NYSDOL’s New Asbestos Survey Fact Sheet: When the “Guidance” Creates More Questions Than Answers!

Over the years, one of the things we have learned in the asbestos industry is that "details matter".  They matter when an asbestos inspector is conducting a survey.  They matter when a consultant is preparing a report. They matter when a contractor is bidding a project.  They matter when the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) Asbestos Control Bureau (ACB) reviews a project.  And, most importantly, they matter when workers are standing in a building getting ready to disturb material that may contain asbestos.

NYSDOL Fact Sheet on Asbestos Surveys

That is why we were interested in reviewing the NYSDOL Asbestos Control Bureau fact sheet titled “Expectations for Contents of Asbestos Surveys and Assessments.”  We introduced this fact sheet in our blog "Regulatory Updates, Industry Concerns, and Straight Talk from OSHA and NYSDOL – Day 3." The intent of the fact sheet appears straightforward: to provide asbestos inspectors and consultants with additional direction on what NYSDOL expects to see in an asbestos survey or assessment.

Unfortunately, when you start comparing the information in the fact sheet with the actual requirements of Industrial Code Rule 56 (ICR56), federal requirements, laboratory analytical methods, and the realities of performing asbestos inspections in the field, there are several areas that deserve closer examination.

Some of the information is useful.  Some of it appears to go beyond what the regulation actually says.  And some of it is internally inconsistent with other information NYSDOL has provided to the industry.

As someone who has been involved with asbestos inspections, abatement, consulting, training, and regulatory issues for decades, we believe these issues need to be discussed—not to criticize for the sake of criticizing, but because inspectors, consultants, contractors, building owners, and regulators all need to be working from the same set of rules.

The Importance of Getting the Survey Right

An asbestos survey is not simply a report that gets placed in a project file.  The survey is the foundation upon which the project is built.  The owner uses it to understand what asbestos-containing materials (ACM) may be present.  The designer uses it to develop the project specifications.  The contractor uses it to prepare a bid and develop an abatement plan.  The workers rely on it to understand what they may encounter.  If the survey is incomplete, everything downstream can be affected.

We have spent years as an asbestos abatement consultant and trainer.  In class and when reviewing other consultants' work, we know what happens when the survey doesn't identify materials that should have been identified:

• Change orders,
• scope changes,
• delays,
• disputes,
• additional engineering controls,
• additional sampling, and
• additional abatement.

And sometimes, much worse, workers discover ACM after the project has already started.  That is why we have always believed an asbestos survey should be conducted with the understanding that you are not just documenting a building—you are developing the information everyone else will depend on.

  

Our book "The Role of Asbestos Inspections in Construction Safety"

With that in mind, we developed a comprehensive “Asbestos Bulk Sampling Package” designed to provide practical, field-ready guidance. Click here to purchase the package.  The package includes:

• An eLearning/On-Demand training course,
• A comprehensive reference book,
• A durable laminated bulk sampling table designed for field use.

The goal is simple: provide asbestos inspectors with a clear understanding of sampling requirements, sampling strategies, homogeneous area determinations, suspect materials, and regulatory expectations.  Too often, inspectors rely on incomplete information, outdated guidance, or interpretations that may not withstand regulatory scrutiny.  We wanted to create a resource that inspectors can use both during training and while conducting actual field inspections. 

Problem No. 1: “At Least Two Samples” Does Not Mean Two Samples Are Enough

One of the most concerning statements in the fact sheet is under "Minimum Samples Required."  The fact sheet states:

• “At least two samples of each homogeneous material must be taken to disprove the presence of asbestos.”

It then states that this is consistent with federal sampling requirements.  This is an oversimplification.  The number of samples required for an asbestos survey cannot simply be reduced to a blanket statement that "two samples are enough."
Sampling requirements depend upon the material, the homogeneous area, the size of the homogeneous area, and the purpose of the survey.  See our blog post "The Role of Asbestos Inspections in Construction Safety: Don’t Miss the Asbestos Inspection Panel at PACNY’s Environmental Conference!" for the specifics of asbestos bulk sampling.

Sprayed-on fireproofing requires the 3-5-7 rule for samples, or 9 samples are recommended

AHERA sampling requirements, for example, have specific sampling protocols for surfacing materials, thermal system insulation, and miscellaneous materials.  OSHA also has requirements that must be considered depending upon the project.  The bigger problem is what happens when someone reads this fact sheet and interprets it as:

“NYSDOL says I only need two samples.”

