Search This Blog

Showing posts with label asbestos floor tiles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label asbestos floor tiles. Show all posts

Thursday, May 30, 2024

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)
  • 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?

  • 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!



Monday, October 24, 2022

The Reality of Asbestos Clearance Air Sampling! Are You Sampling Enough?

We attended the Environmental Information Association (EIA) 2022 National Conference and Exhibition in Phoenix, Arizona from March 20, through March 23, 2022.  We attended several sessions regarding asbestos where we discussed with some attendees asbestos clearance air sampling and what are the Federal requirements.  Based on those discussions we figured it was time to write an article on this topic.  To make sure we wrote this article based on general industry practice, versus what we are used to in New York State and New York City, we consulted with Mr. Tom Laubenthal, of TGL Consulting, Inc., and Mr. Dana Brown, of Time's Dark Captains.  Since everything else seems to start with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools Rule (40 CFR Part 763, Subpart E, known in the industry as the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA)) why don't we start there?  The AHERA regulation remember applies to schools from Kindergarten to 12th grade (K-12), both public and private schools.  The requirements 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

For all intents and purposes, these methods serve as the industry standard when final clearance is performed for most asbestos abatement projects, especially when areas are to be re-occupied. We’ll discuss applicability issues as we go. 

TEM Analysis

First, let's discuss the requirement for aggressive clearance sampling.  In the AHERA regulation, aggressive sampling means floors, ceilings, and walls shall be swept with the exhaust of a minimum one (1) horsepower leaf blower.  Some states and specifications may also require the use of fans as described in the non-mandatory section of Appendix A.  The non-mandatory section states, that stationary fans shall be placed in locations that will not interfere with the air monitoring equipment.  Fan air is directed toward the ceiling.  One fan shall be used for every 10,000 cubic feet (CF) of a worksite.  This is required in the New York State Department of Labor's Asbestos Regulation Industrial Code Rule 56 (NYSDOL ICR56) and the New York City Department of Environmental Protection Asbestos Regulation Title 15 (NYCDEP Title 15).  However, NYSDOL ICR56 also requires one fan per room in addition to the one fan per 10,000 CF.

This is not in the spirit of the AHERA/NYSDOL ICR56/NYCDEP Title 15 requirements for aggressive clearance sampling. Thank you Greg Mance for the photo.

As defined by the AHERA rules, final clearance air sampling can 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).

Graphic courtesy Tom Laubenthal

There are some similarities between the AHERA TEM and NIOSH 7400 methods.  For example, the AHERA TEM method (Appendix A) allows for the use of either a 25-millimeter (mm) filter cassette or a 37-mm filter cassette.  We haven't used a 37-mm cassette since the industry switched from the old asbestos sampling method NIOSH P&CAM 239 to the NIOSH 7400 method that was formally adopted into AHERA.  For sampling, whether it is the AHERA TEM method or the NIOSH 7400 method, we use a 25-mm 3-piece cassette with 50-mm electrically conductive extension cowl cassettes.  The two methods require the filter cassette to face 45 degrees downward from the horizontal.  The filter material used is mixed cellulose ester (MCE).  AHERA TEM method does allow for the use of polycarbonate (PC) filters as well.  The PC filters fell out of favor because post-sampling handling was more problematic than the MCE filters.  With PC filters, if samples sent to the lab are not handled carefully, the sampled fibers can move significantly from the filter surface.  This was widely discussed in the industry in the 1980s.  Since then, only MCE filters are used outside of specialty applications. 

The filter cassette is to face 45 degrees downward from the horizontal.

Both methods require blanks, however, that is where the similarities end.  The AHERA TEM method requires three blanks two field blanks and one laboratory (sealed) blank.  While the NIOSH 7400 method requires a minimum of two blanks or 10% of samples collected with a maximum of 10 blanks.  How the blanks are handled is different as well. The AHERA TEM method laboratory (sealed) blank is not opened and kept sealed, while the field blanks are opened for 30 seconds at the entrance to each abatement area and one at an ambient area.  While the NIOSH 7400 method requires the blanks to be opened at the same time as the other cassettes just prior to sampling and stored with the top covers of the cassettes that are running and remain open for the duration of sampling (here is an interesting difference, in some places the cassettes are stored in the box with the lid closed or, the way we were taught, they are placed in a Ziploc bag that is used to deliver the samples to the laboratory).  

A typical box of air sampling cassettes

Another difference is that with the AHERA TEM method we use a 0.45-micron (µm) MCE filter and the NIOSH 7400 method uses a 0.8 Âµm MCE filter.  This refers to the size of the air passages in the filter material. Filter manufacturers will color code or mark the label so that the type of filter within the cassette assembly is known to the user and the laboratory.

