The Fallacy of Asbestos Clearance Air Sampling, or 5 Reasons Why We Should Stop Using Phase Contrast Microscopy for Clearance.

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) regulation introduced the requirement of clearance sampling after an asbestos abatement project was completed.  The AHERA regulation applies to schools from Kindergarten to 12th grade (K-12), both public and private schools.  However, for all intents and purposes, the AHERA method of clearance serves as the industry standard when final clearance is performed for most asbestos abatement projects, especially when areas are to be re-occupied.  The requirements for clearance are found in two sections of the rule:

• Response Actions; §763.90 (i)
• Appendix A (to Subpart E) - Interim Transmission Electron Microscopy Analytical Methods - Mandatory and NonMandatory - and Mandatory Section to Determine Completion of Response Actions

AHERA allows final clearance air sampling to be done by phase contrast microscopy (PCM) methodology for projects less than or equal to 160 square feet (SF) or 260 linear feet (LF) by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 7400 methodology (Issue 3: 14 June 2019 is the current issue).  For projects greater than 160 SF or 260 LF clearance shall be done by the AHERA transmission electron microscopy (TEM) method (requirements at 763.90 (i) (4) and Appendix A).  Since this article's purpose is to discuss why we should not be using the PCM method we will focus our discussion on this method specifically.  An important point to remember is that the method was designed for personal sampling of workers in environments with actual asbestos exposures.  AHERA adapted the method for clearance requiring that each sample must be less than or equal to a limit of quantitation (LOQ) for PCM of 0.01 fibers per cubic centimeter (f/cc).

Over the years, it has become abundantly clear that the PCM method should not be used for clearance sampling.  The top five reasons it should not be used for clearance sampling are:

Size of the Fibers Analyzed

The rules for the NIOSH 7400 method specifically require the microscopist to count only fibers that are greater than 5 micrometers (microns) length.  When it comes to diameter it is questionable whether fibers less than 0.25 microns in diameter can or cannot be detected by the method.  All other fiber lengths and narrow widths are not counted they are too thin with normal PCM resolution.  At the Professional Abatement Contractors of New York 2023 Environmental Conference, Lee Poye, Vice President Emeritus, Eurofins Built Environment, discussed his presentation "Asbestos in Human Tissue and the Environment - Does Size Matter?"

Lee Poye Presenting at PACNY 2023

According to his presentation, in an article titled "Short, Fine, and WHO Asbestos Fibers in the Lungs of Quebec Workers With an Asbestos-Related Disease" by G. Adib, F. Labreche, L. DeGuire, C. Dion, & A. Dufresne and published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine in 2013 the type of fibers that are seen in diseased tissue are less than 5 microns and less than 0.25 microns in width.

 

Lee Poye Presenting at PACNY 2023

Mr. Lee Poye's own research (not published) found a similar finding see below.  Based on his presentation, we know that size does matter regarding diseased human tissue.  Mr. Poye's conclusion from his presentation were:

• What's the skinniest PCM fiber a "typical AMT" can see? 0.18 micron.
• Just how much chrysotile is missed by PCM? Almost ALL of it!
• What % of chrysotile fibers detected in human tissue would've been visible by PCM?  Maybe 2% to 3% at best!

Lee Poye's Own Research at PACNY 2023 

Considering between 98-99% of the chrysotile fibers that are seen in the tissue of diseased lungs are not seen by the PCM method.  Why are we using a method that does not detect the fibers that actually cause disease for clearance?

Is the Work Area Actually Clean?

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.  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).  This is why New York State Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (NYS ELAP) requires 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).
• 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 asbestos exposure are shorter than 5 microns 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 microns and all those fibers longer than 5 microns 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.

At the 2017 PACNY Environmental Conference a debate occurred about our call for TEM clearance sampling for all asbestos floor tile projects based on the above study.  This debate led to our writing the article Asbestos Floor Tile Debate Results Post and our article in Healthy Buildings.  Our major points were:

• When using the AHERA TEM method for clearance, what was the typical size of the fibers found?  The answers we got were 58.8% less than 5 microns; 29.4% of both sizes were equal amounts; and 11.8% greater than 5 microns.
• 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 TEM method failed?  The answers we got were 52.6% yes, 36.8% no, and 10.5% never used both.
• 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.

