Search This Blog

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Changes to Asbestos Project Notification Fees Gets Closer

New York State Senator Catherine Young has sponsored S5917-2013.  This bill matches New York State Assembly Bill A3675A-2013 which is sponsored by Assemblywoman Donna Lupardo.  Both bills make changes to the Asbestos Project Notification Fee schedule.  The following are the reasons these bills should be supported:
  • Original notification fees were arbitrarily set.
  • In 2009 notification fees were arbitrarily doubled to raise income.
  • From 2009 to 2010 income from fees rose from $6,606,700 to $12, 223,750.
  • From 2009 to 2010 the Asbestos Control Bureau  (ACB) budget remained flat at $3,315,044 to $3,462, 574.
  • The largest amount of asbestos in residential homes is non-friable
  • A very small percentage of asbestos notifications are from residential homes
  • Homes condemned  from disasters and, thus, not surveyed are being required to pay fees of $2,000 each for friable and non-friable material whether existing or not
  • Most commercial projects of 1,500 square feet (SF) or less of non-friable material are not notified because of cost for a few hours of work.
  • A home owner with 1,000 SF of floor tile pays the same fee as a commercial project of 100,000 SF.
  • The bill refers to the footprint of a building as the ACB has taken the SF on some projects to include walls, floors, and ceilings.
  • The proposed bill would be not be revenue neutral, however, the recent NYS Comptroller’s audit of the NYS Department of Labor (DOL) determined the DOL is not assessing and collecting all required fees and penalties in the ACB.  The audit recommended for the DOL to “Review the asbestos fee structure to determine whether a more equitable fee structure could be created based on the size of a project to possibly increase revenue.” Note: this can only be done through legislative action.
  • This does not take into account the increase in residential, commercial, and industrial notifications because of the lower fees.
  • Higher fees for larger projects above 5,000 SF will max out at the current $2,000 fee at 1,000 SF.
  • Memos of support have come from Unshackle Upstate, NFIB, Manhattan Chamber of Commerce, Broome County Chamber of Commerce, Southern Tier Builders Association, Rochester Builders Exchange, Associated Building Contractors of the Triple Cities, Syracuse Builders Exchange, Northern New York Builders Exchange, Building Industry Employers and the Broome County Realtors Association.

Tom Meade, the Executive Director of the Professional Abatement Contractors of New York (PACNY), has been working on these bills for sometime now.  To support these bills contact us at or Mr Meade at and we will provide you with the information needed including a sample letter created by Mr. Meade.  The sooner these letters of support can be sent to the sponsors the better as we would like this to become a part of the Governor's budget.  If you have any questions feel free to contact Mr. Meade at
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, October 28, 2013

Metro-NY AIHA Meeting on Vermiculite, Part 2.

As we discussed in our previous post we attended the Metro New York (Metro-NY) American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) chapter meeting on September 9, 2013.  This meeting was on the "New York State Asbestos & Vermiculite Analysis Guidance Update" it was presented in two parts, part one by Robert J. DeMalo, Senior Vice President of Lab. Services & Business Development and part two by Edward Cahill, Vice President of Asbesto, both from EMSL Analytical, Inc.  For pictures from the event visit Metro NY AIHA web album and for copies of EMSL's powerpoint presentation visit Metro-NY AIHA Meetings website for the Part 1 Handout and the Part 2 Handout.  Our previous post discussed part one of the presentation.  This post we will discuss part two, which was on the "Analytical Challenges of Vermiculite Containing Materials".

The second part of the presentation was significantly more complicated than the first part.  This does not mean the first part was not valuable, we are trying to indicate the second part really got into some of the details of analyzing the minerals utilizing polarized light microscopes, the quantitation of the samples, and additional methods of analysis including advantages and disadvantages (enough big words for everyone).

The second presentation started with a discussion of the new NYS DOH Guidance letter regarding the analysis of vermiculite containing materials (VCM).  We discussed this issue in our Blog on 7/21/13.  The big issue is the disclaimer being placed on the results and what is the best course of action for results that indicate greater than 10% vermiculite and less than or equal to 1% asbestos with the disclaimer.  

