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.  

Related articles

• DiNapoli's Audit of Asbestos Control Bureau Finds Problems
• Air testing shows no asbestos fibers
• Where to look for asbestos in older homes

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?

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.

Related articles

• Asbestos fears: concern hundreds exposed during Logan council work
• Nassau: 61 unlicensed contractors caught in Sandy sting
• The practical manifestation of safety leadership

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 6th 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

Related articles

• Business briefs: June 2, 2013

Domino Sugar Factory Abatement - Brings Up Questions

The Domino Sugar Factory in Brooklyn, NY is undergoing asbestos abatement and unfortunately for New York Insulation they were caught doing asbestos abatement on the roof.  Whenever, you do asbestos abatement outside of containment, it is vitally important that you do the work perfectly.  One mistake or two will just bring about a whole bunch of trouble.  Below is the video, please watch it and let us know what you think in the comments:

In our classes we have been watching it and discussing the various issues, here is a list:

• In the video you do not see one person wetting anything down.  Wet methods are required by New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP), New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Under EPA regulations not wetting asbestos or dry removal is a criminal violation.
• In the video you do not see a High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filtered vacuum anywhere.  HEPA vacuuming is required by NYCDEP, NYSDOL, & OSHA.
• Workers in the video are hammering what looks like asbestos containing transite panels.  These panels are considered non-friable and if intact they are not regulated by EPA.  However, that changed as soon as the workers started hammering (crumbling & pulverizing) the materials.  These materials are no longer intact and have become regulated asbestos containing materials (RACM).  Meaning these materials must be placed in labeled asbestos bags or wrappings and sent to an EPA approved landfill for disposal.  In addition, the crumbling & pulverizing of the materials probably means NYCDEP & NYSDOL would require a containment.
• Two workers inside the work area are not wearing suits and respirators, obviously a violation of the PPE requirements for this work.
• Under NYCDEP, NYSDOL, & OSHA materials are required to be bagged or wrapped immediately.  Obviously, the hammering of the materials means they were not bagged or wrapped immediately.
• In the video we can see one air sample station in the work area.  NYCDEP requires four (4) inside work area samples during the abatement.  Since the one sample is located where they were hammering the panel with a crowbar it would be interesting to see the results of that air sample.  Though it may be likely it will show nothing since it would depend on which way the wind was blowing.

These are just some of the ones we have discussed in our classes or have been posted in our New York Asbestos Group on Linked-In.  Let us know if you see anything in the comments below.

Related articles

• Brooklyn's Domino Sugar Factory Will Turn Into A Temporary Urban Haven
• Asbestos Removal Questionable at Old Sugar Refinery
• What's Next for the Domino Sugar Factory
• Asbestos Abatment
• Asbestos Violations on the Rise, EPA Says
• Brooklyn built UP
• Sweet Dreams: A Party for Julian Schnabel at the Domino Sugar Factory

PACNY Conference New Faces, New Discussions

The 17th Annual Professional Abatement Contractors of New York (PACNY) Environmental Conference was a success.  Though this is not surprising given the lineup of speakers and great effort that was made by the conference organizers to bring it together.  We would suspect that the organizers might have been nervous about the event, since Mr. Christopher Alonge would not be a speaker on day two of the event.  If you had not heard, Mr. Alonge is no longer with New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) he is now with Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (DASNY).  Mr. Alonge was present at the event, and seemed to be enjoying himself.  However, Dr. Eileen Franco saved the day representing NYSDOL as the acting director for the Division of Safety & Health.  Dr. Franco discussed her unit, and updated us on the progress of the new ICR56, which in her words were "imminent".  She was entertaining and we hope she will take our suggestions regarding the asbestos control program and act on them.

Future Environment Design's New Tradeshow Display.

Like last year, one of the opening presentations was on PACNY's effort to change the notification fees.  The bill they are discussing is Assembly Bill A3675.  As we discussed last year, this bill would change the notification fee structure so demolition of residents impacted by a disaster would be a maximum of $200.  This change would help disaster affected areas and residential projects by allowing properly trained contractors to better compete with non-licensed or untrained contractors for the asbestos work.