At the 2020 PACNY Environmental Conference – Jack Snider, III CSP LAC, GC of AMRC presented on Take-Home Asbestos Exposure. During the removal of floor tile, mastic, and other non-friable ACM, workers are typically wearing street clothes into the work area, and they are not showering nor vacuuming themselves/their clothing upon exiting the containment.  

Mr. Snider's presentation found workers performing floor tile projects had significant Take-Home Asbestos Exposure.  These points all bring up the question of whether the work area is actually clean when we use the PCM method.  Many building abatement projects are passing by PCM that would not pass clearance by TEM.  

Is 0.01 fibers/cubic centimeter (f/cc) Safe?

Well based on the World Health Organization (WHO), and the EPA there is no safe level of exposure.  If we look at how many asbestos fibers we are breathing in at 0.01 f/cc if we were making a moderate effort it would be approximately 100 asbestos fibers per minute or for an 8-hour day it would be 48,000 asbestos fibers.  If we look at the amount of asbestos fibers in a cubic foot of space it would be 283 asbestos fibers/CF.  So what is the risk at 0.01 f/cc?  In 2021, the Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) prepared an expert opinion for the European Chemical Agency (ECHA) on the scientific evaluation of occupational exposure limits for asbestos. They have concluded that there is no “safe” level of asbestos exposure. Instead, they provided an exposure-risk relationship to express the excess risk of cancer at different levels of asbestos exposure.  According to the RAC, the risk of excess lifetime cancer risks is 12 cases per 100,000 exposed at 0.01 f/cc. 

Compare that risk with the following, in 2022, 1,069 construction professionals died while working, a rate of 9.6 fatalities per 100,000 full-time workers, according to a report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  That fatality rate was the third highest, behind agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting (18.6 per 100,000) and transportation and warehousing (14.1 per 100,000).  Realize the current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) is 0.1 f/cc based on an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) and according the RAC that risk is 125 per 100,000 exposed.

Industry, occupation, and exposure history of mesothelioma patients in the U.S. National Mesothelioma Virtual Bank, 2006–2022 found these points:

• Among the 1023 industries recorded for those having mesothelioma, the most frequent cases were found for those in manufacturing (n = 225, 22.0%), construction (138, 13.5%), and education services (66, 6.5%)….
• Males (583) or persons aged >40 years (658) at the time of diagnosis tended to have worked in industries traditionally associated with mesothelioma (e.g., construction), while females (163) or persons aged 20–40 years (27) tended to have worked in industries not traditionally associated with mesothelioma (e.g., health care). 

Malignant Mesothelioma Mortality — United States, 1999–2015 Weekly / March 3, 2017 / 66(8);214–218 Jacek M. Mazurek, MD, PhD1; Girija Syamlal, MBBS1; John M. Wood, MS1; Scott A. Hendricks, MS2; Ainsley Weston, PhD1 found:

• Current occupational exposure occurs predominantly during maintenance and remediation of asbestos-containing buildings.
• Continuing occurrence of malignant mesothelioma deaths in persons aged <55 years suggests ongoing inhalation exposure to asbestos fibers and possibly other causative EMPs.

The above table is from the above referenced material.  However, we have added the last column based on a 30-year latency period which gives an interesting perspective based on when the person most likely was exposed to asbestos.  Consider that over 650 individuals were most likely exposed before working age.  this could result from exposures due to take-home exposure, do-it-yourself projects, or from attending schools that are not managing asbestos properly.  It is also interesting to note that the number of mesothelioma deaths between 1999-2015 has remained roughly the same, between 2479-2873 individuals. 

Based on all this information a better clearance level would be 0.001 f/cc and a better occupational exposure limit would be 0.01 f/cc or 0.005 f/cc as an 8-hour TWA.  In November 2023, the European Union has adopted a reduction of the exposure limit for workers to 0.01 f/cc as an 8-hour TWA and after a maximum transition period of six years, member states will have to switch to electron microscopy.  In addition, in the EPA's chrysotile asbestos ban beginning November 5, 2024,....no person is exposed to an airborne concentration of chrysotile asbestos in excess...0.005 fibers per cubic centimeter (f/cc) as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA).  Considering all of this it is obvious 0.01 f/cc is not an appropriate level for clearance.  Utilizing TEM for clearance would ensure we are achieving the lowest protective level possible.