To understand the problems with analysis Mr. Cahill’s presentation showed us that vermiculite comes in three types – large (light), medium, & fine (dark).  See figure below:

As you can see the material is varying levels of “chunkiness”.  According to EMSL, when picking through the sample rice grain sized asbestos chunks can sometimes be detected visually.  However, the absence of these chunks does not mean the sample is asbestos free.  The polarized light microscope (PLM) methodology is strong for identification, while quantification is weak.  The PLM analysis is only as good as the prep (especially for point counting).  The sample must be uniform, random, & a monolayer (the height of a particle size prevents a nice monolayer).   Based on this information the problems regarding vermiculite analysis are:

  • Particle size prohibits making a proper slide mount.
  • Asbestos not always homogeneous within the sample
  • Asbestos can be locked between plates & therefore not easily detected
  • Non-regulated Libby Amphiboles are present.
The discussion then turned to other methods of analysis, noting that monokote fireproofing has removable matrix.  Methods with matrix removal include:

·         EPA (600) PLM NOB
·         EPA (600) TEM NOB
·         NYS ELAP 198.6 (PLM)
·         NYS ELAP 198.4 (TEM)
·         Chatfield SOP (TEM)

At this point, the preferred NYS ELAP method is 198.6, but that means you get the disclaimer on your results.  EMSL’s presentation discussed 4 different approaches of what to do regarding VCM, these approaches are:

  1. Cancel or delay asbestos surveys if possible until final regulations are in place.
  2. If initial analysis determines vermiculite content >10% they are stopping.  The material is treated as ACM.
  3. If 198.1 analysis determines vermiculite content >10% proceed to 198.6 to determine the asbestos percentage.  Materials are classified as ACM or non-ACM accordingly, disclaimer is tolerated.
  4. Approach 2 or 3 are followed for regulatory compliance and then various additional prep and analysis steps are requested.  Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) analysis is typically a part of this process to demonstrate “Best Available Technology”.
Options available for Approach 4 are:

  • Cincinnati Method – vermiculite separated into fractions, floating, sinks, & suspended fractions.  Analysis is by a combination PLM/TEM
  • CARB (CA Air Resource Board) 435 Method – Sample is milled, followed by a PLM point count
  • EPA 600 Milling followed by PLM/EPA 600 Milling followed by TEM analysis – Can break out of mass percent with & without the contribution of Libby amphiboles
  • ASTM TEM Qualitative Method – excellent fiber ID but no quantification
  • Addison Davies Method – remove vermiculite prior analysis

We learned a lot in this seminar regarding different methodologies and the problems involved with analyzing vermiculite and VCM.  It will be interesting moving forward to see which direction the analysis of these materials goes.   Based on the presentation, the EPA 600 milling followed by TEM analysis sounds interesting and promising.  However, NYS ELAP or EPA will be making that decision and only time will tell.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, October 01, 2013

Metro-NY AIHA Meeting on Vermiculite, Part 1

We attended the Metro New York (Metro-NY) American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) chapter meeting on September 9, 2013.  This meeting was on the "New York State Asbestos & Vermiculite Analysis Guidance Update" it was presented in two parts, part one by Robert J. DeMalo, Senior Vice President of Lab. Services & Business Development and part two by Edward Cahill, Vice President of Asbesto, both from EMSL Analytical, Inc.  For pictures from the event visit Metro NY AIHA web album and for copies of EMSL's powerpoint presentation visit Metro-NY AIHA Meetings website for the Part 1 Handout and the Part 2 Handout.
Sample Passed Around the During the Meeting
Some very interesting facts from the first part of the presentation included:
  • The Libby mine was the source of an estimated 70-90% of all vermiculite sold in the US from 1919 to 1990.
  • Veins of asbestos contaminated most, if not all of the material taken from the mine; Libby Amphibole was an accessory mineral."
  • The Libby mine in 1926 opened up a vein of asbestos that is considered one of the largest deposits of asbestos ever uncovered.
  • Regardless of the method used to analyze the material a mixture of regulated asbestos as well as non-regulated asbestos is likely to be encountered.
  • "Libby Amphiboles" is a collective term for the complex mixture of amphiboles that are known to exist at the Libby mine site.  That mixture is Winchite (nonregulated amphibole); Richterite (nonregulated amphibole); and Tremolite (regulated amphibole).
  • Increased mortality rates are observed not only among the miners and their families, even in citizens with no direct connection to the mine.  Mortality rates are 40 times higher than the rest of Montana and 60 times higher than the rest of the US.
Based on the above information it is clear that Libby Amphiboles are the problem and that the nonregulated amphibole portions of the vermiculite is also a problem.  According to the US Geological Survey, the amount of asbestiform amphiboles contaminating the Libby vermiculite as approximately 84% winchite, 11% richterite, and 6% tremolite (American Mineralogist; November 2003; v. 88; no. 11-12; p. 1955-1969).  The mortality rate indicates a need to regulate these amphiboles plus others minerals that we now typically call elongated mineral particles (see NIOSH website for more information regarding asbestos fibers and other elongated mineral particles).  In our next blog post we will discuss part two of the vermiculite meeting.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, September 09, 2013