That is not how a competent asbestos inspection should be performed.  Two samples may be appropriate in some circumstances.  Two samples may be inadequate in others.  The inspector needs to exercise professional judgment and conduct sufficient sampling to adequately characterize the material.  The goal should not be to meet the minimum number of samples.  The goal should be to adequately characterize the building materials that will be impacted by the project.  There is a big difference.

Problem No. 2: Using Linear Feet for All Thermal System Insulation

Another issue we noticed in the NYSDOL fact sheet is the way asbestos quantities are identified. The fact sheet states:

“Linear Feet (LF): Thermal system insulation (TSI). Square Feet (SF): All other ACM, debris and contaminated surfaces, if applicable.”

At first glance, this may seem like a simple way of identifying quantities.  However, all thermal system insulation is not measured in linear feet.

Linear feet is appropriate for measuring pipe insulation because the pipe itself is generally identified by its length, as noted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its letter to the City of Newport News in Virginia.  But TSI is a much broader category.

Linear feet (LF) is only for pipes

ICR 56 defines TSI as insulation applied to pipes, fittings, boilers, breeching, tanks, ducts, or other structural components to prevent heat gain or loss.

So, how do you measure the asbestos-containing insulation on a boiler?  What about a tank?  A duct?  Breeching?  These materials must be quantified by using square feet.

For example, a project may contain 500 linear feet of asbestos-containing pipe insulation, but it may also contain asbestos-containing insulation on boilers, tanks, ducts, and fittings. Those materials are better quantified in square feet or by the individual component, depending upon the material and the purpose of the quantity measurement.

This distinction becomes important when developing an asbestos abatement design and determining the amount of material that needs to be removed.  The fact sheet should not imply that all TSI is measured in linear feet.  A more accurate approach would be to identify pipe insulation in linear feet, while other TSI components should be quantified using the measurement that accurately represents the material being addressed.

This may seem like a minor issue, but anyone who has prepared an asbestos abatement estimate knows that how you quantify the material directly affects the scope, bid, work plan, and ultimately the cost of the project.

Again, the goal should be accuracy—not simply putting everything into a convenient measurement category.

Problem No. 3: “Fair” and “Poor” Conditions Instead of the AHERA Damage Classifications

Another issue with the fact sheet involves the terminology used to describe the condition of asbestos-containing materials.

The fact sheet provides the following classifications:

• Intact: No visible damage.
• Good: No visible or very limited damage.
• Fair: Some visible, but not extensive, damage.
• Poor: Extensive damage and/or deterioration.

The problem is that “fair” and “poor” are not the terminology we would expect to see used when documenting asbestos material conditions based on the training requirements of the EPA Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) for asbestos inspectors.

Damaged or Significantly Damaged?

The AHERA terminology is based on whether asbestos-containing material is damaged (less than <10% evenly distributed or <25% localized) or significantly damaged (greater than >10% evenly distributed or >25% localized).  That distinction is important.  An asbestos survey is not simply a property-condition assessment where we are deciding whether something looks good, fair, or poor.  We are trying to determine the condition of the asbestos-containing material and whether it has been damaged to the point where the regulatory requirements associated with that condition are triggered.

There is a significant difference between saying:

“The pipe insulation is in fair condition", and saying:

“The pipe insulation is damaged.”

The first statement is subjective.  The second statement has a regulatory meaning, and there is a quantity associated with the determination.

What one inspector considers “fair,” another inspector may consider “poor.” One consultant may consider “some visible damage” insignificant, while another may determine that the same damage requires corrective action.  That is exactly why regulatory terminology matters.

If AHERA wants inspectors to document conditions using “damaged” and “significantly damaged,” then those are the terms that should be prominently identified in the fact sheet.  We already have enough confusion in asbestos reports without introducing another set of condition classifications.  The purpose of an asbestos survey is not to give the ACM a real-estate-style condition rating.  The purpose is to accurately document the condition of the asbestos-containing material and provide information that can be used to make the appropriate regulatory and project decisions.

Problem No. 4: Another Missing Requirement: NVLAP in Addition to NYSDOH ELAP

Perhaps one of the more important omissions in the fact sheet is the discussion of laboratory accreditation.  The fact sheet correctly identifies the New York State Department of Health Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (NYSDOH ELAP) and states that bulk asbestos analyses must be performed by an ELAP-accredited laboratory using an approved methodology.

