can teach someone how to read a laboratory report.

But experience teaches you where to look, what to question, what may be missing, and when the information doesn't make sense.  That is particularly important when dealing with complicated buildings, layered materials, debris, concealed materials, contamination assessments, and unusual laboratory results.  Technology and regulations will continue to change.
The need for experienced professionals will not.

Training is only the beginning

We Need Better Guidance, Not More Confusion

We believe NYSDOL deserves credit for attempting to provide additional guidance to the asbestos community.  However, guidance needs to be technically accurate, internally consistent, and clearly connected to the regulatory requirements.

If the industry is going to use this fact sheet as a standard for preparing asbestos surveys, then the information needs to withstand the same scrutiny that NYSDOL expects consultants to apply to their own surveys.  That means asking some difficult questions.

• What is the regulatory basis?
• What is the sampling methodology?
• What does the laboratory result actually tell us?
• What does it not tell us?
• What is the regulatory threshold?

And perhaps most importantly:

• Are we deciding based upon science and regulation—or simply because a piece of paper told us to?

After more than three decades in this industry, we have learned that asbestos work is rarely as simple as checking a box.

• The details matter.
• The sampling matters.
• The laboratory method matters.
• The interpretation matters.

And ultimately, the quality of the asbestos survey matters.  Because when the survey is wrong, everyone downstream pays the price.

EPA and OSHA Have Interesting Timing for Asbestos Regulations

As usual, summer is the busy season for the asbestos abatement industry.  With most schools closed for the summer, this is the perfect time to do asbestos abatement work for the renovation, remodeling, or demolition work necessary.  Interestingly, both the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) thought this would be the best time to ask for comments from the public and the industry about asbestos regulations.

Also interesting is that OSHA is looking to reduce regulatory requirements while EPA is looking to create regulations.  OSHA's public comment period ends August 21, 2026, and EPA's docket for public comments closes on September 23, 2026.

OSHA Still Pushing Its Unpopular Asbestos Respirator Proposal

OSHA's proposed changes actually came out July 1, 2025, and that comment period closed on November 1, 2025, after an extension from the original closing date.  As we discussed in our classes, the proposed changes are to reduce compliance burdens, allow for the use of more up-to-date technology, and improve the comprehensibility of the requirements for respiratory protection programs under the standards.  Part of the intent of this proposal was also to better align these standards with OSHA's respiratory protection standard.  However, this proposal would significantly increase a worker's exposure to asbestos.  Just the elimination of the HEPA filter requirement would increase a worker's exposure by 24,000 asbestos fibers in an 8-hour workday.  For more information about these changes, see our blog post OSHA’s Proposed Asbestos Respirator Changes Raise Important Safety Concerns.

On April 1 and May 19, 2026, OSHA consulted with the Advisory Committee and Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) on the proposed changes to asbestos and the other changes they proposed for the chemicals (there are 16 chemicals) that have specific respiratory protection requirements like asbestos.  If you review the meeting minutes of the ACCSH, OSHA's proposal for removing the HEPA filter requirement was rejected, and the same for the proposal to change assigned protection factors.  So we hope, based on all this, that should be the end of this dangerous proposal.

EPA Opens Public Docket for Asbestos Part 2 Rulemaking: A Critical Opportunity to Shape the Future of Legacy Asbestos Regulation

For decades, those of us in the asbestos industry have understood one simple truth: legacy asbestos is the problem that isn't going away.  While the EPA's 2024 rule addressing chrysotile asbestos represented a step forward, it left many unanswered questions regarding the millions of asbestos-containing materials that remain in schools, commercial buildings, industrial facilities, and homes throughout the United States.  Those "legacy uses" continue to expose workers, contractors, maintenance personnel, building occupants, and even homeowners to asbestos every day.

Now, the EPA has officially opened a public docket seeking additional information to assist in developing "Asbestos Part 2: Legacy Uses and Associated Disposals of Asbestos" under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  This is more than another request for comments.  It is an opportunity for the environmental consulting, remediation, industrial hygiene, laboratory, and construction industries to provide the real-world information EPA needs to develop regulations that are scientifically sound, practical, and enforceable.  As someone who has spent decades training asbestos inspectors, project designers, contractors, and consultants, we believe many of these questions deserve thoughtful responses from professionals who perform this work every day.

Why EPA Is Asking for More Information

EPA has determined that additional information is necessary before it can propose a final risk management rule addressing legacy asbestos.  Unlike the Part 1 rule, which focused primarily on ongoing commercial uses of chrysotile asbestos, Part 2 addresses the asbestos that already exists throughout our built environment.  EPA specifically states that the additional information will help develop:

• Practical regulatory requirements
• Economic analyses required under TSCA
• Science-based worker protections
• Feasible implementation strategies

That last point is important.  Protecting workers is essential, but regulations must also recognize how asbestos work is actually performed in the field.

Demolition and Renovation Projects

One area EPA is examining involves demolition and renovation projects that fall below the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) thresholds.  Anyone working in our industry knows this is where many exposures occur.  EPA's asbestos NESHAP requires inspections, notifications, work practices, and trained personnel when projects exceed:

• 260 linear feet (LF)
• 160 square feet (SF)
• 35 cubic feet (CF)

But thousands of smaller renovation projects occur every year that never trigger these requirements.  EPA wants to know:

• Are building owners hiring accredited asbestos professionals?
• What work practices are being used?
• Are wet methods, containment, and proper disposal still being followed?
• What happens in single-family homes?