NYSDOL Clarifies New Enforcement Tactics

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli in an audit of New York State Department of Labor's (NYSDOL) Asbestos Control Program revealed several issues which we discussed in our July 2, 2013 blogpost.  NYSDOL's response to the DiNapoli audit revealed several tactics that NYSDOL was currently using to ensure compliance and enforcement of the regulations.  The Professional Abatement Contractors of New York (PACNY) requested additional clarification of these tactics.  NYSDOL's response can be found at our Resources webpage on our website.  To sum up NYSDOL's response, they are cross-referencing all the information they get from notifications, survey reports, air sampling results, waste manifests, etc. to make sure they are being notified & the quantities are accurate.

Waste manifests are on of the tactics being used by NYSDOL

Based on NYSDOL response this cross-referencing tactic has led to several enforcement actions.  These include:  
  • Air Monitoring Data has led to catching 2 contractors not notifying their project, 136 notices of violations for 18 contractors.
  • Demolition Permit Data has led to catching 4 contractors not notifying their project, 28 notices of violations for 10 contractors.
  • Site Specific Variances Data has led to catching 1 contractor not notifying their project, 2 notices of violations for 1 contractor.
  • Two other lines of data Surveys & Waste Manifests have not found any violations.
We are glad to see NYSDOL at least checking the data they receive to ensure everything is being done correctly.  However, we still don't see how NYSDOL is going after those that do things totally illegally.  Still no sign of how they are attempting to catch those companies doing illegal abatements during emergencies, floor tiles, siding, & roofing projects.  Our suggestion would be to track the waste entering construction & demolition landfills to see if this will get you those that should be notifying.  In addition, accessing tax records may also indicate roofing, siding, floor, & emergency contractor's projects that would allow a targeting of records to determine illegal abatement activities.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, August 19, 2013

Using Biocides Properly And Safely

… … After all the water damage Tropical Storm Sandy caused, we started getting phone calls on what was the proper procedure for cleaning up moldy surfaces and such.  Inevitably they would ask should they use bleach to clean the surfaces.As we always do we recommend the use of cleaners (i.e., Dawn), water, and lots of elbow grease (scrubbing).  For those of you who need a reference for this recommendation click on this EPA link.  The point of this post is to clear up some of the misconceptions regarding bleach and biocides as a whole.

As the term biocide implies "life killer", it is designed to destroy/kill living organisms.  This is one of the dangers with a biocide, we are a living organism and these chemicals could kill/damage us.  Its important to remember that everything is a poison, what matters is the dose.  So the dosage is very important when working with biocides.  This information also means that there must be a regulation or regulatory agency that regulates biocides, of course.  The regulation that regulates most biocides is called the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the agency that enforces it.  Before EPA can approve an application under FIFRA, "the applicant must show, among other things, that using the pesticide according to specifications "will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment."  This act regulates chemicals used to disinfect, sanitize, or kill molds, fungi, bacterias, etc.  One of the key words in the quote above is the word "specification".  What the quote is basically saying, is that the biocide manufacturer must come up with the safe procedures to use when using that manufacturer's biocide.  Another words the label on the biocide has the safe procedures for using the product (the label is the law, if its not on the label you can't use it that way).  Which in some ways makes things easy, follow the instructions on the label and it can be used safely.

Which brings us to what the label on bleach says?