Are We Sampling Correctly?

In our blog post The Reality of Asbestos Clearance Air Sampling! Are You Sampling Enough? and our article in Healthy Buildings "You Can't Handle The Truth....About Clearance Sampling."  The major points from these articles were:

• Many believe or have been misled to believe that PCM sampling is the same as TEM sampling in terms of sampling volume.  This is not the case.  A PCM sample volume meeting AHERA clearance requirements are not at 1200 liters.  To do so is outside of the NIOSH 7400 method requirements for this purpose.  Even others have used the limit of detection sample volume to collect 560 liters.  
• In the NIOSH 7400 method, the issue regarding "relatively clean" environments" is addressed on page 4, number 4, note number 1 which states  "In relatively clean atmospheres, where targeted fiber concentrations are much less than 0.1 f/cc, use larger sample volumes (3000 to 10,000 liters) to achieve quantifiable loadings."
• Even though the formula calculates that 3,850 liters of air should be collected, many people use note 1 to collect 3,000 liters of air for clearance.  Either way clearance samples should be collected using no less than 3,000 liters of air as the minimum allowed for the NIOSH 7400 method requirements and AHERA compliance. 

Airbox Calibration Setup

In New York State the recommended sampling volume is 1,200 liters of air (based on the NYSDOH ELAP and the Bureau of Occupational Health and the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) FAQ#13) and in the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) Title 15 the required sampling volume is 1,800 liters of air for PCM clearance.  Based on the LOQ formula what are the consequences of not collecting the required volume?  Remember this is a formula and if you modify the formula to solve for L instead of t.  You then plug in the amount of time you're actually sampling for then you get the actual result you are achieving.

The NIOSH 7400 method, utilizes the formula above to determine the amount of time needed to achieve the fiber density, E, for optimum filter loading.  So, the minimum density the method allows is 100 fibers per square millimeter (mm²).  The Ac is the collection area for a 25-mm cassette which is 385 mm².  The Q is the sampling flow rate in LPM, and t is the time we are collecting the sample.  Modifying the formula to calculate for L or the LOQ concentration, we get this for 560 liters.

When using 1200 liters we get the following:

When using 1800 liters we get the following:

The consequences of the above numbers are that the:

• EPA AHERA clearance requirement of less than or equal to 0.01 f/cc is not being met. 
• NYSDOL Industrial Code Rule 56 (ICR56) clearance requirement of less than 0.01 f/cc is not being met.
• NYCDEP Title 15 clearance requirement of less than 0.01 f/cc is not being met

According to the RAC, the risk of excess lifetime cancer risks is 25 cases per 100,000 exposed at 0.02 f/cc and somewhere between 25 and 65 cases per 100,000 exposed at 0.03 f/cc.

At the 2024 Environmental Information Association (EIA) National Conference & Exhibition we conducted a survey of the attendees regarding the volume of air they collected for PCM clearance.  Below are the results:

As you can see from the results none of the individuals that answered the question are actually collecting the correct volume of air required by the NIOSH 7400 methodology.  Improper collection of PCM samples is not meeting the clearance requirements.

The Cost of Clearance Sampling

We know what you are going to say TEM samples cost way more than PCM samples.  We agree they do, but not compared to when AHERA first came out.  When AHERA first came out there were hardly any laboratories that did TEM analysis and those that did the samples cost between $350-500 per sample.  The difference between PCM analysis costs and TEM analysis costs has come way down.  A recent quote we received from a reputable laboratory for PCM analysis with a 3-hour turnaround was $12.50 per sample while TEM AHERA analysis with a 4-hour turnaround was $150 per sample.  The price difference is smaller than it once was. The odd math is that the difference in price between PCM and TEM for many projects is not even a rounding error to the overall budget, where the total construction budget could be in the millions (renovations). 