The list of speakers included Brian Sampson from Unshackle Upstate; Joe Cantone from Colden Corporation; Paul Watson from Center for Toxicology & Environmental Health; Joe Hogan from Associated General Contractors of New York State; Dr. Dave Duford from CanAm Environmental Safety; Brent Kynoch from the Environmental Information Association; Dr. James Webber, formerly with NYS Department of Health; Marvin Stillman from the University of Rochester; and Mr. Chris Alund, from the NYSDOL Bureau of Public Work.  All the speakers were very good, however, two standout in our mind.  First Dr. Webber's presentation "Vermiculite: Looking for a Needle in a Leaf Pile" was awesome and had many speaking about it throughout the rest of the conference.  Pretty impressive considering after his presentation it was the cocktail hour in the exhibit hall.  Dr. Webber's presentation was our first official 3D presentation.  Towards the end of his presentation he passed out 3D glasses, and it was very impressive seeing vermiculite with Libby asbestos fibers in 3D.  The other presentation that stood out, was Mr. Stillman's regarding "Hazardous Waste at Project Sites".  Mr. Stillman's presentation included a lot of points that we were not aware of and will be included in future training classes regarding hazardous wastes.  During most of the presentations, we posted points we felt were important on Twitter.  Find those tweets at #FEDTCPACNY.

This year the Industry Roundtable Q&A was moderated by Steve Gheen, PE of Gheen Engineering, and included Darren Yehl of Cornerstone Training Institute, John Massa of Midlantic Environmental, and Angelo Garcia, III, of Future Environment Designs (me).  Questions this year were very interesting and brought out some distinctions in regions and how various types of asbestos work was being done.

The Exhibit Hall was a lot of fun, with the cocktail reception and the breaks spent meeting vendors, suppliers, and competitors (the friendly kind).  There were some new exhibitors and some new equipment at the show.  Fiberlock Technologies was exhibiting a new Advanced Peroxide Cleaner (APC) that removes mold & mildew stains on porous & non-porous materials, it seems to be an impressive product.  DiVal & Aramsco had dueling floor tile and mastic removal machines that sell or rent.  In addition, DiVal was showing a Dust Shroud for Reciprocating Saws from Dustless Technologies.  McLaughlin Vacuum Excavation Systems (Vermeer is the dealer network for this equipment) was another exhibitor with some impressive equipment.  Of course, United Rentals was there and we didn't win the toy truck, again!

Overall, the conference was a great time.  Turning Stone Resort & Casino does a great job with the food, drinks, & entertainment.  In the past few years, we've seen more representatives from Long Island based companies attending the PACNY conference.  We were glad to see George Maul of Insight Environmental, Paul Calzolano of Testing Mechanics, Paul Debiase of Dvirka & Bartilucci, Bart Gallagher of Enviroscience, & Travis Irving of H2M.  We look forward to seeing you next year and look forward to the Long Island contingent growing again next year. 

Related articles

• PACNY's 2013 Environmental Conference (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• NYSDOL Responds To Call To Waive Fees (futureenv.blogspot.com)

Happy New Year - 2013

Future Environment Designs would like to wish everyone a Happy New Year!  May it be a healthy, safe, and prosperous one, for all of us.  It is usually a tradition for companies and people to make resolutions for the new year.  At Future Environment Designs we resolve to honor our clients who have supported us for what will be 25 years in business in 2013.  To start meeting that resolution, we proudly announce our referral program.



Happy 2013 - May it be Healthy, Prosperous, & Safe!

Future Environment Design's Referral Program - we set this up to honor those clients who have referred training and indoor air quality/OSHA compliance consulting work to us.  Any client who refers training and/or indoor air quality/OSHA compliance consulting work to us will receive a 5% discount on their training/indoor air quality/OSHA compliance consulting work.  This would be in addition to any other discounts given.  So a client who has attended training with us before would be discounted 15% for loyalty and 5% for referring work to us, for a total discount of 20% off.  Future Environment Designs relies on word-of-mouth to maintain our level of revenue.  We feel this is a way to reward our clients who typically refer work to us and spread the word about our company.
Happy New Year!