As you can see above, bleach is a corrosive.  This means it could do damage to the skin, eyes, or the respiratory system.  This part of the label tells you what to do if you happen to get this product on your skin or in your eyes.  The next label tells you how to use it safely:

For disinfecting surfaces you use 1/2 cup bleach to 1 gallon of water.  Please note that the label requires that the surface you are disinfecting should be pre-washed/cleaned.  The reason for this is that dirt, or other organic materials can deactivate bleach reducing its disinfecting ability.  In order for bleach to disinfect a surface, the surface must be cleaned first.  Which brings us back to our suggestion at the beginning of this post, the most effective way to get rid of mold is to clean the surface with a detergent and elbow grease.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, August 04, 2013

PACNY Fishing Derby Was An Adventure

On July 17, 2013 we attended the Professional Abatement Contractors of New York (PACNY) fishing derby.  We decided to attend the fishing derby because we've never fished for salmon before and going on a fishing trip with the PACNY group sounded like a lot fun!
 Well the day started with a great sunrise (photo above), as we learned which boats we were on.  We were placed on one of the two Cornerstone Training Institute (CTI) boats.  Our boat was named the Irish Thunder with Captain Joe T. & First Mate Charlie. Our team consisted of Heather King of KBH, Chris Miller of LeChase, Kevin Hutton of CTI, and ourselves.

Once we were all on-board our respective boats , we headed out to the shotgun start (see video above).  Which means all the boats line up straight across & when the bell is rung the boats speed out to the fishing areas.  It was a very hot day and sun shone brightly, meaning we were thankful for air movement.  Captain Joe T. & First Mate Charlie, were very experienced in finding fish and it wasn't long before we had our first catch of the day.  Ms. Heather King reeled in the first fish.  All of us took turns reeling in fish, however, Mr. Chris Miller reeled in the first over 20 pound salmon.  Which we all teased him in how long it was taking him to bring the fish in (we would regret that later).  We were thankful to Mr. Kevin Hutton for stocking his cooler with some really good local craft beers (thank you!).

As you can see above, we caught ourselves an over 20 pound king salmon.  Catching a salmon is not an accurate description of what actually took place.  A better description would be is having a tug-of-war with an unknown opponent.  Once you grab a hold of the rod & reel you spend what feels like an eternity (actually 10-20 minutes) of doing forearm curls.  Pull the rod up, then reel in excess line; pull the rod up, reel in the excess line; repeat, repeat, repeat (now regretting teasing Chris about how long it took him to bring the fish in).  Just about the time our arms were saying "we give up", the salmon appeared several yards away from the boat.  Giving us a second wind to bringing the fish on board.  When we were a kid we remember a cartoon that likened fishing to pulling a drain plug from the lake, we now get that cartoon.

Once the derby was over we gathered at the Black North Inn for lunch, weigh-in, & the awarding of the prizes.  The scoreboard above details the scores. Congratulations to team Aramsco for the biggest basket (three largest fish) and the $500 award.  Congratulations to Brian Warren from the Aramsco/Envoy boat for the big fish.  His 30.5 lb king salmon won him $150 cash.

We had a great time and hope to do this again.  Our team was fantastic and entertaining.  Our team won one of the prizes.  We also got to bring some salmon home for smoking & grilling (as you see above).  It was the best salmon we ever ate.

 Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, July 28, 2013

New? NYS Education Department Asbestos Clearance Air Sampling Requirements

On July 12, 2013, New York State Education Department (NYSED) released a table regarding the various asbestos clearance air sampling requirements.  The table compares the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) regulation to the New York State Department of Labor's (NYSDOL) Industrial Code Rule 56 (ICR56) and the table has a center column designating what we assume to be NYSED's requirement for schools.  It is interesting to note that New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) noted these items were a problem in 2009, when they were doing AHERA audits for EPA.  Visit Future Environment Design's Resource Page for the Asbestos Clearance Table Requirements from NYSED.

What's wrong with this picture?
There is some very interesting information on this table.  An example of this is the requirement of 5 inside samples for asbestos projects that range from three (3) linear feet (LF) or square feet (SF) to < 160 SF or < 260 LF.  These samples are analyzed using the phase contrast microscope methodology (National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) method 7400).   We wonder how many schools are actually doing five (5) samples inside the work area for small projects (> 10 SF or 25 LF but < 160 SF or 260 LF) or the minor projects (> 3 LF or SF to < 10 SF or 25 LF)?  