That is important.  However, the fact sheet does not adequately address the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) requirement.  This is not simply a technicality.  The creation of the asbestos fiber analysis Laboratory Accreditation Program (LAP) was mandated by the AHERA, which requires laboratories that analyze asbestos samples taken from public or private elementary or secondary schools to be accredited by NVLAP.  By extension, any federal regulation that references AHERA for the purpose of asbestos surveys then requires NVLAP accreditation for sample analysis.

For asbestos bulk analysis, the laboratory needs to meet the applicable New York State requirements, but asbestos bulk analysis under certain federal programs also involves the NVLAP requirements.  This is particularly important for inspectors and consultants working on projects where both state and federal requirements apply.  The problem with leaving NVLAP out of a document titled “Expectations for Contents of Asbestos Surveys and Assessments” is that an inspector reading the document could come away with the impression that having an ELAP-accredited laboratory is the only laboratory qualification that needs to be considered.  It isn't that simple.

We have to look at what type of sample is being analyzed, what analytical method is being used, what regulation applies, and what accreditations are required for that analysis.

The laboratory's accreditation needs to match the work being performed.  This is another area where the fact sheet could have been much more useful to the industry by clearly explaining the relationship between NYSDOH ELAP and NVLAP, rather than mentioning one and leaving the other out.

Problem No. 5: The Statement Regarding Debris Is Particularly Concerning

The fact sheet states:

“There is no approved method for sampling debris.”

This is an area where the industry needs significant clarification.  In our recent asbestos inspector and designer classes, we have been discussing exactly this issue because dust and debris are identified under Industrial Code Rule 56 as suspect miscellaneous asbestos-containing materials.  The obvious question becomes:

If dust and debris are suspect ACM, how are inspectors supposed to determine whether they contain asbestos?

The fact sheet says that mixed heterogeneous or indistinguishable debris cannot be thoroughly sampled and therefore must be assumed to contain asbestos.  But there is a difference between heterogeneous debris that cannot reasonably be characterized and settled dust or identifiable debris that can be collected and submitted as a bulk sample.  That distinction matters.  For a discussion regarding this issue see our After the Refresher Podcast with Dr. Martin Rutstein and Mark Rutstein of Env. Consulting & Mgmt. Services.

For example, an inspector may encounter a pile of identifiable building material debris.  It may be possible to collect representative portions of that material and submit them for bulk analysis.  There are also established techniques for collecting settled dust from surfaces, including micro-vacuum and wipe sampling methods.  For more discussion about this issue, see our blog post "Update of Dust and Debris Sampling in New York State: What Asbestos Inspectors Need to Know".

Bulk sampling tools.

However—and this is where things get interesting—the analytical method and the regulatory purpose of the sampling have to be carefully considered.  

Problem No. 6: “If Asbestos Is Detected, It Must Be Addressed”

The fact sheet states that micro-vacuum and wipe sampling cannot be used to disprove the presence of asbestos.  It then states that if these methods detect asbestos structures, they must be included and addressed in the contamination assessment.  That creates another question:

What does “addressed” mean?

Does the presence of an asbestos structure automatically mean the entire surface is contaminated?  Does it mean the surface is 

ACM?  Does it mean the area requires abatement?  Does it mean the material is Regulated Asbestos Containing Material (RACM)?  Those are very different regulatory determinations.  Finding an asbestos structure on a surface does not automatically tell us:

• Where the structure originated;
• How much asbestos is present;
• Whether the material from which it originated is ACM;
• Whether the material is friable;
• Whether the asbestos is currently capable of releasing fibers;
• Whether the contamination resulted from a previous abatement project;
• Whether the contamination is localized or widespread; or 
• What level of response is appropriate.

The analytical result is one piece of the puzzle.  It should not automatically become the entire puzzle.

Problem No. 7: The Fact Sheet's Treatment of Layered Systems

The fact sheet states that layered systems must be sampled so that each layer can be analyzed separately.  We agree with the underlying concept.  Inspectors need to understand what materials are present in a layered assembly.  However, the statement that:

"If one portion of the system is asbestos the entire system must be removed as asbestos containing”

That statement needs careful consideration.  Consider a roof assembly.  You may have:

• Roofing membrane;
• Built-up roofing;
• Asphalt;
• Insulation;
• Vapor barrier;
• Deck;
• Flashing;
• Adhesive; and
• Other components.

