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

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

NYSDOL Fact Sheet on Asbestos Surveys

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

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

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

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

The Importance of Getting the Survey Right

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

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

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

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

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“NYSDOL says I only need two samples.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Linear feet (LF) is only for pipes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fact sheet provides the following classifications:

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

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

Damaged or Significantly Damaged?

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

There is a significant difference between saying:

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

“The pipe insulation is damaged.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fact sheet states:

“There is no approved method for sampling debris.”

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

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

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

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

Bulk sampling tools.

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

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

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

What does “addressed” mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problem No. 8: Conflicting Laboratory Results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The industry needs clear definitions and clear expectations.

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

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

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

Why This Matters to Building Owners

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

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

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

Experience Still Matters

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

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

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

Training is only the beginning

We Need Better Guidance, Not More Confusion

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

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

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

And perhaps most importantly:

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

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

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

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

Update of Dust and Debris Sampling in New York State: What Asbestos Inspectors Need to Know

On July 16, 2016, we blogged about "Asbestos Dust Sampling in New York State," since that post had over 1,550 views and will be ten years old this year.  We thought we should update the post.  In addition, we were honored to be asked by Dr. Martin Rutstein to join him and Mr. Marc Rutstein in presenting at the 2026 Professional Abatement Contractors of New York (PACNY) 29th Annual Environmental Conference.  Our presentation is titled "Asbestos in Settled Dust - Is it a Valid Method in a Consultant's Toolbox?"  We look forward to seeing you at the conference and discussing this issue.  This issue is typically discussed in our asbestos inspector and designer classes, so many of you already know some of the issues.  These discussions are necessary because this is an area where misunderstandings, improper sampling, and incorrect laboratory analysis can lead to serious regulatory, financial, and legal consequences for building owners, contractors, and consultants alike (Dr. Martin Rutstein & Marc Rutstein will be discussing recent case histories).

Stop by and Interact with our New Display

Under New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) Industrial Code Rule 56, dust and debris are specifically identified as suspect miscellaneous asbestos-containing materials (ACM).  This means that any debris or dust that is visually assessed by an asbestos inspector must be treated and handled as ACM and assumed to be asbestos-containing until bulk sampling and analysis demonstrate otherwise.  The inevitable question that follows is a practical one: How do you collect bulk samples of debris and dust?

Scrape Sampling and NYSDOH ELAP Method 198.1

The most straightforward method is to physically collect the debris or dust by scraping it into an asbestos sample bag using a knife, scraper, or business card.  This collected material can then be submitted for analysis using the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) Method 198.1.

Sampling Tools - Tweezers are one of my favorites

The ELAP Method 198.1 is the standard polarized light microscopy (PLM) method, which utilizes dispersion staining and point counting.  When performed correctly by an ELAP-accredited laboratory, this method provides results in percent by weight (%), which allows the inspector to compare findings directly to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) definition of ACM - greater than 1% asbestos by weight.  We also have to take into account that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulates materials that are 1% or less (see the Varga Letter in the FED Training Library).

Microvacuum Sampling and ASTM D5755

Another commonly used collection method is described in American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) D5755, Microvacuum Sampling and Indirect Analysis of Dust by Transmission Electron Microscopy for Asbestos Structure Number Concentrations. Note that the method has been withdrawn because of an administrative lapse and should be republished by the Fall of 2026.  This method involves vacuuming a known surface area—100 square centimeters is referenced in the standard, though the area may be larger or smaller depending on conditions.  The standard recommends that multiple independent samples are secured from the same area, and that a minimum of three samplesbe analyzed by the entire procedure.

The sample cassette and the nozzle must be submitted

Sampling is conducted using a standard 25- or 37-millimeter air sampling cassette equipped with either a mixed cellulose ester (MCE) or polycarbonate (PC) filter membrane with a pore size of 0.8 microns or smaller.  A plastic tube is attached to the inlet orifice to act as a nozzle and is cut at a 45-degree angle transverse to the sampling area of visible dust, avoiding particles > 1 millimeter.  Do not scrape the surface.  The air sampling pump is calibrated to operate at 2 liters per minute.  The sample cassette and the plastic tube (nozzle) must be submitted for analysis.

