Asbestos Dust Sampling in New York State

In our recent asbestos inspector/designer classes we have been informing them about the New York State (NYS) requirements for dust/surface sampling.  Under NYS Department of Labor (NYSDOL) Industrial Code Rule 56, dust and debris are listed as suspect miscellaneous asbestos containing materials (ACM).  Meaning that if the building was built pre-1974, this debris and dust that is visually assessed by the inspector shall be treated and handled as ACM and shall be assumed ACM, until bulk sampling is done.  Well the question comes how do you bulk sample debris and dust?

Asbestos Inspector Initial Course

The best way is to collect the debris and dust by scraping it into a asbestos sample bag using a knife or a scraper.  This material could then be analyzed using NYS Department of Health (NYSDOH) Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) method 198.1.  NYSDOH ELAP method 198.1 is the standard polarized light microscope method utilizing dispersion staining and point counting.  

Another popular method for collecting debris and dust samples is the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard "D5755 - Microvaccum Sampling and Indirect Analysis of Dust by Transmission Electron Microscopy for Asbestos Structure Number Concentrations"  The D5755 method requires vacuuming a known surface area (100 squared centimeters is mentioned in the standard but it could be larger or smaller).  The vacuuming is done with a standard 25 or 37-millimeter air sampling cassette (the air sampling cassette should have a mixed cellulose ester (MCE) or polycarbonate (PC) filter membrane with a pore size less than or equal to 0.8 micron) and an air sampling pump.  A plastic tube should be attached to the inlet orifice to act as a nozzle and should be cut at a 45 degree angle.  The air sampling pump should be calibrated to run at 2 liters per minute.  The D5755 method incorporates a method of analysis for the sample, however, in NYS that method cannot be used.  According to the NYSDOH ELAP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) number 8, "all bulk samples collected must be analyzed by ELAP approved methodology at an ELAP accredited laboratory.  ASTM method D5755 ....... are not certified as ELAP approved methods of analysis."  The method of analysis that shall be used, especially if you want transmission electron microscope analysis, is NYSDOH ELAP method 198.4.  

SKC Catalog Photo

ASTM standard "D6480 - Standard Test Method for Wipe Sampling of Surfaces, Indirect Preparation, and Analysis for Asbestos Structure Number Concentration by Transmission Electron Microscopy" is another method for collecting debris and dust samples.  This method involves wiping a surface of a known area (100 squared centimeters is mentioned in the standard but it could be larger or smaller) with a wipe material (particle free, sealed edge, continuous filament cloth sampling medium such as a clean room wiper) to collect a sample.  See the video below by IAQTV for visual instructions on collecting this type of sample:

  

The D6480 method also incorporates a method of analysis for the sample, however, again in NYS that method cannot be used.  According to the NYSDOH ELAP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) number 8, "all bulk samples collected must be analyzed by ELAP approved methodology at an ELAP accredited laboratory.  ASTM method......and D6480 are not certified as ELAP approved methods of analysis."  The method of analysis that shall be used is NYSDOH ELAP method 198.4. 

The interesting part about this is, NYS ELAP approved laboratories should be advising asbestos inspectors they cannot use the ASTM methods of analysis.  However, we've heard of several times when this has not occurred.  According to the above information, an inspector should be getting results for the samples collected in percent by weight (%), which they can then use to compare with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) definition that an asbestos containing material contains greater than 1% of asbestos by weight.  If they use the ASTM methods they will get results of structures per square centimeter.  There is no government standard to compare these results to and be able to give a determination is the material asbestos containing or not.  However, that has not prevented individuals from determining that areas are contaminated, or that debris or dust is ACM.  This has cost owners thousands and millions of dollars to cleanup areas based on this analysis.  It is even more interesting to note that ASTM in the "Significance and Use" section states:

• This test method does not describe procedures or techniques required for the evaluation of the safety or habitability of buildings with asbestos-containing materials, or compliance with federal, state, or local regulations or statutes.....
• At present, a single direct relationship between asbestos sampled from a surface and potential human exposure does not exist.....

When using the two ASTM methods, an inspector must be very careful in collecting the samples and interpreting the data that you get from these methods.  Experience and knowledge are key.