TEM filter is 0.45-micron.  PCM filter is 0.8-micron.

Let's get to some of the interesting items such as how the samples are taken and how many are required.  The AHERA TEM method is straightforward, it requires 5 samples inside the work area and 5 samples outside the work area that represent air entering the abatement site plus the blanks (as mentioned above) for a total of 13 samples.  These samples should run from 1 to less than 10 liters per minute (LPM) for a total volume of air greater than 1199 liters or greater (see Table 1 below for the recommended sampling volume range for this method, typically the volume range is between 1200 liters and 1800 liters).  It is interesting that the maximum flow rate is less than 10 LPM.  It would be interesting to find out how many in the industry actually sample at less than 10 LPM (i.e., 9.9 LPM versus 10 LPM).  Likely most of the industry merely samples at 10 LPM.  The statistical difference between 10 and 9.9 LPM, some regulators insist upon, is statistically insignificant and will affect method performance in no discernable manner.  Either way, this means your clearance samples will take a little over 2 hours to collect.  

In speaking with Mr. Tom Laubenthal, we learned at the time this method was developed it became known through the research involved that flow rates higher than 10 LPM could cause fibers to impact the MCE filters vertically and not horizontally to the filter surface.  This makes the sample analysis, counting, and identification, difficult and likely biased.  This is also the reason the method specifies a second MCE filter under the 0.45 µm sampling filter and the 5 µm diffuser. This additional filter is placed in this manner to attempt to create an even flow across the filter surface so that fibers impact the filter uniformly.  Since the fibers are lying flat on the filter this is the reason for turning the sample upright before interrupting the pump flow to ensure the fibers remain on the filter.

Sampling Cassette Configuration

In the AHERA TEM method, the clearance samples pass when the average concentration of the five samples inside the work area does not exceed 70 structures per square millimeter (s/mm2).  See AHERA at 763.90 (i) (3) for an optional clearance test based on the z-test which compares the outside and inside air samples.  This is rarely necessary.  But cases have occurred when contamination can exist in the air outside the work area that could cause a failure in the work area.

This TEM asbestos image is from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) "Asbestos Fibers and Other Elongate Mineral Particles: State of the Science and Roadmap for Research"

The NIOSH 7400 method for final clearance is also interesting when it comes to how the sample is taken and how many are based on the project.  For schools, when PCM is allowed, it's 5 samples inside the work area.  What's interesting is that the clearance is based on each sample and 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).  Well according to the NIOSH 7400 method how do you achieve clearance at that LOQ?  This concept of LOQ is not a concept understood by many that use the NIOSH 7400 method for all its purposes.  In the NIOSH 7400 method, this issue is addressed as follows in the section "Sampling", number 4 on page 4.  It utilizes the formula below 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 millimete(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, so let's say that is 16 (the maximum flow rate allowed by the method).  The L is the concentration of fibers in the air, we are looking to achieve clearance at 0.01 fibers/cubic centimeters (f/cc).  So if you plug these numbers into the formula you get a time of 240.6 minutes, which means the sample would have to run for a little over 4 hours at 16 liters per minute (total volume of air of 3,850 liters).

Realize that is running the sample at 16 LPM.  If your pump/flowmeter can only go to 15 LPM then you would have to run the sample for 256.7 minutes which is just short of 4 hours and 15 minutes.  The lower the flow rate, the longer time it will take to meet sample volume requirements. 

Airbox High-Performance Air Sampler

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.  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. 

PCM image of fibers

The true problem is the NIOSH 7400 was never designed as a clearance tool, it was designed as a personal air sampling method.  NIOSH and the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) still view the method in that manner officially.  The other problem with PCM is that all fibers meeting method criteria are counted, not just asbestos fibers.  The AHERA TEM method is the only procedure that was designed as a final clearance air sampling method. Only asbestos fibers/structures are counted in the analysis meeting method criteria for size, and those much smaller than can be determined by the PCM.

 

EPA's Silver Book

Realize this is not something out of the ordinary the EPA's publication "Measuring Airborne Asbestos Following An Abatement Action" (otherwise known as the Silver Book) written in November 1985 on page 2-6 recommends the sample volume for the PCM analysis should be a minimum of 3,000 liters of air (though at the time of this publication it was describing the NIOSH P&CAM 239 PCM methodology).  In addition, in March 2015 the EIA published a revision to the EPA's 1985 document "Guidance for Controlling Asbestos-Containing Materials in Buildings"(EPA 560/5-85-024, known as the Purple Book).  This nationally peer-reviewed document was re-titled "Managing Asbestos in Buildings: A Guide for Owners and Managers."  Chapter 5 (on page 88) says the minimum sampling volume of 3,000 liters of air for samples taken to meet the NIOSH 7400 method requirements for LOQ sampling.  Mr. Dana Brown did a video regarding the LOQ issue and why NIOSH 7400 method is not the best choice for clearance, you can see it below. 