Nozzle example

While ASTM D5755 includes its own analytical method, this is where inspectors working in New York State must proceed with caution.  On April 8, 2011, NYSDOH published a document called "New York State Asbestos/Fibers - Frequently Asked Questions" (see the FAQ in the FED Training Library). According to NYSDOH ELAP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) No. 8, all bulk samples collected must be analyzed using ELAP-approved methodologies at an ELAP-accredited laboratory.  ASTM D5755 is not an ELAP-approved method of analysis.  Therefore, when transmission electron microscopy (TEM) is desired, the required analytical method in NYS is ELAP Method 198.4.

Wipe Sampling and ASTM D6480

ASTM 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 used to collect dust and debris.  This approach involves wiping a known surface area - again, typically 100 square centimeters - with a particle-free, sealed-edge, continuous filament cloth, such as a cleanroom wipe with 50/50 alcohol/water (no ghost wipes or baby wipes).  Multiple passes, first horizontal, then vertical, then hit the corners. Record the area sampled.  Like D5755, this standard recommends that multiple independent samples be secured from the same area, and that a minimum of three samples be analyzed by the entire procedure.

Cleanroom wipes

As with D5755, ASTM D6480 also includes an analytical method that is not approved under NYSDOH ELAP.  For NYS compliance, samples collected via these methods must be analyzed using the ELAP Method 198.4.

The Analysis Matters More Than the Collection Method

This is where many inspectors encounter problems. NYS ELAP-approved laboratories should be advising inspectors that ASTM analytical methods cannot be used for regulatory determinations in New York State.  Unfortunately, we have seen numerous instances where this guidance was not provided or ignored.

Transmission Electron Microscope

The result is that inspectors receive data reported as asbestos structures per square centimeter.  While this may be useful for certain research or exposure characterization purposes, there is no federal or state regulatory standard that allows these results to be compared to a threshold for determining whether a material is asbestos-containing.

Despite this, some parties have used these results to declare areas contaminated or to classify dust and debris as ACM.  In several cases, this has led to building owners incurring cleanup costs in the thousands - or even millions - of dollars, based on analyses that cannot be tied to regulatory definitions.

It is also worth noting that ASTM itself acknowledges these limitations.  In the Significance and Use section of its standards, ASTM clearly states that these test methods do not establish building safety, habitability, or regulatory compliance, and that a direct relationship between surface asbestos measurements and human exposure does not currently exist.

Experience, Knowledge, and Regulatory Awareness Are Critical

When using ASTM collection methods for dust and debris, asbestos inspectors must be extremely careful - both in how samples are collected and, more importantly, in how results are interpreted and communicated.  Understanding NYS regulatory requirements, approved analytical methodologies, and the limitations of various testing approaches is essential.

Asbestos Inspector Initial Class

As with many aspects of asbestos inspections, experience and knowledge are key. Proper sampling, appropriate analysis, and accurate interpretation protect not only inspectors and their clients but also the credibility of our profession.

Future Environment Designs, Inc. Celebrates 37 Years in Business With a New Program Called "After The Refresher"

On October 5, 1988, Angelo Garcia, III, founded Future Environment Designs, Inc. (FEDTC) as an indoor air quality consulting and training service to the facility management sector.  Since then, we have transformed the company into a provider of asbestos, mold, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) compliance training.  That has enabled us to continue for 37 years, with plans to continue for at least another 13 years.  