If PCM cannot see the fibers that cause disease or even determine that the area is clean, is it worth the money or the paper it is printed on when it comes to final clearance air sampling? 

TEM should be the only method employed for clearance air sampling!

AHERA Bulk Sampling Rules and Other Requirements that Apply to Asbestos Surveys.

In 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) responded to a question by the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) regarding the minimum number of bulk samples required for suspect asbestos-containing miscellaneous materials (see our blog post dated 6/24/08 and rebooted 07/09/22). This clarification determined that the minimum number of samples is two (2) samples for each suspect homogeneous miscellaneous materials.  This clarification was determined based on a review of the EPA's Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) section 763.86 -Sampling. This section of the AHERA regulation is used by asbestos inspectors to determine the number of samples to take for each homogeneous area.  However, it is important to remember when sampling joint compound and add-on material (which are miscellaneous materials) that EPA's "Sampling Bulletin 093094", requires 3 samples per homogeneous area for joint compound and 3 samples per homogeneous area of add-on material.

The core of all asbestos inspections is the determination of the type of material (surfacing material, thermal system insulation, or miscellaneous material) and whether the materials are homogeneous. A homogeneous area is defined as a type of material that is uniform in color and texture (as per 763.83). Once the type of material is determined and the material is classified as a homogeneous area, then the number of samples for each area is determined.

If the suspect asbestos material is a surfacing material, the square feet of the homogeneous area is determined which provides the inspector with the minimum number of samples that shall be taken. If the homogeneous area is less than 1,000 square feet, the inspector shall take 3 samples. If the area is between 1,000 and 5,000 square feet, the inspector shall take 5 samples. When the area is over 5,000 square feet, the inspector shall take 7 samples. This is sometimes known in the industry as the 3-5-7 rule.  In addition, EPA also published "Asbestos in Buildings: Simplified Sampling Scheme for Friable Surfacing Materials," otherwise known as the "Pink Book."  This document not only describes the process for random sampling but also recommends that for surfacing materials the number of samples should be 9 per homogeneous area no matter the number of square feet.

Should the suspect asbestos material be classified as thermal system insulation then the inspector must determine if the material is a homogeneous area, a patch material, or a cement or plaster used on fittings (tees, elbows, or valves). Homogeneous areas of thermal system insulations shall require 3 samples, while each homogeneous area of patch material less than 6 linear feet or 6 square feet shall require only 1 sample. Cement or plaster used on fittings shall be sampled based on each insulated mechanical system (hot water, cold water, steam, chilled water, etc.) and shall require a minimum of 2 samples to  be taken.  In addition, EPA strongly recommends that at least three samples be taken in large homogeneous areas, even when the regulations do not require it.  This recommendation was published in EPA's 700/B-92/001 A Guide To Performing Reinspections Under AHERA.

Some general rules to remember when taking bulk samples is sampling should be taken in a randomly distributed manner, samples cannot be composited, and shall be submitted to laboratories accredited by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) and, in New York State, approved New York State Department of Health Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (NYSDOH ELAP).  Asbestos Inspectors determine a homogeneous area contains asbestos when one of the required numbers of samples contains asbestos in the amount greater than 1%. Should all the required samples taken in a homogeneous area result in asbestos amounts less than or equal to 1%, then the area does not contain asbestos as per EPA. However, you must make sure your client is aware that under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulation 1926.1101 these materials are still regulated as asbestos and there are specific requirements under the OSHA regulation on handling these materials, see OSHA's standard interpretation letter dated November 24, 2003.  

As Asbestos Inspectors we should also remember that the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) has a Standard Practice for Comprehensive Asbestos Survey ASTM E2356-18.  This standard practice has also been approved by EPA as the method for performing asbestos surveys for the purposes of complying with the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) regulation.  That regulation requires a "thorough inspection" of the facility for asbestos and EPA expects an owner/operator to follow the steps described in Sections 1 through 5 and section 8 (the pre-construction survey) in the ASTM standard.  Being an Asbestos Inspector and performing an asbestos survey is not an easy task.  There are a lot of different documents that you have to have knowledge about to be able to perform your task and then on top of that you must have knowledge regarding where asbestos was used in building materials.

