Search This Blog

Showing posts with label asbestos air monitoring. Show all posts
Showing posts with label asbestos air monitoring. Show all posts

Friday, June 21, 2019

NYC DEP Asbestos Rule Amendment Went Into Effect January 6, 2019, Public Comments On New Amendment Closes on July 22, 2019.

New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) announced that they are holding a public hearing on Monday, July 22, 2019, on amending/correcting some of the amendments that went into effect on January 6, 2019.  All comments on this new amendment must be made by July 22, 2019.   The Asbestos Rule Amendment of January 6, 2019, included quite a few changes to Chapter 1 of Title 15 of the Rules of the City of New York, for a copy of the rule with the changes incorporated, click here.  For a copy of the Asbestos Rule Amendments only, click here.  In addition, the "Promulgation of Air Asbestos Penalty Schedule" went into effect on January 6, 2019.  This penalty schedule has been incorporated into Title 53 of Chapter 1 and includes the revised violation schedule for the changes made to Title 15 by the Amendment.  For a copy of this Penalty Schedule, click here.

Asbestos Training Course
As expected most of the changes to Title 15 was in response to the over a year ago indictment and arrest of the 17-18 NYCDEP asbestos investigators, see below for the press conference or click here for Spectrum News NY 1's report.  Those indictments included recommendations from the New York City Department of Investigations (NYCDOI) click here to see the press release on the arrests and the summary of recommendations made by NYCDOI.