Once we converted the company into a training company, we became completely focused on our Blue Ocean Strategy of separating our company from our competitors by including additional services in our training courses to meet our clients' needs.  Services like:

• supplying personal protective equipment (PPE),
• providing quantitative respirator fit testing,
• providing respirator medical evaluations, 
• our monthly Safety Suzy newsletter with content on asbestos, mold, indoor air quality, and occupational safety and health information, 
• our blog where we post items of interest and discussion, 
• our negative air app, 
• our air sampling charts, 
• our training library, 
• our partnership with SiteDocs, 
• and all of it found on FEDTC's website.

In keeping with our Blue Ocean Strategy, we are starting a program called "After the Refresher".  "After the Refresher" will consist of interviews and recordings with people who attended our refresher classes, where our attendees get to introduce themselves and we discuss some of the topics we covered in the refresher class.  As we develop this program, we hope to interview people at conferences and other events that have an impact on the asbestos, mold, and OSHA compliance business.

In our first episode above, we discussed the different items we are currently discussing in our asbestos refresher courses.  In our second episode below, we interviewed John Paciulli of Insight Environmental, Inc., on the new New York State Department of Labor fact sheet on asbestos surveys and how it would impact the asbestos and mold industries.  We also discuss issues regarding contamination assessments.

As we continue to develop these programs and services, we are looking forward to what the next 13 years have to offer.  When you watch these programs, please don't forget to subscribe to Future Environment Designs Training Center's YouTube Channel and hit the like button.  Thank you!

PACNY's Day Two - So Much Information Packed Into One Day, Amazing!

On Thursday, February 27, 2020, Ms. Deb Sanscrainte, of ARAMSCO and the conference chairwoman, and Timothy Thomas of Tetra Tech and President of PACNY,  opened the second day, known as the Professional Day, of the Professional Abatement Contractors of New York's (PACNY's) 24th annual Environmental Conference, being held at the Turning Stone Casino in Verona, New York.  Attendees expected a full day of presentations ending with the Conference Sponsors Reception.  Presentations from the conference can be found on PACNY's website.  The Professional Day of the conference includes the opening of the Vendor Exhibit Hall with a continental breakfast and 30 vendors attending the conference, an increase from last year!  See the reception video to see the various vendors!

The keynote speaker for the conference was Ms. Luann Meyer, Solid Waste Administrator for Monroe County Department of Environmental Services, speaking on "Recycling-The Long and Winding Road".  She discussed that most counties have fact sheets to know what is or aren't recyclable or you can tell by the shape of the container.  She also discussed the New York State's plastic bag ban that went into effect March 1, 2020, all single-use plastic bags have been banned.  Paper bags are not part of the ban and all stores that collect sales tax are impacted.  Our next speaker was Jack Snider III, President & Sr. Consultant of AMRC Environmental Services, speaking on "Take Home Asbestos Exposure".  Mr. Snider discussed the asbestos abatement illusion regarding the decontamination of the workers.  He stated that workers, in Florida, during the removal of the floor tile, mastic, and other non-friable asbestos-containing materials (ACM) typically wore street clothes into the work area, and they are not showering nor vacuuming themselves/their clothing upon exiting the containment.  If showers and vacuums are provided the showers are not connected nor attached to the work areas.  When questioned why the workers did not decontaminate or wear proper personal protective (PPE) common responses included "the air samples did not show elevated fibers"; "It's floor tile"; and "I have been doing this longer than you!".  The presentation then went into how he collected his samples using the American Society of Testing and Material (ASTM) standard D5755-09 microvacuum sampling method to collect several samples from workers, their clothing, vehicles, and surface areas after clearance of the work area was conducted.  Findings from his study suggest asbestos abatement workers are bringing home significant amounts of asbestos fibers from these types of projects.  The presentation was eye-opening! 