New York City's Asbestos Regulation Revised. Again!

On April 28th, 2022, New York City published a notice of adoption in the City Record for the revisions to the Asbestos Control Program Rules and Regulations (RCNY Title 15 Chapter 1).  These revisions will become effective on May 28th, 2022.  Of course, there are some significant changes that asbestos contractors, asbestos consultants, & asbestos investigators should be prepared for.  These changes include:

NYCDEP will need to revise the confined space standard reference to 1926 Subpart AA Confined Spaces in Construction

• New wording regarding making a false statement/documents not only to the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP), but to any city agency or any individual related to an asbestos project, asbestos surveys, or any document required to be filed under these rules.
• The addition and subtraction of some definitions:
• Airtight was added which "means secured and sealed utilizing 6 mil plastic sheeting and tape to make a barrier through which no air, dust or debris can be transmitted."  Not sure we like this definition.  No air can be transmitted, with just plastic and tape?
• ARTS E-File was added.  Which is the web-based filing system that NYCDEP uses to file all things related to asbestos projects.
• Asbestos Project Air-Sampling Technician, Confined Space, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Construction Safety and Health card, and warning line system were added. 
• Bound Notebook was subtracted, but a Permanently bound log was added.  "Permanently bound log shall mean a log consisting of sequentially numbered sheets of paper, pre-printed or handwritten, that is permanently secured to the front and back covers by stitching, glue, and binding that creates a strong and lasting bond and makes readily discernible the removal or insertion of sheets after the log’s first use."  We added the bold section to point out that a composition notebook no longer can be used.  Since they are not glued.  We did a quick search and found that "Smyth Sewn (also known as Section Sewn)" would meet this requirement, we're sure there are others.
• The definition for disturb has been modified and "shall mean any activity that disrupts, impregnates, or strips the matrix of asbestos-containing material (ACM) or presumed asbestos-containing material (PACM), or that generates debris, visible emissions, or airborne asbestos fibers from ACM or PACM. This includes but is not limited to the removal, encapsulation, enclosure, renovation, repair, or cleanup of ACM or PACM."  Of course, when we read this we had to whip out our Thesaurus (dusting it off or of course, we could have googled it, sorry we're a little old school) to see why NYCDEP uses the word impregnate (obviously it would not be our first impression of the word, which leads to many very bad images)!  The second definition for impregnate is to soak or saturate (something) with a substance.  Interesting wonder if there might have been a better word to use?
• The definition of the log was changed to "shall mean a permanently bound official record of all activities that occurred during the project.  One log must be maintained by the abatement contractor in accordance with section 1-92 Work Place Entry and Exit Procedures, and one log must be maintained by the air monitoring company in accordance with section 1-37 Sampling Equipment Requirements."
• They added "Project monitor’s report. “Project monitor’s report” shall mean the "Form ACP-15" that the project monitor is required to submit for partial or complete asbestos project closeout as approved by NYCDEP."
• Variances must be made through the ARTS E-File System.  Submitted by a project designer and authorized by the building owner or authorized agent.  Including the description of the deviation, and a description of the hardship preventing the required procedures from being employed.  A sketch is no longer allowed it must be a drawing. 
• The addition of "any abatement activity to be performed within a work area located in a confined space" to the requirements of when an asbestos abatement permit is required.  This requires a Work Place Safety Plan (WPSP).  They added that the asbestos abatement permit would expire upon the expiration date of the asbestos project notification ACP-7 form.  In addition, sections in "Failure to terminate asbestos abatement permit within year" were deleted related to extending the permit.  Regarding the letter from the registered design professional finding additional ACM on a project, it must be filed through the ARTS E-File.
• Emergency project notifications must be filed through the ARTS E-File system (instead of telephone communication),  If the applicant does not have a valid ARTS E-File account, then telephone notification shall be made to 311.  The cover letter that accompanies the ACP-7 Form must be from the building owner or their authorized agent and must include:
• the nature of the emergency;