Some of the changes regarding asbestos investigators:
  • Subchapter A Section 1-01 subdivision (j) (3) now allows NYCDEP may block an asbestos investigator from filing an ACP5 form along with the previous wording of denying asbestos permits for non-payment of civil penalties by the abatement contractor, building owner or air monitoring company,
  • A requirement of an electronic recordkeeping system and to protect records from water damage, and a requirement to immediately report if any records are damaged, lost or destroyed,
  • Non-certified individuals may not collect bulk samples,
  • New applicants must submit documentation of successful completion of an 8 hour minimum introductory blueprint-reading course or any applicable building design and construction training or certification as established by the department and posted on the NYCDEP website,
  • Registered design professionals, certified industrial hygienist or certified safety professionals must have documentation of 6 months post-graduate experience in building survey for asbestos,
  • Associate Degree individuals must have 2 years (instead of one year) post-graduate experience in conducting surveys for asbestos,
  • Individuals with extensive experience must show 3 years (instead of two years) of experience in conducting surveys for asbestos,
  •  Applicants are allowed three attempts to achieve a passing grade on the exam.  After the third attempt results in failure, the applicant must retake the New York State Inspector Training to retake the NYCDEP exam, 
  • Section 1-16 letter (j) gives NYCDEP the authority to deny any application submitted if it is determined the applicant has failed to meet the six standards listed,
  • Section 1-16 letter (k) gives NYCDEP the authority to immediately suspend an investigator issued a notice of violation alleging unprofessional conduct that demonstrates a willful disregard for public health, safety or welfare,
  • Section 1-16 letter (l) gives NYCDEP authority for reasonable cause to believe an investigator's surveys have been performed improperly or fraudulently such that work performed poses or may pose a threat to human safety, the Commissioner may invalidate any or all ACP-5s filed by the investigator and may order the building owner to stop all work, have a new survey conducted by a different investigator, and have a new ACP5 submitted.
  • Section 1-16 letter (m) investigators must disclose prior convictions, etc.
  • Replacement certificates may only be obtained twice in any two-year validity period.
  • The addition of the number of samples required based on Surfacing Materials, Thermal System Insulation, and Suspect Miscellaneous Materials.
  • Skim coat of joint compound included in surfacing materials utilizing 3,5,7 rule.
  • Bulk Sample results/reports must be submitted within 72 hours of request (used to be 5 calendar days).
What's wrong with this picture?
Some of the changes regarding other parts of Title 15:
  • Several other definition modifications or changes, including:
    • Bound Notebook -notebook manufactured so that the pages cannot be removed without being torn out,
    • Start Date - shall mean the date when a worker decontamination enclosure system is installed and functional,
  • Approved Variances changes including automatically canceling a written approval of a variance when the building owner changes contractors,
  • Section added to experience requirement of asbestos handler supervisor,
  • Sections added to the renewal of restricted asbestos handler certificate,
  • Work Place Safety Plan's (WPSP) floor plans must now also show the location of the decontamination enclosure systems along with all project work areas,
  • Failure to comply with the approved WPSP is a violation of these rules was added.
  • A requirement that a registered design professional must submit a letter to the Asbestos Technical Review Unit affirming that the professional visited the workplace and that additional asbestos abatement, for the additional ACM added to a project, is consistent with the approved WPSP and the proposed changes will not impact egress or fire protection.
  • Electronic recordkeeping of the project record for abatement projects,
  • Air Monitoring Company must maintain electronic records for 30 years after the end of the project including:
    • NYCDEP Certificate number of all individuals (the new amendment would change this to air monitoring technicians)  who worked on the project;
    • location & general description of the project;
    • start and completion dates for the project;
    • name, address, & ELAP registration number of the laboratory used for air sample analysis;
    • a copy of the project air sampling log.
  • One air sample technician must be present per 3 work areas in one work site (the new amendment would add: except that if there are multiple work areas on the same floor, only one air sampling technician is required for that floor). 
  • A rotometer's calibration sheet must be available at the worksite,
  • Project air sampling log must be created & maintained in a bound notebook by the air monitoring company.  A copy of the log must be submitted within 72 hours of a request, used to be 24 hours.
  • Sample location sketches must be made within one hour of the beginning of sample collection.
  • Air sampling results/reports must be submitted within 72 hours of request (used to be 5 calendar days).
  • OSHA personal sampling must be made available within 72 hours of the request.
  • Entry and exit log must be submitted within 72 hours of a request, used to be 48 hours.
  • Glovebag procedures may only be used on horizontal piping.
  • The addition of on any individual floor for tent procedures.
The new amendment which is open for public comment until July 22, 2019, makes the following revisions:
  • Clarify section 1-29 by specifying that only air monitoring technicians need to have their license at the workplace, not all individuals (see the note above);
  • Clarify the requirements of section 1-36(b) as to how many air sampling technicians need to be present during sampling (see the note above);
  • Clarify that the requirements of section 1-42(a) regarding the placement of air samples apply to all asbestos projects, not only those that are conducted indoors;
  • Change the requirements for lettering on notices to be posted under sections 1-81(a) and 1-125(a), as contractors advised that the required font sizes were impractical.
  • Air Asbestos Penalty Schedule, found at Title 53 of Chapter 1 of the Rules of the City of New York (RCNY), which also became effective on January 6, 2019, had failed to carry over certain sections from the penalty schedule which had previously been located in the rules of the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings. Accordingly, DEP proposes to amend the penalty schedule to correct those omissions.
  • Finally, the proposed rule divides the penalty schedule into three subdivisions (specifically, the RCNY, the New York State Industrial Code, and the New York City Administrative Code). No substantive change is intended with respect to the amendments made by sections six and nine of the proposal other than the addition of a penalty for a violation of Administrative Code § 24-1002.
AHERA TEM method counts for total asbestos structures per cubic centimeter averaged 22 times greater than the PCM fiber counts on the same filters.

Considering this was primarily focused on the indicted asbestos investigators and recommendations from NYCDOI, there seemed to be a lot of things NYCDEP needed to clean-up in other parts of Title 15.  It is interesting that third-party analysis recommended by NYCDOI was left out of the amendment, and Future Environment Design's comment about requiring transmission electron microscope (TEM) analysis for asbestos floor tile projects was ignored.  So much for the revised purpose of these rules being to protect public health and the environment by minimizing emissions of asbestos fibers.  Not including TEM analysis for floor tile projects does exactly the opposite of that purpose.  For more information regarding this issue see our Floor Tile Debate blog post.

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Asbestos Floor Tile Debate Results