If one component contains asbestos, that does not necessarily mean every component in the entire roof assembly is an asbestos-containing material.  The fact sheet does provide an exception where a portion of a layered system exists only in a specific area and can be reliably identified.  But again, the language invites broad interpretations.  The survey should identify "what material contains asbestos and where it exists".  That is much more useful than simply declaring an entire assembly ACM.

So if the patch is ACM and the rest of the roof is not, does it mean it all has to be treated as ACM?

Problem No. 8: Conflicting Laboratory Results

Another interesting section involves conflicting laboratory results.
The fact sheet states that if one sample is found to contain greater than 1% asbestos, the sampled material and all associated homogeneous materials must be classified as ACM.
Again, this is an important concept.  You cannot simply ignore a positive sample because another sample tested negative.  .  

• But what happens when the laboratory results are genuinely inconsistent?
• Was the material actually homogeneous?
• Was there laboratory contamination?
• Was there cross-contamination?
• Was the sample representative?
• Was there a preparation problem?
• Was the material layered?
• Was there a different material embedded within the sample?
• Was the sample location properly documented?

These questions need to be answered before simply declaring that the entire homogeneous area is ACM.  The fact sheet suggests that a contractor may attempt to address a questionable positive result through a site-specific variance.  But a variance should not become the substitute for proper sampling and laboratory quality control.

Problem No. 9: Pre-Demolition Surveys and Destructive Sampling

One of the more useful portions of the fact sheet discusses pre-demolition surveys.  The fact sheet correctly emphasizes that a pre-demolition survey needs to identify PACM, suspect miscellaneous ACM, and ACM throughout the structure.  It also says that inaccessible materials should be assumed to contain asbestos rather than simply placing a disclaimer in the report stating that only accessible materials were sampled.  We agree with the basic premise.  However, this raises another practical issue.  How far should an inspector go with destructive sampling?
The fact sheet recommends determining whether walls, ceilings, and floors contain ACM before implementing destructive sampling methods to determine whether ACM exists behind those systems.
That is good advice.

The last thing an inspector should do is disturb an asbestos-containing material simply to determine whether another asbestos-containing material is located behind it.  This is where experience becomes extremely important.  An inspector needs to understand building construction, recognize suspect materials, anticipate concealed conditions, and plan the investigation accordingly.  Sometimes that means coming back to the building more than once.  A thorough survey is not always a one-day event.

Problem No. 10: The Definition of “Survey” Versus “Assessment”

Another issue that we believe needs additional clarification is the distinction between a survey and a contamination assessment.
These are not necessarily the same thing.

An asbestos survey is intended to identify asbestos-containing materials that may be impacted by a planned project.  A contamination assessment is intended to evaluate areas where asbestos-containing material has already been disturbed or where contamination may exist.

When the two concepts are blended together, the result can be confusion regarding:

• Sampling requirements;
• Analytical methods;
• Quantification;
• Delineation;
• Abatement requirements;
• Variances; and
• Final clearance.

The industry needs clear definitions and clear expectations.

The Biggest Problem: The Fact Sheet Should Not Replace the Regulation

This may be the most important point we can make.  A fact sheet is useful.  Guidance is useful.  Frequently Asked Questions are useful.  But guidance should not create requirements that do not exist in the regulation without clearly identifying the legal basis for those requirements.

Industrial Code Rule 56 is the regulation.  The fact sheet should help inspectors understand the regulation—not create a parallel regulatory system.  When consultants and contractors begin treating a fact sheet as though it is itself a regulation, we have a problem.  And when different NYSDOL documents appear to provide different answers to the same question, we have an even bigger problem.

Why This Matters to Building Owners

At the end of the day, these aren't simply academic arguments.
They have real financial consequences.  If an asbestos survey says an area is contaminated when it may not be, the owner could spend hundreds of thousands of dollars addressing an unnecessary condition.  If a survey fails to identify ACM, the contractor could discover the material during construction.
That could result in:

• Change orders.
• Project delays.
• Additional abatement.
• Additional air monitoring.
• Additional design costs.
• Potential regulatory violations.

And, most importantly, "potential exposure to workers and building occupants." Neither extreme is acceptable.  We need accurate information.

Experience Still Matters

This is why we continue to emphasize the importance of experience in asbestos consulting.  

• You can teach someone how to take a sample.
• You can teach someone how to fill out a chain of custody.
• You can teach someone how to read a laboratory report.