Related articles

• Merry Holidays! (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• Chamber Set Challenging Agenda for 2013 (sbmonthly.com)
• OSHA Forecast: Developments to Watch For In 2013 (ehssafetynews.wordpress.com)
• Most Popular 2013 New Year's Resolution (poetryman69.typepad.com)
• Welcoming A Better 2013 By Making New Year Resolutions Achievable (idostartup.com)
• Small Business: Making New Year's resolutions stick (newsday.com)

Changes at NYS DOL

English: Headquarters of the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, located on Broadway in Albany, New York, United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We have just found out, thanks to Christopher Corrado at National Grid and Cornerstone Training Institute, that there are several changes at the New York State Department of Labor.  First we are sad to hear that Mr. Christopher Alonge is leaving the Engineering Services Unit to take a position at the Dormitory Authority.  We are sure sad to see him go and wish him the best of luck at the Dormitory Authority.  According to Mr. Alonge, the proposed revisions to NYS Industrial Code Rule 56 have been submitted to the Governor's office and will be handled by the Unit's Director, going forward.  It is also our understanding that Dr. Eileen Franko formerly of the New York State Department of Health will be taking the place of the retiring Ms. Maureen Cox the Director of Safety and Health at NYS Department of Labor.  It will be interesting to see if this change will have any impact on enforcement of Industrial Code Rule 56 and the PESH regulations.  We wish Mr. Alonge, Dr. Franko and Ms. Cox the best of luck in their new endeavors.

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)

Assemblywoman Lupardo Sponsors Bill To Amend Asbestos Notification Fees

Assemblywoman Donna Lupardo is sponsoring Assembly Bill A09928, which will amend the notification fees for non-friable material.  This issue was discussed at Professional Abatement Contractors of New York's (PACNY) 2012 Environmental Conference.  The bill can be accessed at:  http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A09928&term=&Summary=Y&Actions=Y&Votes=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y

Asbestos Thermal System Insulation on a Residential Ducts & Furnace

PACNY is supporting this bill, based on their research that many residential projects are not notified and are done illegally because of the steep fee structure.  Placing homeowners and occupants in danger.  In addition, because of recent flooding from natural disasters many homes have been condemned requiring them to pay the maximum asbestos notification fee of $4,000 to demolish the home.  This fee for demolition has been the subject of many articles regarding this cost that cities, towns, and villages are required to pay increasing the cost in doing demolition in the Southern Tier, Catskills, and other regions.  Visit the New York State Asbestos Group on Linked-in, regarding the discussion of this issue.

This is not the first time this issue has been discussed, a previous Senate Bill S748-2011 in the New York State Senate sponsored by State Senator Catherine Young wanted to modify the fees that residential one & two family owner occupied homes paid in doing asbestos abatement work - capping the notification fee at $500.

We agree that the notification fees need to be addressed, especially for residential work.  Though not convinced that the fee should be addressed in this manner.  Senator Young's bill handles it much simply and probably should be expanded to include residential homes/houses slated for demolition (or controlled demolition by a municipality).

Related articles

• Pacny 2012 Conference - More Changes? (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• The wrecking crew (buffalonews.com)
• Historic ND Courthouse Contains Dangerous Materials Including Asbestos, Toxic Mold (mesothelioma.com)
• Demolition Activity At Old Mill Poses Hazard of Asbestos Exposure, NY Attorneys Says (prweb.com)
• Kensington Heights tab doubles (buffalonews.com)
• Apartment building reno halted amid concerns over unsafe asbestos removal (theprovince.com)
• Vancouver tenants allege unsafe asbestos removal endangering their health (theprovince.com)

NYSDOH ELAP Decision Trees

In our previous blog post on the Professional Abatement Contractors of New York's (PACNY's) 16th Annual Environmental Conference, we mentioned that Dr. Stephanie Ostrowski, of the New York State Department of Health's Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (ELAP), was one of the presenters.  Dr. Ostrowski's presentation, as we mentioned in our blog, included lengthy discussions on vermiculite and ceiling tiles.
 
The discussion regarding ceiling tiles included reviewing the decision trees she provided us to help explain the analysis process for regular bulk samples and samples required to undergo gravimetric reduction.  Analysis of friable bulk sample (material) must use analysis method 198.1, while non-friable, organically bound (NOB) bulk material must use analysis method 198.6/198.4.  Visit my website under Resources for the copy of the decision trees she provided us.  Her explainations were excellent and the decision trees did make it easier to understand. 