These are important questions because many exposures occur during "small jobs" that are incorrectly assumed to present little risk.  As we've discussed in our asbestos training classes for years, the amount of material removed does not determine whether asbestos fibers are released.  The work practices do.  See our blog post on how floor tile removal can cause asbestos exposures: "Asbestos Floor Tile Debate Results"

Self-Employed Contractors

Perhaps one of the most significant sections of EPA's request concerns self-employed contractors.  OSHA's asbestos construction standard applies to employees.  It does not apply to many self-employed individuals (i.e., handymen).

EPA wants information about:

• Flooring installers
• Drywall contractors
• Roofing contractors
• Renovation contractors
• Siding contractors
• Handymen
• Sole proprietors

Questions include:

• How often do they disturb asbestos?
• How do they identify asbestos-containing materials?
• Do they receive asbestos awareness training?
• What engineering controls do they use?
• What barriers prevent them from having suspect materials analyzed before beginning work?

This is a conversation our industry has needed for years.  Many self-employed contractors work in older buildings where asbestos-containing materials remain common. Unfortunately, many rely solely on experience or visual assessment rather than laboratory analysis.  That approach is risky—not only for the contractor but also for their clients and anyone occupying the building.

Legacy Asbestos Products Still in Service

EPA is also looking beyond insulation and floor tile.  The agency is requesting information about asbestos still present in:

• Industrial equipment
• Pumps
• Valves
• Gaskets
• Packing materials
• Brakes
• Clutches
• Electrical equipment
• Textiles
• Heat-resistant fabrics
• Commercial appliances
• Boilers
• Furnaces
• Kilns
• Elevators
• Military equipment

Many younger environmental professionals may never encounter some of these products.  Those of us who have been in the industry for several decades know they are still out there.  Understanding where they remain, who works with them, and how often they are disturbed will be critical in developing effective regulations.

The Air Sampling Debate Continues

One section of EPA's request immediately caught our attention.  EPA is requesting information regarding the use of:

• Phase Contrast Microscopy (PCM)
• Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM)

Specifically, EPA asks whether laboratories have sufficient TEM capacity if lower exposure limits ultimately require TEM analysis instead of PCM.  Anyone who has followed our writing knows we have discussed the limitations of PCM for years.  PCM counts fibers.  TEM identifies asbestos.  Those are two very different things.  See our blog post: "The Fallacy of Phase Contrast Microscopy (PCM) Clearance Air Sampling, or 5 Reasons Why We Should Stop Using PCM for Clearance."

EPA is asking practical questions that deserve careful consideration:

• Can laboratories handle increased TEM demand?
• What would increased costs mean?
• How much longer would turnaround times become?
• Would compliance monitoring become impractical?

These aren't academic questions.  They directly affect contractors, consultants, industrial hygienists, laboratories, regulators, and building owners.  Finding the balance between scientific accuracy and practical implementation will be one of the biggest challenges facing EPA.

Practical Experience Matters

One aspect we appreciate about this request is that EPA is not simply asking for opinions.  The agency is requesting:

• Exposure data
• Industry practices
• Economic impacts
• Laboratory capabilities
• Engineering controls
• Worker training information
• Real-world implementation challenges

This is exactly the type of information regulators need.  Those of us working in the field every day understand that regulations look very different on paper than they do during an emergency water loss, a school renovation, a hospital shutdown, or an industrial outage.  Field experience matters.

This Is Your Opportunity to Be Heard

EPA cannot develop effective regulations without meaningful participation from those who perform this work every day.  If you are an

• Asbestos consultant
• Industrial hygienist
• Laboratory director
• Project designer
• Contractor
• Building owner
• Safety professional
• Environmental attorney
• Training provider
• Equipment manufacturer

This is your opportunity to contribute.  Your experience can help ensure future regulations improve worker protection while remaining practical and achievable.

Final Thoughts

The asbestos industry has evolved tremendously over the past four decades.  Technology has improved.  Analytical methods have advanced.  Training has become more comprehensive.  Yet legacy asbestos remains one of the most significant occupational and environmental health challenges facing our country.

EPA's Part 2 rule has the potential to shape asbestos management for decades to come.  Whether that rule becomes practical and effective depends, in part, on the quality of information EPA receives during this public comment process.  As we've said many times throughout our careers, "good regulations are built on good science—but they must also be informed by real-world experience."

This is one of those opportunities where the professionals who work with asbestos every day can help shape the future of our industry.  Let's make sure our voices are heard.

**Call to Action**

If you work in the environmental, construction, remediation, industrial hygiene, or laboratory industries, we encourage you to review EPA's questions carefully and consider submitting comments based on your professional experience.  Your input could influence how legacy asbestos is regulated for years to come—affecting worker protection, building owners, contractors, laboratories, and consultants nationwide.

At Future Environment Designs, we will continue monitoring this rulemaking process and providing updates as additional information becomes available.  We will also continue to incorporate these regulatory developments into our asbestos training programs so that inspectors, designers, contractors, and environmental professionals remain informed and prepared for the future.

The best regulations are developed when regulators listen to those who do the work every day. This is one of those opportunities. Don't let it pass.