But experience teaches you where to look, what to question, what may be missing, and when the information doesn't make sense.  That is particularly important when dealing with complicated buildings, layered materials, debris, concealed materials, contamination assessments, and unusual laboratory results.  Technology and regulations will continue to change.
The need for experienced professionals will not.

Training is only the beginning

We Need Better Guidance, Not More Confusion

We believe NYSDOL deserves credit for attempting to provide additional guidance to the asbestos community.  However, guidance needs to be technically accurate, internally consistent, and clearly connected to the regulatory requirements.

If the industry is going to use this fact sheet as a standard for preparing asbestos surveys, then the information needs to withstand the same scrutiny that NYSDOL expects consultants to apply to their own surveys.  That means asking some difficult questions.

• What is the regulatory basis?
• What is the sampling methodology?
• What does the laboratory result actually tell us?
• What does it not tell us?
• What is the regulatory threshold?

And perhaps most importantly:

• Are we deciding based upon science and regulation—or simply because a piece of paper told us to?

After more than three decades in this industry, we have learned that asbestos work is rarely as simple as checking a box.

• The details matter.
• The sampling matters.
• The laboratory method matters.
• The interpretation matters.

And ultimately, the quality of the asbestos survey matters.  Because when the survey is wrong, everyone downstream pays the price.

PACNY 29th Annual Environmental Conference Part Two – Day Two Recap

Day Two of the Professional Abatement Contractors of New York (PACNY) 29th Annual Environmental Conference on February 26, 2026, at the Turning Stone Resort & Casino delivered a full schedule of technical presentations, regulatory updates, and practical field discussions, all complemented by strong engagement in the Vendor Exhibit Hall.

Future Environment Design's Team in the Vendor Hall

With the morning sessions split between the Mohawk and Tuscarora Rooms, attendees could tailor their experience to their discipline and interests while still coming together throughout the day in the Oneida Room for networking, lunch, and the always-popular Happy Hour.

Vendor Exhibit Hall Sets New Record

Before diving into the sessions, it’s worth highlighting that this year’s Vendor Exhibit Hall, located in the Oneida Room, featured 32 vendors, setting a new conference record.

This continues to reflect the industry's growth and the importance of direct interaction among service providers, manufacturers, trainers, consultants, and contractors. The exhibit hall remained active throughout the day, especially during lunch and the closing Happy Hour, providing valuable opportunities to connect and discuss new products, services, and technologies.

Morning Sessions – Mohawk Room

"Lead-Based Paint Regulations: Recent Changes & Updated Standards" by Brad Arthur, PE – Arthur Engineering DPC. The day began with a regulatory-focused presentation on lead-based paint, where one of the more notable updates discussed was the shift away from using the term “clearance.”  Instead, the industry is moving toward defined terminology using two distinct clearance-related levels:

• Work Completed
• Pre-Occupancy

2026 Changes to the Lead Standard

Brad also addressed the growing challenges associated with analytical methods at increasingly lower detection limits. The cost differences between methodologies were particularly eye-opening:

• Flame AA: approximately $4 per sample
• ICP: approximately $45 per sample

This has significant implications for project budgeting and laboratory selection as regulatory thresholds continue to tighten.

"The Science You Should Know" by Kevin Hutton – EAST Centers of NY.  Kevin delivered a science-driven session reinforcing the importance of understanding the “why” behind what we do in the field. While many of us operate within regulatory frameworks daily, revisiting the underlying science helps strengthen decision-making, interpretation of results, and overall credibility in the field.

"Exposure Assessments Under OSHA’s Asbestos Construction Standard" by Peter DeLucia – Riedman Companies. This presentation focused on the practical application of exposure assessments under 29 CFR 1926.1101, highlighting:

• Real-world compliance challenges
• Proper interpretation of exposure data
• The importance of defensible assessment strategies

The discussion resonated with many in the room, particularly regarding the gap between regulatory language and field implementation.

Morning Sessions – Tuscarora Room

"Immigration Enforcement: Know Your Rights – Employer Edition" by Michael Paglialonga, Attorney at Law, at Littler Labor & Employment Law Solutions.  This session provided a timely and important briefing on the evolving landscape of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and I-9 compliance, particularly in construction and hospitality sectors.  The key takeaway was clear:

• We are seeing a shift from historically routine, paper-based audits to more aggressive, high-frequency site inspections and enforcement actions, with projections reaching up to 15,000 audits annually.
• The emphasis has moved toward proactive compliance, or what was described as “preventative maintenance” of documentation, to avoid significant civil and potential criminal liability.