• a description of the scope of work.  With respect to projects commenced under this section, the department, based on an inspection by the department and other relevant agencies, may exempt the project from the requirements of 15 RCNY § 1-26 Asbestos Abatement Permits.
• The Certified Asbestos Investigators (CAI) must respond to the NYCDEP’s request for inspection within fourteen (14) business days and provide a date, time, and location for an inspection which is within 21 days of the date of the request. Failure of the investigator to either respond to the NYCDEP’s request for an appointment or provide a date, time, and address for an inspection will result in the suspension of the CAI's certificate until such appointment is completed and these records are made available for inspection.
• Chain of custody forms (regarding the air sampling) are now part of the project record and shall be kept on-site at all times.  The chain of custody forms, along with the project air sampling log, and a copy of the project monitor's report is added to the records the asbestos abatement contractor shall maintain for at least 30 years after the end of the project.
• Changes to air sampling requirements include cassettes that "must be labeled with sample identification numbers prior to the commencement of air sampling".  Air sampling assembly must be checked for leaks and occlusions "throughout the shift and documented in the project air sampling log."  The project air sampling log must be a "permanently bound book."  Added to the notes of the air sampling table "Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) is required in schools in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) regulations." and removed from the notes was "or the pre-abatement area sampling result(s) for interior projects where applicable."  In addition, the following statement was added wherever multiple samples are required "which must be representative of the work area. The air samplers must be placed separate and apart from one another and must not be grouped together."  For clearance sampling "samplers shall be no further than (vs approximately) 50 feet from the entrance to the work area."
• During abatement air sampling for minor projects was added: "For minor projects employing glovebag or tent procedures, one area sample shall be taken outside the glovebag or tent, not more than five feet from the uncontaminated entrance to the glovebag or tent."  According to NYCDEP, this was added to be consistent with NY State (NYS) requirements regarding air sampling for minor projects.  Well, NYS Department of Labor Industrial Code Rule 56 (NYSDOL ICR56) does not require air sampling during abatement for minor projects.  It does require clearance upon glovebag failure or loss of integrity or tent failure or loss of integrity or incidental disturbance projects, but not during abatement.  In fact, this change would require clearance of the minor project if the during abatement sampling result exceeded 0.01 fibers per cubic centimeter (f/cc), or if there were visible emissions detected during the project, or if the work area to be reoccupied is an interior space at a school, healthcare, or daycare facility.
• They modified the section Materials and Equipment, with "Ladders or scaffolds of sufficient dimension and quantity shall be available so that all work surfaces can be easily and safely reached by inspectors and asbestos handlers."  Asbestos handlers were added to the section.  In addition, these subsections were added:
• Ladders: Where ladders are used to access or reach work surfaces for the conduct of abatement activities, care must be taken to prevent breaching of the containment areas and the ladder’s integrity must be maintained to ensure safety.  Ladders and their use shall comply with OSHA 29 CFR 1926. Subpart X Ladders 1926.1053.
• Scaffolds: Where scaffolds are used to reach work surfaces or for the conduct of abatement activities, scaffold joints and ends shall be sealed with tape to prevent the incursion of asbestos fibers. Scaffolds and their use shall comply with OSHA 29 CFR1926. Subpart L Scaffolds 1926.450; 451 and 452.
• Walking Surfaces. Walking and working surfaces shall be protected from tripping or stepping into or through holes or openings, including skylights, by covers secured to the surface in accordance with OSHA Section 29 CFR 1926.501.  According to NYCDEP, they added this section due to a recent fatal accident at an asbestos work site.  We did a search and it seems this accident may have happened on November 1, 2021.  It was reported by the NYC Department of Buildings (NYCDOB) as the Gowanus Roof Fall. Workers were performing asbestos abatement work on the roof of a three-story building at 289 3rd Avenue, Brooklyn.  One of the workers left the work area to use the restroom and apparently fell through a 15-inch gap between the building and the supported scaffold, falling approximately 25 feet from the roof onto a first story set back in the rear of the building. The worker died of his injuries.  OSHA did an inspection of this accident and issued 3 scaffold violations and 2 ladder violations for a total of $40,604 in fines, which are being contested.