  

NYSDOH Announces The Imminent Availability of Vermiculite Analysis

On July 22, 2014, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) sent out a follow up communication to the July 9, 2013 interim guidance letter.  This communication is regarding the imminent availability of two new NYSDOH Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (ELAP)-approved methods for the detection and quantitation of asbestos content in spray-on fireproofing that contains vermiculite.  The communication indicates that these new methods will be available by October 31, 2014.  Click here for the July 9 2013 letter and click here for the new communication.  Otherwise you can find both communications at our website http://futureenvironmentdesigns.com/resources.html  click on the FED Training CD in the Helpful Links and Info folder.

Vermiculite-containing Sprayed-on Fireproofing is the focus of the communication

After October 31, 2014, one of the two methods must be used to test sprayed-on fireproofing regardless of the percent of vermiculite.  This document does not indicate any information about the methods other than the asbestos inspector must collect a minimum of 10 grams of the sprayed-on fireproofing (versus the 100-500 milligrams for 198.1 and 198.6).  Nor does it indicate what labs will be doing this analysis.  In addition, the two methods are only for vermiculite-containing sprayed-on fireproofing.  Other materials still must use the 2013 interim communication with the disclaimer and bulk vermiculite is still asbestos containing material (ACM).

日本語: バーミキュライト (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The new communication is interesting for its lack of information.  First it does not indicate anything about the new methods other than the need for a larger quantity of material.  It gives no indication of what it will take to analyze the material, what the turnaround will be, who the laboratories will be, costs, etc.  It is specifically only for vermiculite containing sprayed-on fireproofing.  In addition, it means an asbestos inspector will need to add a new tool to the sampling kit, a scale.  Taking a sufficient sample that ensures the laboratory gets a minimum of 10 grams.  Maybe not that difficult, but could be annoying if you make a mistake.  Don't forget you are still required to take either 3-5-7 or 9 samples of the sprayed-on fireproofing and it only takes one sample for the homogeneous material to be positive for asbestos.  Even more interesting was industry implications on the last page of the communication.  That stated after October 31, 2014 you are required to use one of the two methods to analyze vermiculite containing sprayed-on fireproofing, not surprising.  Though it is based on what stage your project is in.  Needless to say we look forward to hearing more about the new methods and the real implications they will have on the asbestos industry.      

Related articles

• NYS Department Of Health Vermiculite Clarification
• New Vermiculite Guidance Shifts Liability to Consultants & Owners
• Metro-NY AIHA Meeting on Vermiculite, Part 2.
• The Fix: The Specter in the Attic
• EPA pushes tough asbestos standard for Montana town
• NYSDOH ELAP Decision Trees

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.

Related articles

• Protecting Your Family from Asbestos-Contaminated Vermiculite Insulation
• Where to look for asbestos in older homes
• Libby Residents Concerned about Asbestos in Landfill
• What Happened in the Attic?

NYS Department Of Health Vermiculite Clarification

New York State Department of Health's (NYSDOH) Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (ELAP) has released an update that revises FAQ #10 from the 4/8/11 FAQ document.  This update is posted at:
http://www.wadsworth.org/labcert/elapcert/forms/Vermiculite%20Guidance_Rev062212.pdf.  

The revision separates vermiculite into two types.  Vermiculite material used for thermal systems insulation (TSI), surfacing materials, and other miscellaneous ACM (including but not limited to:  existing or new surfacing material, plaster, pipe lagging, and sprayed-on fireproofing) or vermiculite material used for attic fill, block fill, and other loose bulk vermiculite material.  For the vermiculite material used for attic fill, etc. nothing has changed.  We still cannot analyze it and material must be assumed to contain asbestos and designated an asbestos containing material.

New Evaluation for Surfacing Material Containing Vermiculite

For the vermiculite used for TSI, surfacing material, etc. anaylze by ELAP certification manual item 198.1 (polarized light microscopy [PLM] friable method).  Vermiculite evaluation shall follow these three steps:

1. If vermiculite is calculated to be less than 10% of the entire material composition and no asbestos fibers are detected, the material may be reported as non-ACM.
2. If any asbestos fibers are identified, analysis must proceed according to Item 198.1 PLM and reported as ACM according to Section 6.3.
3. If vermiculite is calculated to be 10% or more of the material, the material must be reported as ACM.

According to NYSDOH ELAP the reason for the difference is that vermiculite used for TSI, etc can be more constrained that loose fill, there is less of a public health concern pertaining to airborne asbestos fibers following disturbance.