Michael Paglialonga, ICE Presenter, photo by Nathan Boor of AAC

"Workers’ Compensation: Protecting Yourself and Your Team" by Anthony Tomeselli – NYS Workers’ Compensation Board.  Anthony provided a comprehensive overview of workers’ compensation, focusing on:

• The distinction between business advocates and injured worker advocates
• Proper classification of independent contractors
• The implications of the Construction Industry Fair Play Act

This was a valuable reminder that misclassification and misunderstanding coverage requirements can have serious financial and legal consequences.

Anthony Tomeselli's points regarding the Business Advocate

"From Mold to Measurement: A Practical Overview of Mycotoxins" by Aaron Wilson – Hayes Microbial Consulting.  Aaron’s presentation highlighted the complexity of mycotoxins and their impact on indoor environmental quality.  One of the most critical takeaways:

• Mycotoxins are toxic at extremely low concentrations—parts per billion (ppb) and even parts per trillion (ppt).

This reinforces the need for careful interpretation of sampling data and a strong understanding of the limitations and capabilities of current analytical methods.

Aaron Wilson discussing types of mycotoxins

Afternoon Sessions

"Asbestos in Settled Dust – Is it a Valid Method?" Panel Discussion Panelists:

• Angelo Garcia, III – Future Environment Designs, Inc.
• Martin S. Rutstein, Ph.D. – Environmental Consulting and Management Services, Inc.
• Marc Rutstein – Environmental Consulting and Management Services, Inc.

This panel sparked significant discussion around one of the more debated topics in the industry—the validity and application of settled dust sampling for asbestos.  The conversation focused on:

• Whether it should be used as a screening or decision-making tool
• Interpretation challenges
• Regulatory limitations
• Real-world implications, including cost impacts when misapplied

We really enjoyed working with the Rutsteins in putting this presentation together.  Though Dr. Rutstein's review of our presentation made us feel like we were back in college working with our professors.  See our presentation below, and our slides can be found in our training library.

"Diversity in Safety – Inclusive Safety Designs" by Courtney Connelly – The El Group, Inc.  Courtney delivered an important session on designing safety programs that are not just compliant, but inclusive.  The focus was on providing equity tools—ensuring that all workers, regardless of background or ability, have access to the same level of protection.  This is an area that continues to evolve and deserves ongoing attention in safety program development.

Courtney Connelly discussing OSHA PPE Update

"From the People’s House to Every House" by Linda Reinstein – Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization.  Linda Reinstein presented from Washington, D.C., on enforcement gaps, accountability, and the current status of the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now (ARBAN) Act.  The central question: Where do we stand today?  The presentation reinforced:

• Ongoing regulatory gaps
• The need for comprehensive legislative action
• The human impact of delayed policy decisions

As always, Linda’s presentation grounded the technical discussions in real-world consequences and public health impact.

Linda Reinstein discussing asbestos disease 

"Common Compliance Issues in the Field" by Stacy Portnoy – New York State Department of Labor Asbestos Control Bureau.  Closing out the formal sessions, Stacy provided a practical look at common compliance issues observed in the field.  These types of presentations are always valuable, as they reflect what regulators are actually seeing on projects—often highlighting recurring issues that are entirely preventable with proper planning and oversight.

Stacy Portnoy discusses the most common violations in 2025

Closing the Day: Networking and Industry Engagement

The day concluded with the Happy Hour Networking Event in the Vendor Exhibit Hall.  With record vendor participation and strong attendee turnout, the room remained active and engaged. These interactions continue to be a key component of the conference—providing an opportunity to discuss challenges, share solutions, and strengthen professional relationships across the industry.  One of the interesting vendors was A2Z Environmental LLC because they have a battery-operated pump capable of sampling for asbestos (both NIOSH 7400 method and the AHERA TEM method) and mold (spore trap sampling).  See the video from the Happy Hour Networking Event below:

Final Thoughts

Day Two of the PACNY Conference successfully balanced technical depth, regulatory insight, and practical field application.  From evolving enforcement trends and analytical challenges to emerging discussions on equity and technology, the sessions reflected where the industry stands today—and where it’s heading.

Stay tuned for Part 3, where we’ll wrap up the final day of the conference and key takeaways

Related Articles:

• PACNY 29th Annual Environmental Conference Returns to Three-Day Format at Turning Stone