This doesn't count that we have called for the AHERA TEM method to be utilized for asbestos-containing floor tiles and mastic removals based on our previous blog post "Asbestos Floor Tile Debate", published in the August 2017 issue of Healthy Indoors Magazine, which found that the NIOSH 7400 method is not able to analyze the type of fibers (Grade 7-Shorts and Floats that are known to be less than 5 microns) found in these materials because of the known small fiber sizes generated by floor tile work.  Whether AHERA-based work or asbestos abatement where re-occupancy will occur, the surest way to make sure an area is ready to be given back to the public to be free of asbestos as practicable by current methods, and the fastest method for clearance would be the AHERA TEM method.  

NYSDOL ICR56 Definition of an Asbestos Project

Of course, those of you who work in New York State or New York City realize these requirements only apply to public and private K-12 schools.  So they don't apply to other buildings, or do they?  First, let's take the NYSDOL ICR56 Subpart 56-4, page 35 is the air sampling requirements.  56-4.6 "Test Methods" on page 36 says "the same NIOSH approved methodology for project air sampling and for analysis of the air samples shall be used at all phases of an asbestos project that require area air sampling and analysis, with the possible exception of clearance air sampling."  This means that the NIOSH 7400 method must be followed for all phases except clearance (Phase IIC of the asbestos project) this allows you to use either the NIOSH 7400 method or the AHERA TEM method instead for clearance.  So this means you have to follow the NIOSH 7400 method's LOQ requirements for all phases (Phase I B and Phase II A, B, & C) of the asbestos project.  In addition, the NYSDOL ICR56 regulation for clearance is less than 0.01 f/cc so that changes the formula again.  Let's use 0.009 f/cc for the L instead and still use 16 liters per minute, well that means the sample has to run for 267 minutes, almost 4 hours, and 30 minutes (a total volume of air of 4,278 liters).

The consummate leader cultivates the moral law, and strictly adheres to method and discipline; thus it is in his power to control success. ~ Sun Tzu


So why does everyone sample 1,200 liters of air for all samples?  On April 8, 2011, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) Wadsworth Center issued frequently asked questions (FAQs) regarding asbestos/fibers analysis that were developed through the collaboration of the NYSDOH Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (ELAP) and the Bureau of Occupational Health and the NYSDOL.  In this FAQ is FAQ#13: What is the minimum sampling volume to be collected for air sampling associated with (a) post-abatement (clearance) air monitoring and (b) post-abatement area monitoring for PCM analysis?  The answer that was given was:  Within the upcoming revision to NYS Industrial Code Rule 56, minimum air sample volume requirements 
are being added for both background and clearance PCM air samples. The minimum volume will be 1,200 liters for all background and clearance PCM air samples collected.  Hopefully, you all see the problem here...the code rule has not been revised to include this requirement, and even if it did change this is a minimum volume of air and does not comply with the NIOSH 7400 method requirement.

Buy our Asbestos Air Sampling Chart here.
Read about our Asbestos Air Sampling Charts here.

Next up is the NYCDEP Title 15NYCDEP Title 15 was just updated on May 28th, 2022.  See our blog post "New York City's Asbestos Regulation Revised, Again!" for more information on the changes.  However, these changes did not make any significant changes to what we are discussing.  Under Subpart D, 1-37 (b) "Area air sampling equipment for PCM shall be utilized in accordance with the sampling procedures specified within the NIOSH 7400 Method modified for area sampling."  Again, it means you must follow the LOQ requirements in the NIOSH 7400 method, even though NYCDEP Title 15 does give you minimum sample volumes.  For clearance by NIOSH 7400 method, it's 1800 liters and for the AHERA TEM method, it's 1250 liters.  Remember these are minimums.  In addition, NYCDEP Title 15 limits the flow rate to a maximum of 15 liters per minute.  This means to achieve the LOQ requirement it would take 256.7 minutes which is just short of 4 hours and 15 minutes (total volume of air of 3,850 liters).  The NYCDEP Title 15 minimum volume would not meet the LOQ requirements in the NIOSH 7400 method.  We hope this post has helped to resolve those pesky questions regarding clearance and convince you that probably the best air sampling method for clearance is the AHERA TEM method! 


Wednesday, March 16, 2022

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, LLCDeregulated 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.


Saturday, May 09, 2020

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

 

Conference Season Starts in 3 Months Save the Date: PACNY 2025 Environmental Conference & EIA 2025 National Conference

With the end of 2024 fast approaching, we are looking ahead to 2025, we are excited to announce the dates for the Professional Abatement Con...