There was also some discussion regarding whether this meant that ceiling tiles were considered NOBs and hence could be removed under the In-plant regulations of New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) Industrial Code Rule 56 (ICR56).  Mr. Chris Alonge of NYSDOL came to the microphone and immediately put that issue to rest, saying that ceiling tiles are not considered non-friable, so as such cannot be removed under the In-plant operations section of the regulation.  This year's conference was as informative as usual, a great job was done by PACNY, Deborah Johnson of Aramsco, Darren Yehl of LeChase Construction Services and Kevin Hutton of Cornerstone Training Institute.

Related articles

• Pacny 2012 Conference - More Changes? (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• 16th Annual PACNY Environmental Conference Being Held March 1 & 2, 2012 (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• Be aware of asbestos issues in older properties (vaned.typepad.com)
• Asbestos Scare At Brooklyn School Has Parents Furious At Department Of Education-LWT 1732 Video (preprod.cbslocal.com)
• Asbestos Scare At Brooklyn School Has Parents Furious At Department Of Education (newyork.cbslocal.com)
• Victim of silent killer (hartlepoolmail.co.uk)
• Asbestos company owners convicted on criminal charges in Italy; but asbestos still lethal and legal in the US (scienceblogs.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)

What Happened with NYS ELAP Ceiling Tile Analysis?

On April 8, 2011, New York State Department of Health's Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (ELAP) issued an FAQ regarding asbestos sample analysis.  In this FAQ, ELAP informed us that ceiling tiles with cellulose need to be analyzed using the procedures in Items 198.6/198.4.  This meant analysis using gravimetric reduction and inconclusive results requiring transmission electron microscopy analysis (TEM).  In addition, the NYS Education Department (SED) in their newsletter #107 (July 2011) recommended that if schools have not tested their ceiling tiles in accordance with the current protocols, they should do so either as part of an existing or planned capital improvement or as an independent analysis prior to disturbance.

Well its been over six months since this new procedure/protocol was announced, and next month it will be six months since the SED clarification.  We would like to hear if this procedure has led to any new findings/concerns or are ceiling tiles still coming back primarily not containing asbestos?  Please let us know what you are experiencing regarding this issue?  So, far our experience is that most ceiling tiles are coming back not containing asbestos.  What is your experience?

Related articles

• NYS Education Department Issues Clarification on Asbestos Material Testing (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• New York State Releases FAQ on Asbestos Analysis (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• Future Environment Designs does an Asbestos Presentation to BOMA's Long Island Chapter (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• Schools Required to Manage Asbestos (futureenv.blogspot.com)

NIOSH Blog Discusses Erionite

Image by fluor_doublet via Flickr

The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health's (NIOSH) Science Blog posted the following article "Erionite: An Emerging North American Hazard."  The importance of this mineral is that in its fibrous form it is very similar to asbestos.  It is a naturally occurring mineral with deposits in many western states (on the blog post is a map indicating the areas) and disturbance of the fibers can generate airborne fibers with physical properties and health effects that are similar to asbestos.  Residents of Turkish villages where erionite-containing rock was used to construct homes, had a high risk for developing malignant mesothelioma.  The United States Geological Survey found that the erionite from the Cappadocian region of Turkey, North Dakota, and Oregon were chemically and morphologically similar.
Reading this blog post, is like reading an article on asbestos exposure or how to control asbestos exposure.  According to the post, the focus of potential exposure are road construction and maintenance workers that work with erionite-containing gravel used in road surfacing.  Recommendations by NIOSH are to treat erionite-containing gravel in the same way as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) treats asbestos-containing materials.  Train workers, control dust emissions and utilize wet methods, all sounding very familar to us in the asbestos industry, however currently their is no occupational exposure limit for erionite.  Which will make things difficult for those exposed to erionite-containing gravel.  Let's hope OSHA heeds NIOSH's recommendations

Related articles

• Erionite: An Emerging Hazard in North America (cdc.gov)
• Environs: U.S. Warns Workers on Cancer-Causing Mineral Erionite (habwwe.wordpress.com)
• Concerns Over Potential Mesothelioma Threat Lead to Environmental Meeting, Says Surviving Mesothelioma (prweb.com)
• New study finds cancer-causing mineral in US road gravel (eurekalert.org)
• Health concerns grow over little-known mineral (openchannel.msnbc.msn.com)