Future Environment Designs Training Center's Blog: asbestos air monitoring

Showing posts with label asbestos air monitoring. Show all posts

Thursday, February 03, 2011

Condo Covered In Asbestos Dust in Virginia Beach, VA

Asbestos Pipe Insulation in a Crawl Space

This news report and video from WAVY-TV10 In Virginia Beach, VA illustrates the importance of knowing what materials contain asbestos before performing any work in an area where the materials are suspected of containing asbestos. A Virginia Beach family moves out of their condo after building maintenance activities may have caused the release of asbestos. After the owners of the condo discovered that building maintenance activites had left a fine dust behind, they had the dust tested and the laboratory tests indicated the dust was asbestos dust. It would be interesting to determine the procedures used since sampling dust is still a controversial issue in the asbestos industry. The collection of the dust should follow the American Society of Testing Material (ASTM) Standard D5755-09 or D5756-02(2008). However, what do you compare the results to? The neither ASTM standard set a level for safety. There is currently no standard under the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for a safe level of asbestos dust. Some laboratories will give you guidelines, again these are not standards or regulations. In addition, there are few published studies on what would be a safe level. Is there a safe level or is the presence of any asbestos dust mean that the area is contaminated and hence it is a danger. Most asbestos inspectors probably would say that any asbestos dust makes the area unsafe and hence the area is contaminated. Meaning some type of removal/cleanup is necessary. Which brings up the next question how clean is clean and can you clean porous items? According to New York State Department of Labor (NYS DOL) Industrial Code Rule 56 (ICR56), the asbestos regulation governing NYS, porous items would need to be cleaned and disposed of as asbestos containing materials. Asbestos dust sampling is one of the most difficult issues to deal with in the asbestos industry, I don't envy the Virginia Beach condo association trying to deal with this issue.

Friday, December 31, 2010

Paul Mancuso of Utica New York Ordered to Pay $17,972 to EPA

HVAC ducts insulated with chrysotile asbestos.

We have discussed this case in our asbestos refresher classes and slowly but surely it is getting resolved. Paul Mancuso of Utica, New York was ordered to pay back $17,972.68 it cost the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to clean up toxic piles of asbestos that were illegally dumped in a rural Herkimer County field. On Tuesday, December 28, the prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig Benedict, said it is satisfying to know that Paul Mancuso will have to pay some financial penalty for what he has done. “We’re pleased that the judge has found Paul Mancuso responsible for repaying the taxpayers of the United States for money expended to clean up the asbestos that was illegally dumped as a result of the Mancusos’ criminal activities,” Benedict said.

Wednesday, December 08, 2010

Riverhead is Soliciting Bids for Asbestos Abatement

Image by dougtone via FlickrThe Town of Riverhead on Long Island is attempting to rid its town of a long-time eyesore, but has had trouble lining up a contractor to remove asbestos from the property at an affordable price. According to Riverheadlocal.com and Mesothelioma Resource Center, the town of Riverhead will solicit bids for the third time to award a contract for asbestos abatement at the former Weeping Willow motel. The town hopes to demolish the structure and develop the land as part of a riverfront greenbelt.
In New York State and many other states asbestos removal is done ahead of demolition to prevent fibers of the hazardous mineral from becoming airborne and causing a health danger to anyone in the vicinity. Asbestos exposure is linked to lung cancer, malignant mesothelioma and asbestosis and has been the focus of many asbestos settlements and mesothelioma lawsuits. The West Main Street property was purchased by the town last year for $1.2 million, the community website reported.

Colorado Man's Home is a Living Laboratory.

Part 2 of the "Killer In The Attic" articles from AOL News discussed the story of 71 year-old William Cawlfield, who has mesothelioma. Mr. Cawlfield lives in a two-story red-brick farmhouse in Pueblo, Colorado that had been his family's home for more than a century. When he was 15 years old Mr. Cawlfield helped his father install Zonolite insulation in the attic. In addition, Mr Cawlfield also said "I used to play up there and kept my toys and a bunch of books because it was like a sand pile where I could hide things,..." He had no knowledge that the material contained asbestos.

Last month, Cawlfield stood outside his family's home watching a specially trained asbestos-removal experts wearing respirators and dressed head to toe in Tyvek carefully remove the Zonolite insulation from inside. He was paying $15,000 to have them do so. The reason he was doing this was testing conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Denver regional office found that high levels of the lethal tremolite fibers were released from the Zonolite insulation that was spread between the rafters in its attic. EPA inspectors concluded that the almost-invisible asbestos-containing dust from the Zonolite sifted though the light fixtures and switches, ceiling fans and the seams of dried-out joint tape. Copies of the reports from EPA (that AOL News obtained) determined that some of the levels of asbestos recorded in the house exceeded the maximum number of lethal fibers that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) says is too dangerous for workers.