… … This debate regarding asbestos floor tiles started at the Professional Abatement Contractors of New York's (PACNY's) 2017 Environmental Conference.  At the conference, after our presentation, a member of the audience challenged our statement that asbestos floor tile removal should be cleared by the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM) method (see the video of our presentation here, the challenge is at the end of the video).  In the video Mr. Chris Alonge, of Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (DASNY) defends our call for TEM clearance for asbestos floor tiles and we had some additional people approach us after the presentation supporting our side of the debate.  As some of you know, we decided it would be neat to see if their are others who feel the same way.  We decided to use Survey Monkey to ask three simple questions regarding this issue.  These questions were:
  • When doing asbestos flooring removal, which method was used the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 7400 Phase Contrast Microscope (PCM) method or AHERA TEM method for clearance? The answers we got was 47.1% used the NIOSH 7400 method; while 29.4% used both methods; and 23.5% only used the TEM method.
  • When using the AHERA method for clearance, what was the typical size of the fibers found?  The answers we got were 58.8% less than 5 micron; 29.4% both sizes were equal amounts; and 11.8% greater than 5 micron.
  • Have you ever encountered during asbestos flooring removal when utilizing both the NIOSH 7400 (PCM) & the AHERA (TEM) methods of analyses, that the NIOSH 7400 passed while the AHERA method failed?  The answers we got were 52.6% yes, 36.8% no, and 10.5 never used both.
Improperly Removed Floor Tiles
We would like to thank all of you who participated in our survey.  The results are interesting, the first question is not surprising since the NIOSH 7400 method is the cheapest method and both New York State (NYS) and New York City (NYC) require this method as the minimum method.  The second question is also not surprising since this is the reason for our call for clearance for floor tile jobs to be by the AHERA TEM method.  The final question proves the point we've been making.  If even one project can actually fail by AHERA TEM but pass using the NIOSH 7400, this should be a concern for any person who is concerned for the safety and health of the occupants who would occupy the space after clearance.
Another Improper Floor Tile Removal
As we mentioned in our presentation, we didn't come up with this idea out of the blue.  In 2003, Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene published a study called "Asbestos Release During Removal of Resilient Floor Covering Materials by Recommended Work Practices of the Resilient Floor Covering Institute" by Marion Glenn Williams, Jr. and Robert N. Crossman, Jr. from the University of Texas Health Center at Tyler, Tyler Texas.  You can find the study in our Future Environment Designs website under our Resource Page in the dropbox folder.

Some of the major points from this study were:
  • Asbestos used in flooring materials is Grade 7 - Shorts and Floats.  The dimensions of this material are very small and may not be resolvable by the Polarized Light Microscope (PLM).  Which is why in NYS we require floor tiles to be analyzed as a nonfriable organically bound (NOB) material (analysis by PLM and if negative result for asbestos then analysis by TEM).
  • Since the dimensions of these fibers used in the manufacture of floor tiles are so small, it would explain why we typically see very low personal exposure levels by phase contrast microscope (PCM) during floor tile removals.  Many ultrafine fibers are not counted due to resolution (0.2-0.25 um) and the count protocol, which provides that only fibers longer than 5 micron with a 3:1 or greater length-to-width ratio are counted.
  • Many research studies have found the preponderance of fibers at autopsy left in lung tissue, pleural plaques, and lymph nodes of persons who have occupational exposure to asbestos are shorter them 5 micron in length.
  • The NIOSH 7402 TEM method is flawed because it underreports the amount of asbestos in the samples because it ignores all fibers less than or equal to 5 micron and all those fibers longer than 5 micron but less than 0.25 micron in diameter.
  • AHERA TEM method counts for total asbestos structures per cubic centimeter averaged 22 times greater than the PCM fiber counts on the same filters.
  • AHERA TEM asbestos concentrations obtained during mastic removal with a commercial mastic remover averaged 11 times higher than those measured when removal used amended water.
  • The study also found that there was considerable amounts of asbestos dust settled on exposed surfaces during tile removal.  Indicating a need to thoroughly HEPA vacuum and wet clean surfaces or dust may remain that could be re-entrained by occupant activity.
  • The study also indicates that workers in these areas, would not have to wear respirators, so anyone in these areas would have inhaled asbestos fibers or structures of respirable dimensions.
  • The study suggests that for Resilient Flooring Removal clearance sampling should use aggressive methods, require a clearance level of less than 0.005 structures per cubic centimeter for each sample, and all samples analyzed by AHERA TEM protocol.  It also suggests a minimum number of samples for clearance should be one sample per 500 square feet, a volume of air of at least 1250 liters, and the use of 0.45 micron mixed cellulose ester filters in a 25 millimeter diameter conducting cassette with a 50 millimeter extension cowl.
As we said, we did not arrive at our decision lightly.  After reading this study it became apparent to us that asbestos containing flooring or mastic removal should be cleared using the AHERA TEM method to ensure the work area is actually free of asbestos fibers (we already do this in schools under AHERA for large asbestos projects, some schools require all asbestos projects ave to be cleared by AHERA TEM).  In addition, any negative exposure assessment for floor tile removal that does not include AHERA TEM analysis of some of the samples should not be accepted as definitive to allow workers to not use respirators during asbestos flooring removal.  As the study showed their could be significant exposure to workers from these respirable fibers/structures that the NIOSH 7400 method is not picking up.