• The abatement contractor's log requirements were moved to section 1-92 Work Place Entry and Exit Procedures.  "The abatement contractor’s log shall be permanently bound and at a minimum shall identify fully the building  owner, agents, contractor(s), the project, each work area and worker respiratory protection employed, and other pertinent information including daily activities, cleanings and waste transfers, names and certificate numbers of asbestos handler supervisors and asbestos handlers; results of inspections of decontamination systems, barriers, and negative pressure ventilation equipment; summary of corrective actions and repairs; work stoppages with reason for stoppage; manometer readings at least twice per work shift; daily checks of emergency and fire exits and any unusual events."
• Personal protective equipment shall be provided by the abatement contractor.
• NYCDEP added the following to the workplace entry and exit procedures:  "When abatement activities are located in a confined space the contractor must comply with all the requirements set forth in OSHA 29 CFR 1910.146.and 1926.21(a) and (b)."  This is very interesting because OSHA regulations 1910.146 do not apply to the construction industry.  Its 1926 Subpart AA Confined Spaces in Construction applies to the construction industry.  Read our blog post regarding the Confined Spaces in Construction standard and its requirements (very similar to the General Industry standard 1910.146, but with specific differences related to construction and technology that is available today that was not available when the 1910.146 came out). 
• An interesting change is that chutes can only be used inside a work area that is under negative pressure.  Deeming that chutes to transport asbestos from rooftops is unsafe.  We wonder what evidence they have for this?
• Encapsulation and Enclosure procedures must be conducted with the full containment of the work area or the tent procedures.  Some other modifications.
• Glovebag procedures now require "A visual clearance inspection must be conducted by the asbestos handler supervisor and project monitor after the work area dries, to ensure the absence of ACM residue or debris in the work area. The clearance inspection must be documented in the abatement contractor’s log and the project air sampling log."
• Added air monitoring in accordance with the air monitoring sections 15 RCNY §§ 1-31 through § 1-45 was added to the Tent procedures section, along with "A visual clearance inspection must be conducted by the asbestos handler supervisor and project monitor after the work area dries, to ensure the absence of ACM residue or debris in the work area. The clearance inspection must be documented in the abatement contractor’s log and the project air sampling log."
• Foam Procedure for Roof Removal changes include the establishment and maintenance of a warning line system on the roof throughout the project, the contractor must comply with OSHA 1926 Subpart M, specifically 1926.501 Duty to have fall protection & 1926.502 Fall protection systems criteria and practices, exterior or interior chutes are prohibited to transport asbestos-containing roofing material (ACRM) from the roof to lower floors, and visual inspection must be documented in the abatement contractor's log and project air sampling log.
• Foam/Viscous Liquid Use in Flooring Removal changes includes visual inspection must be documented in the abatement contractor's log and project air sampling log.
• Abatement from Vertical Exterior Surfaces changes include the contractor must comply with OSHA 1926 Subpart M, Fall Protection, 1926 Subpart L, Scaffolds, and the NYC Building code, change to sidewalk bridges is "Sidewalk bridges in the restricted area shall be covered with two layers of fire retardant 6-mil plastic, placed over and secured to the bridge, spread across the full width of the bridge and up the interior walls of the bridge so the walls are fully plasticized" and the clearance inspection must be documented in the abatement contractor's log 
• Controlled Demolition with Asbestos in Place has been changed "A condemnation order or declaration issued by the NYCDOB or a signed and sealed condemnation letter from the Owner’s registered design professional which has been acknowledged by the NYCDOB must be submitted to the NYCDEP through the ARTS E-File system.  A site-specific scope of work identifying the steps to control asbestos emissions during the controlled demolition must be submitted and approved by NYCDEP prior to the commencement of work.
• The final cleaning procedures were changed to add "After the plastic barriers on the walls and floors have been removed, a third cleaning shall be performed of all surfaces in the work area by wet cleaning and/or HEPA vacuuming. A minimum of a one-hour waiting period shall be conducted to allow the work area to dry prior to the visual inspection by the air monitor and asbestos supervisor."