Unfortunately, EPA continues to not provide any guidance to the asbestos abatement industry on how to handle this material and continues to rely on its website as the only source of information on this dangerous situation.

Related articles

Friday, November 26, 2010

Revival & Expansion of Canadian Asbestos Mines Causes Uproar

Open Pit Asbestos Mine in Asbestos, Quebec

The recent free trade agreement between India and Canada (Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA)) will boost the asbestos trade. This agreement will allow an increase in asbestos exports from Canada to India. This agreement needless to say has caused an uproar among environmental, labour & health groups. The groups demanded that a ban of the asbestos trade must be deemed a pre-condition for future negotiations on CEPA.
The Quebec government has announced the offer of C$58 million ($57 million) in loan guarantees to convert the Jeffrey mine in Asbestos, Quebec from an open-pit to an underground operation. The open-pit reserves are almost exhausted but the deeper deposits are among the biggest in the world. Canada is the world’s fifth-biggest asbestos producer after Russia, China, Kazakhstan and Brazil. India is one of the biggest consumers of cancer causing asbestos fibers from Quebec, Canada. Revival and expansion of the mine would boost asbestos production from the 100-year-old mine from an estimated 15,000 tonnes this year to 180,000 tonnes in 2012 and an eventual capacity of 260,000 tonnes, or about 10 per cent of global production.
Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI) expresses its support and solidarity with the protest from health and environmental groups against an attempt by Indian and other investors to revive a big Canadian asbestos mine. Jeffrey and one other remaining mine in the Quebec province of Canada produce chrysotile, or white asbestos, used mainly to reinforce cement used for water pipes and other building materials. Exposure to asbestos fibers causes incurable and fatal lung diseases. In India there is a ban on asbestos mining but trade, manufacture and use of asbestos products is yet to be banned. There is a ban on trade in asbestos waste as well.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Kings Park Psychiatric Center Cleanup Estimated At $215 Million

Image via WikipediaThe verdict is in on the Kings Park Psychiatric Center environmental cleanup. The cleanup is estimated to cost $215 million. Compared to original estimates from developers ten years ago of $60 million, that is nearly 4 times the original estimates. Though we don't think the original estimates were accurate at all. The current estimate, developed by Dvirka and Bartilucci an environmental engineering firm based in Woodbury, NY, and TRC Environmental, an environmental consultanting firm based in NYC, is probably closest to the mark because Dvirka and Bartilucci and TRC spent several months on the property performing a number of inspections and surveys to get as accurate a picture of the materials and the costs involved with this project.
The $215 million price is for demolishing all 57 abandoned buildings on the property and returning the 368 acres to open space, said a statement from the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, which commissioned the study by Dvirka & Bartilucci. The bulk of the cost, about $186 million, pays for tearing down the buildings and cleaning up asbestos and other hazardous materials. Other costs include $26 million to demolish and remediate five miles of underground steam tunnels and $3.7 million to excavate materials dumped on the property over the years. State Sen. John Flanagan (R-East Northport) had secured $29 million for park cleanup and agreed to spend $3.6 million for the environmental study. He said the actual cost will be determined when the projects are put out for bid.
In February 2009, after community groups clamored for some resolution of the property, then State Parks Commissioner Carol Ash ordered the demolition of 15 buildings deemed unsafe, which will cost $14 million. Requests for bids for that project will go out soon. Once that happens and those bids come in we will get a better idea what it will actually cost.

Friday, October 15, 2010

Federal jury finds Syracuse company guilty of mail fraud

Structures containing asbestos are marked

Image via Wikipedia Federal jury finds Syracuse company guilty of mail fraud

We have discussed this asbestos air monitoring and laboratory consultant case in class. Follow the link which describes the guilty verdict against Certified Environmental Services (CES). Remember one of the more interesting points of this case was that two individual asbestos air monitors were indicted on their illegal work. Making them individually responsible for aiding and abetting the illegal work of the contractors. It will be interesting if this has an impact on the industry.

Friday, October 08, 2010

EMLab P&K Products Division Blog Features - Proper Maintenance of Sampling Equipment

Anderson N-6 Bioaerosol Sampler.