We hope this information explains our position, and we look forward to a continuation of this debate. We intend to press the case for a requirement for AHERA TEM clearance for flooring removal, especially if New York State truly intends to move forward with an update of Industrial Code Rule 56.
  
  Related articles

Friday, July 11, 2014

Its Summertime! Asbestos Project Monitor Overtime Heaven?

Here we are again another summertime and another year of complaining about how bad asbestos project monitors are.  It seems this has become a summertime tradition.  Project monitors who don't show up, don't do what they are told, don't know the regulations, sleep on the job, leave the job, don't know how many samples to take, etc., etc.  We find this interesting because the project  monitor should be one of the most knowledgeable people on an asbestos project.  Not only should the asbestos project monitor understand air sampling requirements & theory, they should be able to read and understand building plans, be able to communicate effectively to get the contractor to follow the specifications, regulations, and drawings, write legibly & diligently so the log can be read by others & they can know what happened on the project, be ready to testify in a court of law regarding what they observed on the project, handle scheduling, phasing, & timing on a project and handle a number of other issues related to asbestos abatement including occupational safety and health issues.

When we have these discussions in our classes, our belief is that a project monitor should have a college education.  In our opinion, high school students should never be hired for project monitoring (can we say interns, which is a person who should be in training (directly supervised) for the position they are interning for).  As Albert Einstein said:

"The value of a college education is not the learning of many facts but the training of the mind to think."

English: Albert Einstein Français : portrait d...
English: Albert Einstein Français : portrait d'Albert Einstein (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
We see the problem as that asbestos project monitors are not respected for what they should be doing.  This disrespect is primarily coming from certain building owners who feel there is no need for an asbestos project monitor who coordinates the project and legally documents the project.  The hourly rate for an asbestos project monitor should have been increasing over the years, however, this is not the case.  Then you have building owners and abatement contractors who feel project monitors delay projects, well a good project monitor would actually reduce the amount of time a project takes.  We agree with some that asbestos project monitors should be individually held responsible and liable for the work they do or don't do.  This would definitely increase the quality of work and would make sure project monitors had some gumption! However, are project monitoring firms ready for a project monitor who actually dictates the job like project monitors in the past used to?

We have recently reviewed a number of project monitor logs and in the logs we reviewed project monitors made no entries other than the time they arrived, time for lunch, and the time they left for an 8-hour day.  In our view New York State Industrial Code Rule 56 created a minimum standard for a project monitor log by creating requirements for a supervisor log.  Since the project monitor's log is supposed to document the project legally, the supervisor requirements are the minimum requirements, along with any additional information and events that occurred at the site/project that are legally important for the building owner.  In addition, if the project monitor didn't write it, it didn't happen.  What does that mean?  Well if the project monitor didn't make an entry in their log about aggressive sampling such as the amount of time for leaf blowing or the number of fans installed, etc.  Well guess what, the project monitor didn't do it.  The log is supposed to be a legal journal of what was done on the project.  If the project monitor doesn't make an entry, well it probably wasn't done.  Why would anyone assume otherwise?


In our view this is what has been forgotten regarding the importance of the asbestos project monitoring. We've heard of a number of issues with contractors and workers where they do not properly protect the workers from exposure or workers are not decontaminating properly.  As a building owner this is important information that should be documented by the asbestos project monitor cause if a worker or a family member were to develop mesothelioma then the log would protect the owner from a potential third party litigation.  This is one of the most important reasons for hiring an asbestos project monitor, the documentation of contractor, worker, & visitor violations and the cause of their potential exposure or the reason they were probably not exposed.

Recent investigations of project monitoring companies like CES (though a recent court decision may vindicate CES) and JMD, both of NY, indicate that the Federal government is recognizing a problem with asbestos project monitoring.  Even New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) has focused some of its inspections/violations on the project monitoring firms.   Covering everything from logbooks, chain of custodies, air sampling stands, visual inspections, etc.  We think its time for some individual responsibility and the regulatory agencies should start issuing violations to the individual asbestos project monitor (as NYCDEP has done with asbestos supervisors).  This would definitely increase the professionalism of the asbestos project monitors and hence increase the quality of the work performed on asbestos projects.
 