Ms. Luann Meyer Discusses Recycling

After a break in the Vendor Exhibit Hall, the presentations continued.  Similar to the first day of the conference, the next two presentations and the last presentation of the day awarded continuing education points for architects and engineers attending the conference.  These points were awarded by the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and were coordinated by Kevin Hutton, of the Rochester Colonial Manufacturing Corp.  The presentations awarding these points were Martin S. Rutstein, Ph.D. & Marc E. Rutstein, CAI, Presidents of Ecological Consulting & Management Services, Inc., discussing "Regulations - How did we get here and Where are we going?"; Sean Miller's and Mike Mazzara's, of Genesee Environmental, LLC, presentation included information provided by Stephen R. Gheen, PE, of Gheen Engineering (who could not present due to illness), on "Mercury in Sports Floors, Regulatory Guidance, Remediation, and Disposal"; and Joseph Cantone, of Colden Corp., Sean Hart, of Energy & Environment, and Peter Delucia, of AAC Contracting, presentation "Asbestos Surveys: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly".

Kevin Hutton, of the Rochester Colonial Manufacturing Corp. 

The Rutstein's presentation talked about the asbestos regulations and some advice for asbestos professionals -  plan the job-take a fresh look, hire good staff (exert oversight of site staff), maintain required records, and plan for unexpected contingencies!  Mr. Miller's and Mr. Mazzara's presentation on Mercury in Sports Floors was a deep dive into mercury remediation regulations, guidelines, and the disposal process.  An important point made in the presentation was how it was different from an asbestos job.  In addition, Mr. Mazzara's section on mercury waste handling, transportation, and disposal provided a lot of information on handling hazardous wastes.

   

Sean Miller Discusses Its Not An Asbestos Job

 

Mike Mazzara Discusses Mercury Waste Handling, Transportation & Disposal

After a lunch break and time spent in the Vendor Exhibit Hall, the next presenter was Jennifer Kavney Harvey, Esq., Partner of Coach White, LLP,  discussing "NYS WBE/MBE Requirements".  Ms. Harvey's presentation pointed out that spending in the last nine years for Minority-owned and Women-owned Business Enterprises (MWBEs) has increased by 25 times (in dollars) while the number of MWBEs has increased by 18%.  In addition, she discussed the Governor's 2014 press release increasing the statewide composite goal to 30% without a disparity study basis, modifying the Executive Law, or modifying the MWBE regulations. Most goals from 2014 to the present were 30%.  After a short break in the Vendor Exhibit Hall, the next presenter was Karlee Bolanos, Partner at Bolanos Lowe PLLC, discussing "Understanding Your NYS Sexual Harassment Prevention Obligations".  Ms. Bolanos discussed Sexual Harassment Prevention requirements that were effective October 9, 2018, that included a New York model policy that at a minimum must prohibit sexual harassment; provide examples of prohibited conduct; include information concerning the federal and state laws; include a statement regarding applicable local laws & contacting law enforcement; include a standard complaint form: include a procedure for the timely and confidential investigation of complaints and due process for all parties; include information about rights of redress; clearly state that sexual harassment is considered a form of employee misconduct; and clearly state that retaliation against individuals...is prohibited.  She also discussed recent changes that were effective October 11, 2019, regarding behavior beyond a "petty slight" or "trivial inconvenience" that may be illegal.  

Jennifer Kavney Harvey, Esq Discusses MWBE Spending & Utilization

Karlee Bolanos discussing Sexual Harassment Law

The final presentation of the day was Joseph Cantone, of Colden Corp., Sean Hart, of Energy & Environment, and Peter Delucia, of AAC Contracting, discussing "Asbestos Surveys: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly".  Obviously, their presentation was broken into three sections with Mr. Cantone talking about good asbestos surveys,  Mr. Hart talking about bad asbestos surveys, and Mr. Delucia talking about ugly asbestos surveys.  The day ended in the Vendor Exhibit Hall with the Conference Sponsors Reception, which included Hors d'oeuvres, food, and an open bar.  The after-party at Dival's Safety Equipment's hospitality suite allowed for more time to network and discuss the presentations of the past two days!  All the presentations were excellent and provided very useful information for those who attended the conference.  Looking forward to day three and the New York State Department of Labor Panel! 

 

Peter Delucia, Sean Hart & Joseph Colden