If you use or own indoor air quality equipment we recommend that you read EMLab P&K Products Division Blog. Click on the title of this blog post to read EMLAB P&K's blog post on the proper maintenance of air sampling equipment, such as the Anderson or A6 impact bioaerosol samplers, rotary vane high volume pumps, and Wallchek adapters. In addition, it discusses the importance of proper maintenance to sustain consistent sample collection. The blog reminds us that the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) recommends calibrating pumps before and after sample collection with variances not to exceed 5 to 10%. This calibration should be performed using a primary standard such as a bubble meter (1000 cubic centimeter bubble buret) or an electronic device such as the Dry Cal® DC-Lite Calibrator, Gilian^® Gilibrator-2, and Bios Defender™. These primary standard must be traced to a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standard. It will keep your equipment running at peak condition.

Monday, February 22, 2010

PACNY Conference Opens on Thursday, February 25, 2010

This Thursday, February 25, 2010 opens the Professional Abatement Contractors of New York's (PACNY) 14th Annual Environmental Conference at Turning Stone Casino, in Verona, New York. This is the premier event in New York State regarding the abatement field. Between the Vendor Exhibit Hall (recently spoke with Mr John Hill of Grayling Industries, they will be exhibiting) and the industry speakers (including Chris Alonge from New York State Department of Labor (DOL)) this is THE event to attend. This year marks the return of Craig Benedict from the US Attorney's Office, he will be discussing "Recent Criminial Prosecutions: Remediation, Laboratory, and Project Monitoring Fraud." Considering recent press releases this should be an interesting discussion. With new Environmental Protection Agency regulations going to effect on renovators Mr. Andrew McClellen's presentation should be informative. Of course on the last day of the event; will Mr. Chris Alonge be dropping any bombshells on the attendees this year. Based on previous presentations by Mr. Alonge (see our entry on 11/25/09 on the Metro-Section of the AIHA's meeting http://futureenv.blogspot.com/2009/11/results-of-metro-ny-aihas-ehs-global.html) could the long anticipated revision of Industrial Code Rule 56 be available? We shall see. I will be attending as I usually do, remember Turning Stone is a dry casino so BYOB, and I hope to see you there.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Results of the Metro NY AIHA's EHS Global & Local Update Meeting

On November 19, 2009, the Metropolitan New York Chapter of the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) sponsored the Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) – Global and Local Updates: Asbestos, Fire/Life Safety and EHS program at the Pfizer Conference Center. For the list of speakers and their biographies click on the title above. The program was excellent and each of the speakers provided a lot of valuable information. Because of the recent activity by regulatory agencies regarding asbestos, the three speakers speaking on asbestos drew a large crowd. The speakers were:

Mr. Carlstein Lutchmedial speaking on the revisions to the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYC DEP) asbestos regulations;
Mr. Chris Alonge speaking on the proposed revisions to the New York State Department of Labor Industrial Code Rule 56 (NYS DOL ICR56);
Mr. Kevin Malone speaking on the New York State Department of Health’s asbestos training program and their program on performing audits/inspections of schools regarding their compliance with the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA).

Mr. Lutchmedial, the Director of Enforcement for NYC DEP, discussed the new asbestos regulations, filing requirements, and the new regulation’s relationship with what occurred at the Deutsche Bank Fire. The key points of his presentation were:

New filing requirement and process for ACP7s (see our Autumn 2009 Newsletter for further information on this process http://futureenvironmentdesigns.com/newsletter.htm );
The new regulations are aligned with the fire code and specific fire safety requirements;
There is no grandfathering of the regulation. If you had a project that started before the regulations took effect (November 13, 2009), you must bring your project into compliance with the new regulation;
Preparation of the work area must be in the order the regulations are written (i.e., occupant notification, posting of floor plan with location of all fire exists, vacate area, shutdown electric, worker decontamination enclosure, erection of barriers);
Added a section defining unprofessional conduct;
No longer need a variance for floor tile removals;
All variances must be designed by a NYS certified Asbestos Project Designer.