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

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Asbestos Found At Plattsburgh, NY Site

An article titled "Asbestos Found At Nikki's Site; Tear Down Can Start" in the Press Republican Newspaper on August 9, 2011 discusses the condemned bar and rooming house at the corner of Main and Academy streets that partially collapsed on July 25 and damaged the adjacent property, known as the Faubert Building in Plattsburgh, New York.  Testing confirmed that the debris from the collapse of Nikki's Place contains asbestos.

According to the article, Dilshad Perera, on-site coordinator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that as soon as the estimated funding needed for the cleanup is in place, a certified asbestos-abatement contractor can be hired to safely haul the material away.

We assume this project is using the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) Industrial Code Rule 56 section on controlled demolition with asbestos in place.  Though it does surprise me that the EPA is on-site versus NYSDOL.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, August 12, 2011

White House and EPA Misled Public on Air Quality After 9/11 Attack.

NEW YORK, NY - JULY 08:  Construction continue...Image by Getty Images via @daylifeBased on a New York Times article "Public Misled on Air Quality After 9/11 Attack, Judge Says" - Federal judge Deborah A. Batts of Federal District Court in Manhattan, found that Christine Whitman, when she led the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), made "misleading statements of safety" about the air quality near the World Trade Center in the days after the Sept. 11 attack.  These statements may have put the public in danger.  This pointed criticism of Mrs. Whitman came in a ruling by the judge in a 2004 class action lawsuit on behalf of residents and schoolchildren from downtown Manhattan and Brooklyn who say they were exposed to air contamination inside buildings near the trade center.  The suit, against Mrs. Whitman, other former and current EPA officials and the agency itself, charges that they failed to warn people of dangerous materials in the air and then failed to carry out an adequate cleanup.  The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and want the judge to order a thorough cleaning.  In her ruling, Judge Batts decided not to dismiss the case against Mrs. Whitman, who is being sued both as former administrator of the EPA and as an individual.

In a separate but similar article by CBS News titled "W. House Molded EPA's 9/11 Reports", the EPA's internal watchdog found that the White House influenced the statements released by the EPA and that the data did not support the statements that were released.  Making the 9/11 tragedy even deeper considering the amount of harm we did to ourselves by these actions.
 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, August 09, 2011

NYSDOL Asbestos Inspector Indicted in Kensington Towers Probe

Thank you to Darren Yehl of Cornerstone Training for bringing this indictment to my attention:

A state inspector and two City of Buffalo inspectors are among nine individuals and two companies indicted Thursday on felony charges related to an asbestos removal project in the city.  The 23-count federal indictment also charges six of the contractors' employees with improperly removing and disposing of asbestos at the Kensington Heights housing project on Fillmore Avenue.  Federal and state officials would not confirm the likelihood that workers or neighborhood residents were put at risk during the asbestos removal, but they would not rule it out either.

"These are very serious charges," U.S. Attorney William J. Hochul Jr. told reporters. "Asbestos is a highly dangerous substance."

The charges outlined in the 62-page indictment center around the work done by two companies -- Johnson Contracting of Buffalo and JMD Environmental Inc. of Grand island -- and the allegations that they violated the federal Clean Air Act by improperly disposing of asbestos.  The indictment also charges a state Labor Department inspector, Theodore Lehmann, and two city inspectors, Donald Grzebielucha and William Manuszewski, with falsifying inspection reports.

"They certified false documents or lied about what they saw," Hochul said.

Prosecutors said one of the inspectors has reportedly retired but two others remain on the job.  State and city officials declined to comment, and Lehmann, Grzebielucha and Manuszewski could not be reached to comment.  When asked if bribes were involved, Hochul said his office has yet to uncover any evidence of payoffs.

"At this point, I can't comment on the motive," he said of the inspectors.

Most of the indictment focuses on the work of the two companies hired to remove and dispose of asbestos at Kensington Heights.  Visible from the Kensington Expressway, the 17-acre public housing project has been a symbol of decay and abandonment for three decades.  The complex, made up of six vacant towers behind Erie County Medical Center, is owned by the Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority and was targeted for demolition two years ago.  Tearing down the eight-story towers is the first step in the Housing Authority's proposal for a new $105 million retirement community.