In actuality to comply with both AHERA and ICR56 for small projects (> 10 SF or 25 LF but < 160 SF or 260 LF), a school should also run a minimum of three (3) outside samples.  So, for a small project in a school in NYS the project air sampling technician should run five (5) samples inside each work area, three (3) samples outside each work area, and two (2) blanks.  This current table, with the adjustment mentioned above, provides Asbestos Air Sample Technicians with the total number of samples, based on the size of the project, necessary to clear an asbestos abatement work area located in a school that will comply with AHERA, NYSED, & ICR56.  
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, July 21, 2013

New Vermiculite Guidance Shifts Liability to Consultants & Owners

On July 9, 2013, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (ELAP) released a further clarification regarding the analysis of surfacing materials, thermal system insulation, and miscellaneous materials that contain vermiculite (nothing has changed regarding loose fill vermiculite this still must be reported as an asbestos containing material (ACM)).  Visit Future Environment Design's Resource Page for the New Interim Vermiculite Guidance 7/9/13 from NYSDOH.

To sum up the changes, when you send surfacing materials, thermal system insulation, and miscellaneous materials for analysis the lab will start with the friable bulk sample method 198.1.  Once the material is determined to contain greater than 10% vermiculite the lab will then use the gravimetric reduction method 198.6.  No matter what result you get with the 198.6 method, the result must be accompanied with the following disclaimer:

“This method does not remove vermiculite and may underestimate the level of asbestos present in a sample containing greater than 10% vermiculite.”

We think most of you would agree the problem is not with having a disclaimer on results that report >1% asbestos, these are reported as ACM with the disclaimer.  The problem & liability come from materials that are now being reported as < 1% asbestos, these will be reported as non-ACM with the above disclaimer.  As far as we are concerned this disclaimer basically says these results may not be accurate.  This change puts heavy liability on the asbestos inspector (consultant) as the person who under Industrial Code Rule 56 (ICR 56) makes this decision.  As Dr. Eileen Franco, acting director of NYSDOL Division of Safety and Health, stated "The Certified Inspector who performs the sample collection and analysis in support of the required asbestos survey is responsible for determining if a material is ACM or not.  If they classify it as ACM, it is ACM and covered by ICR 56.  If they classify it as non-ACM, ICR 56 does not apply.  DOL enforces ICR 56 which is for asbestos.  If a product has greater than 1% asbestos it is asbestos. If they do further testing of something with >10% vermiculite and it is less than or equal to 1% asbestos it is non-ACM. "

Certified Asbestos Free by Who?
Thank you Mr. Henry Alilionis for the photo.
 In our opinion, this is insufficient to advise a client on what to do with a material that has a result of < 1% ACM with the disclaimer.  So the question is how do we proceed?  We obviously need more information.  It means asbestos inspectors need to do more research on the material (material safety data sheets, manufacture specifications, etc.) and the source of the vermiculite.  If that is not possible for whatever reason, maybe other types of analysis could be used.  Presently, other methods available are the Cincinnati method (Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) method A 600/R-04/004) which is a research method or the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D22.07 method, neither are approved by NYSDOH ELAP.  However, at this point NYSDOH has given us a result which says the material is non-ACM with a disclaimer.  As asbestos inspectors we must address the disclaimer.  NYSDOH has not given us a way to do that, allowing us to find our own way.  Our advice would be to research the material and if that is now successful, then use one of the other lab methods to address the disclaimer.  In our view this is what a reasonable person would do to avoid the potential liability of exposing construction workers to asbestos.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, July 02, 2013

DiNapoli's Audit of Asbestos Control Bureau Finds Problems

The New York State Office of the State Comptroller, run by Thomas P. DiNapoli, performed an audit titled "Assessment and Collection of Selected Fees and Penalties" of the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) to determine if the NYSDOL was assessing and collecting all required fees and penalties.  The audit covered the period April 1, 2008 through July 31, 2011. The focus of this blog will be on the comments made regarding the Asbestos Control Bureau (ACB).