Mr. Alonge’s, the DOSH Associate Safety and Health Engineer NYS DOL and author of the current ICR56, presentation was similar to the PACNY presentation (visit http://www.labor.state.ny.us/workerprotection/safetyhealth/DOSH_CODE_RULE_56_TRANSITION.shtm if you want to see the presentation and see my blog post on that presentation at http://futureenv.blogspot.com/2009_03_01_archive.html ). In our refresher classes we’ve been discussing Mr. Alonge’s presentation since he was kind enough to provide us with a copy of the presentation. The big difference with this presentation is he provided a rough timeline for when the new regulations may come out and eventually go into effect. The key points of Mr. Alonge’s presentation were:

The new regulation will have several references to the current NYS fire and building code. Mr. Alonge views many of changes to ICR56 as already being required by the fire and building code, with a few exceptions (i.e., negative air unit disconnect switch);
An audience question brought on a discussion regarding the use of dust samples in determining the extent of incidental disturbance. Mr. Alonge’s view was that Asbestos Inspectors should rarely use dust sampling. When dust sampling is necessary then it should follow the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard method D5755 for sampling and the analysis must follow NYS DOH Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) methodology (this methodology provides you with qualititative results of positive or negative for asbestos).
Expected dates: Draft is currently at Counsel. Once Counsel is completed, anticipate submittal to the Governor’s Office of Rules and Regulation (GORR) around Jan/Feb 2010. Publish for comments April 2010. Final version by July 2010.

Mr. Malone’s, Section Chief of the Asbestos Safety Training Program of NYS DOH, discussion was on the asbestos training program and the audit/inspection program of NYS schools determining compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) AHERA regulation. Key points of his discussion were:

NYS DOH issued 26,000 asbestos certificates in New York State through 72 training providers.
Mr. Malone’s discussion of NYS DOH’s audit/inspection program for EPA highlighted several areas where schools are not complying with the AHERA regulations. These are:

Recordkeeping
No warning labels
Short term worker notification
Custodial/Maintenance Staff Training
Not identifying all ACBM
Project Designer
Clearance Sampling

The last two are significant in that once Mr. Malone discussed what was required, most people in the audience realized in regards of the last two not a single school in NYS is probably doing them. Visit our discussion group at http://groups.google.com/group/fed-forum?hl=en for a copy of the spreadsheets that Mr. Malone provided the attendees on this topic.
AHERA requires project designs developed by a Certified Asbestos Project Designer for all projects greater than a small scale short duration or minor fiber release (less than or equal to 3 linear feet (LF) or 3 square feet (SF)). Meaning in a school, even a NYS minor asbestos project (less than or equal to 10 SF or 25 LF) would require an asbestos project design written by a certified asbestos project designer.
Clearance testing for projects greater than 3 LF to less than 260 LF or greater than 3 SF to less than 160 SF require 5 inside air , 5 outside air and 3 blank samples analyzed by phase contrast microscopy. As you can see from the spreadsheet, this is a NYS State Education Department requirement. AHERA on the other hand would require only 5 inside and 2 blanks samples analyzed by PCM.

In addition to the above speakers, Ms. Gee Kay, acting Director of the Manhattan area office, representing OSHA informed us that the Obama Administration increased OSHA’s budget by 10% increasing inspections to 6,000 and allowing OSHA to hire more Compliance Safety and Health Officers. There are currently 20 CSHO in Manhattan and 5 in Queens. She also informed us of OSHA’s increased activity in rule making including the hazard communication, combustible dust, and acetylene standards. Mr. Julian Bazel, Counsel and Mr. James Hansen, Director of Code Revision, of the NYC Fire Department discussed the new fire code in NYC. Ms. Nancy Orr, Director - Global Environment, Health and Safety for Becton Dickinson, spoke about developing a global health and safety process/netrics in a de-centralized multinational corporation. While our host Mr. Michael West from Pfizer spoke on climate change and occupational hygiene; the whole day was very informative and entertaining. The Metro Chapter did a great job putting this program together. The program was well worth the trip into Manhattan and meeting some old friends made it even better.

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Paragon's Asbestos Superisor Pleads Guilty

{{en|Placing a sign warning of asbestos in the...

Image via Wikipedia

As those of you who take our refresher classes know on May 29, 2009, Certified Environmental Services, Inc., an asbestos air monitoring company and laboratory, were indicted on charges of providing false and fraudulant air monitoring results while the asbestos contractor performed illegal asbestos removal. The dominos are starting to fall, as the supervisor for Paragon pleaded guilty and is cooperating with investigators in regards this investigation. This is the first time we are seeing not only the owners of the company being charged but the individual air monitors are also being charged. This case may show the extent of the liability an individual air monitor has in performing air monitoring/sampling. Air monitors (Asbestos Project Sampling Technicians) should follow this case because it will show the level of individual liability in performing air sampling/monitoring.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Handling Vermiculite Insulation for Building Inspections and Air Monitoring

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent decision to declare a public health emergency at the Libby asbestos site in Montana has brought vermiculite insulation back in front of people’s minds. EPA’s announcement did not mention what to do if you have this type of insulation. Remember there are some major issues with this type of insulation. First it seems the vermiculite can actually hide the tremolite asbestos from detection, leading to false results. When individuals disturb the vermiculite insulation it can release tremolite asbestos at significant levels into the air.