As part of the demolition, Johnson Contracting was hired to remove and dispose of the estimated 63,000 square feet of asbestos in each of the towers.  JMD was hired to monitor their work.  The indictment alleges that from June 2009 to January 2010, Johnson and two of its managers -- President Ernest Johnson and Supervisor Rai Johnson -- instructed workers to dump asbestos down holes cut through the floors of each building.  They also are charged with failing to wet the asbestos and leaving it in open containers for disposal. 

Aaron Mango, the assistant U.S. attorney overseeing the case, said Johnson's practices violated a wide range of regulations regarding the disposal of asbestos.

"It is so dangerous," Mango said, "you have to insure you're taking these steps."

The indictment also alleges that JMD, the company hired to monitor Johnson's work, conspired to violate the Clean Air Act.  The company was hired to conduct air sampling tests and other oversight work but, according to prosecutors, failed to do those tests properly.  The government also claims JMD falsified inspection reports.  The indictment also charges four of JMD's employees: Field Supervisor Evan Harnden of North Tonawanda and Project Monitors Henry Hawkins of Buffalo, Chris Coseglia of Niagara Falls and Brian Scott of North Tonawanda.

Each of the 23 counts carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison, a fine of $250,000 or both.

"Asbestos is a known carcinogen and we take very seriously these investigations," said David G. McLeod Jr., assistant special agent in charge of the Criminal Investigative Division of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

According to the EPA, exposure to asbestos increases the risk of lung disease, including lung cancer and mesothelioma.  State and federal officials would not speculate on the public health risks posed by the asbestos-removal effort at Kensington Heights.  They did acknowledge, however, that given the companies' alleged practices and the six-month period in which the alleged violations took place, it is possible the public was put at risk.

"There are plenty of good reasons why the (Clean Air Act) is on the books," Hochul said.

Prosecutors said the indictment is the culmination of an investigation involving a wide range of state and federal agencies, including the FBI, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the New York State Department of Environmental ConservationWork on Kensington Heights stalled last year and prompted the Housing Authority to terminate its demolition contract with developer Hormoz Mansouri in January.  Mansouri countered by suing the authority for breach of contract.  Federal officials said Mansouri, a politically connected contractor, is not accused of any wrongdoing.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, August 01, 2011

NYS Senate Considering Asbestos Notification Fee Changes

ALBANY, NY - JUNE 16: The New York State Senat...Image by Getty Images via @daylifeThe New York State Senate is considering changes to the notification fees paid by residential homeowners.  These changes are being considered, because currently, a very small percentage of asbestos project notifications are received from projects involving owner occupied one or two family structures.  The NYS Senate believes that so few of these notifications are received because the current fee structure is cost prohibitive, which results in homeowners either doing the abatement project illegally themselves or not doing the project at all.  If home-owners are charged a fee of no more than five hundred dollars ($500) for the project notification it will result in improved compliance and an increase in the number of homeowner asbestos project notifications received by the NYS Department of Labor, since it would become more economically feasible to comply with the law.   For more information S748-2011 can be found at: http://m.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S748-2011.

 Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Inspectors Discover Asbestos at East Hampton Middle School

Mold behind sheet rock (asbestos joint compound?).
Interesting article "Inspectors Discover Asbestos at East Hampton Middle School" regarding asbestos and mold in the East Hampton Patch.  Kind of interesting how this ties into my last post regarding avoiding tunnel vision.  The original focus of the inspection was mold and Ms. Barbara Eisenberg, the inspector for the New York State Department of Labor, instead found asbestos containing debris.  This is another perfect example of making sure all issues are addressed not just the mold concern but realizing the mold may be growing on the asbestos containing material and the asbestos needs to be addressed, too.  Since asbestos is regulated in New York State and mold is not (yet?), the asbestos will take priority in the way the work will be handled. 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, April 11, 2011