No roof parapet walls will require guardrails on asbestos roof removals

As you can see there are a number of changes some significant and some minor.  NYCDEP regulation first went into effect in 1985.  The first changes were made in 2011, and then additional changes were made in 2019.  Here we are three years later with more changes which they held a public hearing on December 23, 2021, and announced through the ARTS E-File system.  It seems they were reluctant to change the regulations much in the past (1985 to 2011) but now seem more than willing to make changes when they feel it's necessary.  Unlike, NYSDOL which has wanted to modify ICR56 since 2011 and still has not been able to.

    

The Environmental Information Association Conference Is Back in Phoenix.

We will be attending the Environmental Information Association (EIA) 2022 National Conference and Exhibition.  It is being held at the Hyatt Regency in Downtown Phoenix and it is also being held virtually.  If you wish to register for the conference click here!  

Frank Lloyd Wright's Taliesin West

Our love of Phoenix, Arizona started when we became a member of the American Council for Accredited Certifications (ACAC) Certified Indoor Environment Consultant Board.  Our meetings were always in January/February time period which is an absolutely perfect time to visit Phoenix.  The weather gave us a break from the winter of the Northeast.  It's not too hot during the day and not too cold at night.  Meeting members of the ACAC boards was a fantastic networking event!  This year the ACAC was planning a meeting of the Boards, however, attendance by ACAC members was not as hoped.  But we are still planning on getting together and will attend Adam Andrew's presentation in Session 4 - "Asking the Right Questions: Inbound marketing with professional certification."

Some of the ACAC Board Members we're hoping to see!

The EIA conference starts on Monday, March 21, 2022.  The opening of the General Session starts at 8:30 am and the schedule for this session includes the introduction of EIA governance, a short presentation by EIA Managing Director J. Brent Kynoch, EIA President Steve Fulford, and EIA 2022 Conference Chairs Chris Gates and Vessa Roberts. This session also features the presentation of the 2022 Jack Snider Jr. Award and the EIA 2022 keynote address.  The EIA's 2022 Keynote Presentation: "National Environmental Public Health Tracking: From Data to Action" Centers for Disease Control (CDC) National Centers for Environmental Health Environmental Public Health Tracking Program, CDC & AZ Department of Health Jena Losch, CDC, Public Health Advisor, National Center for Environmental Health and Hsini Linn, AZ Department of Health, Deputy Office Chief for Environmental Epidemiology.

Chihuly at the Desert Botanical Gardens in Phoenix

We are looking forward to the Technical Program and seeing several sessions in addition to Adam Andrew's presentation.  We are looking forward to Lee Poye's, Eurofins - J3 Resources, presentation on "Libby Amphibole, Talc, Erionite, and Other Respirable Elongate Mineral Particles – Nonregulated Hazards?", Dylan Staack's presentation "Qualitative vs. Quantitative Fit Testing: Understanding the Gaps in Your Respiratory Protection Program", Danaya Wilson's, CHC Training, & Tom Laubenthal's, Air Quest Environmental plenary session on "Asbestos Regulation 101: Past, Present, Future", Michael P Menz's, CIH, CHMM, Indoor Environmental Concepts, LLC, Deregulated Asbestos Floor Tile Removal Using Dry Ice Technique", and Peggy Forney's, EPA - Retired, "Enforcement of Asbestos Abatement Projects."  To see the entire schedule of events click here.  We hope to see you at the conference and look forward to writing about the various presentations.

Asbestos Dust Sampling in New York State

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

Asbestos Inspector Initial Course

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

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

SKC Catalog Photo

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

  

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

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

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

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

  

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'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.

 

Related articles

• NYCDEP Issues Advisory Memo
• 'Miscommunication' With Contractor Means Some Asbestos Left in FL School Displacing Students
• Missing the Target - When Monitors Work Harder but Not Smarter
• Only 2 Inspectors Monitor Asbestos-Removal Projects in Iowa
• NYSDOL Asbestos Inspector Indicted in Kensington Towers Probe
• Domino Sugar Factory Abatement - Brings Up Questions
• Asbestos scare at U.S. Capitol hampers tourists, legislators
• Department of Energy Fined $115K By EPA for Asbestos Removal Violations at Decommissioned Hanford Nuclear Reservation