Because of these technical issues EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) both recommend that if you find vermiculite insulation that you not test it for asbestos. Instead they recommend you assume the vermiculite insulation is from Libby and assume it contains asbestos. The Libby mine was the source for over 70% of the vermiculite sold in the United States from 1919 to 1990. EPA and ATSDR feel that the technical issues involving vermiculite sampling can complicate testing for the presence of asbestos fibers and interpreting the risk from exposure. This is a significant statement and interesting that it has not been published more.

Based on this, as an asbestos inspector, environmental inspector, home inspector, and/or air quality consultant, you must evaluate vermiculite insulation as containing asbestos (without sampling). In addition, you must inform the owner that sampling the material will not provide a definitive answer. EPA and ATSDR both recommend that professional asbestos abatement contractors handle any disturbance of the vermiculite insulation. The best practice for air monitoring and analysis of these projects, for the protection of the public, is Transmission Electron Microscopy. As these issues are not well known, even in the asbestos industry, it is important for owners to be aware of this potential problem and take the precautions necessary.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Con Edison Steam Explosion exposes Respirator Errors

Even after 9/11, we still have not learned the proper use for respirators. Police officers at the site are wearing the appropriate respirator but are they wearing it incorrectly? From the photo above what is wrong with the picture? The workers have their masks on but I bet they didn't perform a user seal check to make sure it was on correctly and working properly. As you can see from the photo the bottom straps have not been attached. The straps not being connected allows the bottom of the respirator to remain open. Since air will take the path of least resistance, it means everytime these officers breathe, the contaminants that they are to be protected from will enter the respirator from the bottom without filtering. The fact that several officers were seen wearing their respirators in this manner indicates that officers need further training on properly wearing a respirator.

The second photo shows people traveling through the area of the steam explosion. It was also noted in the Newday article "Little Risk From Asbestos" (Friday, July 20, 2007) that the Red Cross reported distributing 1,200 dust masks to city workers and commuters since Wednesday night. The problem here is that dust masks do not filter for asbestos. Another problem is that dust masks unless properly fit tested and adjusted to the face, will not ensure all the air passes through the mask instead of going around the mask. The best these masks are doing is providing the individual with a false sense of security that if there is any exposure that they are protected.

My final concern is the manner of the clean-up. I already saw several photos/videos of workers using dry sweeping clean-up the debris. This work procedure unless used together with amended water (dust suppression agent) will cause any asbestos dust in the debris to become airborne, again. Exposing workers and the public to asbestos, hence it is important to continue to monitor the clean-up of the explosion area. This will ensure that work procedures that cause the asbestos dust to become airborne are prevented.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Could this happen to you?

Aapex Environmental Services of Liverpool, New York was hit with a $57,000 fine from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Aapex was hit with this fine based on an inspection begun on November 13, 2006 which found that Aapex was exposing employees to asbestos during an asbestos removal project at the Agway Building in Dewitt, New York. The OSHA inspection found the following:

required monitoring of employees' exposure to asbestos was not conducted on several occasions even though monitoring records alleged that it had been done (OSHA issued a willful citation with a proposed fine of $42,000).
short term (excursion limit) sampling was not done.
the contractor did not keep accurate exposure monitoring records.
employees were not notified of sampling results.
employees were not trained to properly establish an asbestos containment system.
contractor did not prevent asbestos contaminated water from leaking from an enclosed work area.

For the last five violations, OSHA issued serious citations totaling $15,000. The willful citation is issued when OSHA determines that the employer commits a violation with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health. A serious violation is issued when OSHA determines death or serious physical harm is likely to result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.

Preventing these types of violations requires the development and adherence to a personal air sampling plan. The air sampling plan should properly document all segments of personal air sampling. The plan should include the number of people you will sample, calibration of equipment, documentation of who is sampled and the work tasks performed, documentation of the laboraotry accreditations, procedures for collecting samples and ensuring the samples are individually numbered, ensuring the chain of custody is completed correctly, and maintaining these records for 30 years from date of creation. The information from this plan then assists with documenting the proper respiratory protection used by the workers and assists with the respiratory protection plan and the exposure assessment for the project and future projects.

Future Environment Designs Training Center's Blog

Search This Blog