Related articles

• NYSDOH ELAP Decision Trees (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• Who would buy asbestos? (safetyatworkblog.com)

PACNY 2012 CONFERENCE - MORE CHANGES?

The annual Environmental Conference of the Professional Abatement Contractors of New York (PACNY) was held at Turning Stone Casino & Resort in Verona, New York.  This annual conference has become synonomous with changes - either changing the way we think, new regulations, or new interpetations.

Dr. David Duford from CanAm Environmental, Angelo Garcia, III from FED, & Darren Yehl from Cornerstone Training on the PACNY Discussion Panel

This year's changes (not sure that is the right word, but we will use it anyway), include lengthy discussions about vermiculite (any vermiculite in a sample designates the sample as containing asbestos), and ceiling tiles analysis by Dr. Stephanie Ostrowski of the Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (ELAP).  After last year's PACNY presentation by ELAP and various questions from the audience, ELAP released the April FAQ which answered questions and created new questions regarding a number of items.  Major points from Dr. Ostrowski was materials similar to NOBs such as ceiling tiles and fiberglass (where the materials may block or interfere with analysis of asbestos) should be analyzed using gravimetric reduction.  Probably one of the most frustrating parts of Dr. Ostrowski's presentation is her using the word "should" when most in the audience thought she should have used "shall or must".  For example, in discussing the vermiculite issue she said laboratories should consider the material asbestos contaminated.  If the material cannot be analyzed for the contamination of asbestos, why is it "should" why not "shall".  From a suggestion from the audience, Dr. Ostrowski was going to go back and discuss with her collegues the adding of a disclaimer for vermiculite on laboratory reports. 

The usual highlight of the conference was the update by Mr. Chris Alonge on the progress of the revisions to Industrial Code Rule 56.  Dr. David Duford from CanAm Environmental Safety, Inc. did an excellent presentation, before Mr. Alonge's, on the New York State Building and Fire Code which allowed everyone to have a better idea what Mr. Alonge is referencing in the revisions.  Probably the most important announcement by Mr. Alonge was that the New York State Department of State has approved the changes and their review is completed.  The next hurdle is the NYS Division of Budget, and we will see what happens next on that front.  Mr. Alonge said he hoped for a comment period this summer with possible enactment by the beginning of 2013.  We recently got an electronic copy of his presentation for this year and that will be added to our manuals (eventually to our website, too) along with the bulk sample analysis decision trees provided by Dr. Ostrowski.   

The conference started with a presentation by Mr. Tom Meade the Executive Director of PACNY and discussions on the need for moral & ethics training in the industry, the micro-managing of the industry, a Bill to Amend Section 904 of the Labor Law, recent finding that sprayed-on fireproofing installed in 2005 came back with 2% chrysotile asbestos, and the findings of the FOIL request regarding New York State Department of Labor's Asbestos Control Program budget & notification fees.  Brian Sampson of Unshackle Upstate then discussed the importance of his organization's work in providing a balanced voice for upstate New York, his points regarding the industry was support for tax credits for remediation, support for amending Section 904, and streamlining permitting process.

Other speakers included, Mr. Paul Watson from ATC Associates spoke about PCBs (important point - EPA Guidance Document on Caulk, may become the industry standard); Mr. Bob Krell from IAQ Technologies; Mr. Kevin Murphy from Wladis Law Firm (what to do if an allegation is made against you? - know your rights, know you do not have to say anything, know that saying something can have much more serious consequences than saying nothing, etc.); and Mr. Ron Williams from OSHA (National Emphasis Programs on silica, lead, trenching & excavation).  The exhibition hall was a little light this year because of conflicts with other meetings, however, DiVal Safety Equipment had an interesting product Rhinotuff Puncture Resistant Insoles (DiValSafety.com).  This product is designed to fit into most types of work boots and shoes to provide puncture resistance.  A new vendor at the show was The SAFETY house.com, visit them at www.thesafetyhouse.com.

A big Thank You! to PACNY for inviting me onto the panel discussion this year.  I was honored and enjoyed the conference as usual.

Related articles

• 16th Annual PACNY Environmental Conference Being Held March 1 & 2, 2012 (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• What Happened with NYS ELAP Ceiling Tile Analysis? (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• Kings Park Psychiatric Center Bid Awarded to Low Bidder (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• NYCDEP Issues Advisory Memo (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• Chamber Wise: Strategic Priorities for 2012 (sbmonthly.com)