New York State Releases FAQ on Asbestos Analysis

Asbestos (tremolite) silky fibres on muscovite...Image via WikipediaLate last week we received a FAQ from New York State Department of Health.  The FAQ is focused on analyzing asbestos samples and the environmental laboratory accreditation program.  The FAQ has several interesting piece of information.  Those of you who attend my classes, have heard me discuss the problems with analyzing vermiculite and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) statement that asbestos inspectors should not sample the material but should assume the material is asbestos.  Well Question 10 in this document states "Since there is currently no approved analytical methodology to reliably confirm vermiculite as non-asbestos containing it is best to assume vermiculite is contaminated with asbestos and proceed accordingly."  We will add this document to all our course manuals, and/or you can access the document at: http://futureenvironmentdesigns.com/Media/NYS%20Asbestos%20FAQ%20%20April%208-2011%20(2).pdf.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, March 09, 2011

NYC Title 15 Revisions Took Effect February 3, 2011

We recently received an email from Steven A. Camaiore, P.E., the Deputy Director of the New York City Environmental Protection - Environmental Compliance Asbestos Control Program.  In the email he advised that Title 15, Chapter 1 RCNY Asbestos Control Program Rules & Regulations were revised and the new Rules took effect February 3, 2011.  Find the revised rule at: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/asbestos/asbestos.shtml

In addition, he also advised that the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYC DEP) will be strictly enforcing the following provisions of Title 15, Chapter 1 RCNY Asbestos Control Program Rules & Regulations effective May 1, 2011:

“§ 1-01 (j) (3) DEP may deny any application for an asbestos abatement permit pursuant to section 1-26 of these rules, or a variance application pursuant to section 1-03 of these rules, where any party to the asbestos project, including but not limited to the abatement contractor, building owner, and air monitoring company, has docketed, unpaid civil penalties imposed by the Environmental Control Board for violations of these rules, sections 24-146.1 and 24-146.3 of the Administrative Code, or NYSDOL ICR 56.”

Companies with outstanding penalties can pay their outstanding penalties in any of the following ways:

• On-line at http://nycserv.nyc.gov/NYCServWeb/NYCSERVMain

• By phone at (212) 504-4041

• By mail:
New York City Department of Finance,
345 Adams, 3rd Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Attention: Timeko Hunte

• In person at any Finance Business Center. For location and hours of operation, visit: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/contact/contact_visit.shtml.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Asbestos Worries Close Saint Louis Park Schools

Asbestos Handler Initial Class at IUOEImage by angelogarciaiii via FlickrThose of us in the asbestos industry will find the above news story very interesting (find the original news story at StarTribune.com).  The officials of St. Louis Park schools in Minnesota were worried that asbestos floor tiles (approximately 10% asbestos) were being worn down, by tracked-in salt and sand, and could be releasing dangerous asbestos.  The officials decided to close the city's junior and senior high schools on Monday, February 14, 2011.  The schools will remain closed Tuesday as state and school officials work to assess the hazard and determine if other schools face similar problems.  Asbestos floor tile was commonly installed in hundreds of 1960s-era schools across the metro area, but it remains unclear how many could still have the asbestos tile or how much risk St. Louis Park students faced, said one expert at the Minnesota Department of Health.
Quoted in the article was Diedra Hudgens, senior project manager at Brooklyn Park-based Institute for Environmental Assessment, or IEA.  Her company tested the two St. Louis Park schools for asbestos Monday and Tuesday and will be "taking a closer eye" on the 60 other Minnesota schools it works with.  "We're definitely going to be informing our clients -- other school districts -- about what we found, and we'll definitely be taking steps to monitor it," said Diedra Hudgens.  "Every district has an elementary school or something this vintage."
So what started this concern of salt and sand releasing asbestos?  St. Louis Park school staffers complained late last week about dust outside a school nurse's office, prompting IEA tests on Saturday.  A protective wax layer had been worn down by salt and sand tracked in from roads and sidewalks, dulling the floor.  As a precautionary measure on Monday, school was dismissed for additional testing at both the high school and the nearby junior high -- which has similar flooring.  These tiles were removed from the high school and Monday the school was tested by IEA crews in full protective gear.
What makes this interesting is that the article does not discuss the results of any of the testing done nor does it discuss what type of testing was done?  We can only assume that the results must of indicated a need to do something because the schools were closed and the tiles were removed.  Since Long Island had alot of snowfall this year, and I'm sure we used more salt and sand this year then in the past, this news story implies that there is an increase potential for the release of asbestos from floor tiles that are subjected to tracked-in salt and sand.  It will be interesting to see if and how this story plays out or if it just dies on the vine.
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...