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 creates the potential for 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, there is an important concept here.  A positive sample cannot simply be ignored because another sample was reported as 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.

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!