The overall key findings of the audit found:

  • The NYSDOL does not assess and collect all required fees and fines.  In total, the Department did not collect about $3.8 million, including associated penalties.
  • The NYSDOL does not have accurate records to show who is required to pay boiler inspection and asbestos-related project fees.  As a result, the health and safety of New York State residents may be at risk and potential revenue is not realized.
Details of this audit found:

  • Most contractors adhere to the self-notification process and pay the required project notification fee.
  • However, the Department has no method for determining whether there are other contractors that should be paying the fee, or how much the fee should be.
  • As a result, there is no way to know how much more the Department could be collecting in revenue each year.
  • To determine whether there are contractors which did not pay the required project notification fee, we obtained a list of landfills throughout the State that accepted asbestos and reviewed their associated documentation. In total, landfills accepted asbestos from 50 projects during our audit period where the amount of asbestos contaminated refuse disposed was at least ten tons.  We found that 45 out of the 50 contractors paid the project notification fee (one was exempt).  We averaged the amount paid by the 45 projects and estimate that the Department could have collected an additional $6,992 for the remaining four projects ($1,748 per project).
  • The audit noted that the project notification fee was not equitable, as small asbestos projects can pay as much as those that are much larger. For example, a project with 1,725 linear feet and 35,263 square feet would pay the same $4,000 maximum fee as a project with 1,650 linear feet and 1,000 square feet. The Department should review this structure to determine whether a more equitable fee structure could be created based on the size of a project to provide greater equity and possibly increase revenue. Fees are statutorily set and any revisions would have to be sought through a change in the statute establishing the fees.
NYSDOL ACB's response to the audit is included in the document.  That response was:
  • In 2011, NYSDOL used a reconcilitaion of Department records to ensure and verify that asbestos contractors, building owners, & others in the regulated community follow all regulations.
  • This reconcilitation included examination of air monitoring records, demolition permits, site-specific variances, surveys, & waste manifests.
  • Elevated air monitoring reports are cross checked with notifications listed in the system.
  • Demolition permits from all major cities and many towns, villages, & smaller cities have been obtained.  Local fire companies is listed as another source of information, regarding a list of fires in their area (late 2011 this started).
  • In early 2012 contact with all major landfills that accept friable waste for access to data was established.  Some of these landfills have begun sending monthly waste manifests for their site.  ACB has now expanded the contact to landfills outside NYS that accept waste from NY.
  • ACB has discussed possibly changing the fee structure, however, revisions need legislative action.
Based on the above, ACB feels this is sufficient to protect the public.  We strongly disagree!  We recommend the following, in addition to what they are already doing:
  • ACB should investigate all emergency response, plumbing, electrical, roofing, floor tile, and siding contractors for licensing and certification of their workers.  If these contractors indicate the subcontracting of asbestos work require proof of subcontracting, and proof of asbestos inspections performed before they performed work on materials that were not ACM.
  • ACB should investigate Department of Public Works, Water Authorities, and other water works companies that manage asbestos cement pipe systems for licensing, certification, and work practices. 
  • ACB should also initiate contact with landfills that accept nonfriable ACM (construction /demolition waste) throughout NYS.  Most of the illegal dumping is going on at these sites.
  • ACB should cross train the Boiler inspectors to recognize ACM.  This would allow them to inform the ACB of suspicious activities.
As we've complained before, ACB needs to spend more time/resources investigating those that are breaking the rules by not notifying, not air monitoring, and not disposing ACM properly versus those in the asbestos industry who according to Mr. DiNapoli's audit are mostly following the rules.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, June 03, 2013

Future Environment Designs Will Be Exhibiting at Plattsburgh Business Expo

We are looking forward to our annual exhibit at the 25th Annual Business Expo on this Thursday, June 6, 2013 at the Plattsburgh State University Field House.  Join us from 10 AM to 5 PM and we can discuss the various training courses we provide in the area.  We hope to see you there!  In addition, if you "Like" the North Country Chamber on Facebook you can get Free Admission.  Follow the link below:

25th Annual Business Expo - June 6thBusiness Expo
Don't miss the largest networking event of the year!
180 Businesses will showcase their products and services this Thursday, June 6th at the SUNY Field House. Join us from 10 - 5 to learn what area businesses can do for, enter to win hundreds of prizes, and make new business contacts. 
Admission is $5. Or, Like the North Country Chamber on Facebook TODAY for Free Admission.    The VIP List will be printed tomorrow - so be sure to Like us Today and you will be on the list for free admission. Click for more info
Enhanced by Zemanta

Chrysotile Asbestos Banned? More Like Certain Conditions of Use Will Be Eventually Banned!

Many of you, as did I, read about the " Ban of Chrysotile Asbestos " and rejoiced over something long overdue.  However, after rea...