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.

Recognition, Innovation, and Continuing Our Mission to Educate

As we move further into 2026, we are proud to share several exciting developments at Future Environment Designs Training Center (FEDTC) that reflect our continued commitment to training, innovation, and supporting environmental and safety professionals.

This year has already brought significant recognition for our efforts, the launch of a new educational resource for asbestos inspectors, and opportunities to contribute to important industry discussions regarding indoor air quality and workforce development.

Two Awards That Reflect Our Commitment to Excellence

One of the most rewarding aspects of operating a business for nearly four decades is seeing your hard work recognized by others in the industry.  We are pleased to announce that FEDTC has received two prestigious awards for 2026.

Environmental Business Review's Top Indoor Air Quality Services 2026

FEDTC was selected as one of Environmental Business Review's Top Indoor Air Quality Services Providers for 2026.  The recognition specifically highlights our innovative "At Your Convenience Service", which was developed to address the real-world operational challenges faced by employers and workers in regulated industries.

For years, we've recognized that training alone is not enough. Employers need workers who are ready to work, medically cleared, fit-tested, properly documented, and compliant with regulatory requirements.  Our At Your Convenience Service was designed to bring these elements together into a single coordinated process.

The service combines:

• Training and certification
• Respirator fit testing
• Medical evaluation coordination
• Documentation management
• Regulatory guidance
• Ongoing compliance support

Rather than forcing employers to coordinate multiple vendors and schedules, the service provides a streamlined solution that helps workers stay compliant and job-ready.  See what our client, Mr. Tom Watral of Watral Brothers, has to say about our service.

Receiving this recognition validates what we've believed all along: the most effective training solutions address the entire compliance process, not just the classroom portion.

CourseCheck 2026 Brilliance Award

We were also honored to receive the "CourseCheck 2026 Brilliance Award" for maintaining an exceptional trainer evaluation score of "4.9 out of 5" throughout all of 2025.

This award is particularly meaningful because it comes directly from the people we serve—our students.

Every evaluation represents feedback from environmental consultants, contractors, facility managers, engineers, maintenance personnel, and safety professionals who attend our courses.  Maintaining a 4.9 rating throughout the year reflects our team's dedication to providing practical, relevant, and engaging training that attendees can immediately apply in the field.

To everyone who attended a class, completed an evaluation, and trusted us with their professional education, thank you.

Introducing Our New Asbestos Bulk Sampling Package

Education has always been a cornerstone of what we do, and recent events reinforced the need for additional training resources regarding asbestos bulk sampling requirements.

Following the release of a New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) fact sheet, "Expectations for Contents of Asbestos Surveys and Assessments" published after the Professional Abatement Contractors of New York's (PACNY's) Environmental Conference in March, we observed several areas that created confusion within the industry and raised questions among inspectors and consultants.

The Reference Book

As a result, 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.

The laminated sampling table is particularly useful because it provides quick reference information that can be carried directly onto inspection projects.  As regulations, interpretations, and industry practices continue to evolve, providing accurate and practical educational resources remains essential.

Preserving Experience for the Next Generation

Another accomplishment we are particularly proud of is the publication of our article:

"Preserving Experience: How Continuous Training Supports the Next Generation of Environmental and Safety Professionals"

The article has been prominently featured in the "Insights" section of Environmental Business Review's website.  The topic has become increasingly important across our industry.

Many of the professionals who built the environmental consulting, asbestos, industrial hygiene, and safety industries are approaching retirement. As this transition occurs, organizations face a significant challenge: how do we preserve decades of practical knowledge and transfer that experience to the next generation?

The reality is that many of today's new environmental and safety professionals may never have the opportunity to spend years learning side-by-side with veteran supervisors the way previous generations did.  As experienced workers retire, the informal transfer of knowledge that once occurred naturally on job sites is becoming more difficult.  This makes structured training, mentoring, and continuous professional development more important than ever.

At FEDTC, our training philosophy has always been built around continuous learning and ongoing support because competency is not developed in a single class.  It is built through repetition, reinforcement, field application, and access to experienced guidance over time.

Far too often, training is viewed as an event—a worker attends a course, receives a certificate, and the process is considered complete.  In reality, that is where the learning process begins. Environmental health and safety professionals face changing regulations, evolving technologies, new workplace hazards, and increasingly complex projects throughout their careers.  Remaining competent requires continual education and reinforcement.

This philosophy is one of the reasons we have invested heavily in developing resources that extend learning beyond the classroom. Our training library, Negative Air App, asbestos air sampling charts, reference materials, and educational content (such as the above-mentioned asbestos bulk sampling package) were all created to provide workers and employers with continued access to practical information long after a training certificate has been issued.

The goal is to help bridge the gap between classroom instruction and field experience.  Our philosophy that "training never ends" reflects the reality of the industries we serve. Whether someone is an asbestos inspector, project designer, air sampling technician, project monitor, mold assessor, safety professional, or facility manager, they must continually adapt to changing regulations, evolving hazards, and new workplace challenges.

The future success of our profession depends not only on attracting new talent but also on ensuring that valuable lessons learned over decades are not lost. Continuous learning, knowledge sharing, and ongoing support are essential if we want the next generation of environmental and safety professionals to be as prepared and effective as those who came before them.

That is the message behind our article and a principle that continues to guide everything we do at FEDTC.

Looking Ahead

As we reflect on these accomplishments, we are reminded that none of them happened in isolation.  They are the result of dedicated employees, loyal clients, industry partners, instructors, students, and colleagues who continue to support FEDTC and share our commitment to education and worker protection.

Whether it's receiving industry recognition, developing new training tools, contributing to important industry discussions, or helping prepare the next generation of professionals, our mission remains the same as it was when we started nearly 38 years ago:

To provide practical, high-quality education and services that help protect workers, building occupants, and the environment.

We look forward to continuing that mission in 2026 and beyond.

Regulatory Updates, Industry Concerns, and Straight Talk from OSHA and NYSDOL at the PACNY 29th Annual Environmental Conference – Day 3

The third and final day of the Professional Abatement Contractors of New York (PACNY) 29th Annual Environmental Conference at the beautiful Turning Stone Resort Casino wrapped up another outstanding year of education, discussion, and industry networking. February 27, 2026, focused heavily on regulatory updates, owner expectations, compliance trends, and direct engagement with regulators — exactly the kind of practical information environmental professionals need to bring back to the field.

The Mohawk Room

Throughout the day, attendees gathered in the Mohawk Room for presentations.  At the same time, the Oneida Room Vendor Exhibit Hall continued to serve as the hub for coffee breaks, networking, and conversations with exhibitors.  PACNY once again demonstrated why this conference remains one of the most valuable environmental industry events in New York State.

PACNY Leadership Opens the Day

The morning began with remarks from PACNY President Kevin Hutton and PACNY Vice President Russell Vent, who discussed the current state of PACNY, ongoing industry initiatives, and the organization’s continued role in supporting environmental professionals throughout New York State. Their comments reflected both the growth of the organization and the evolving challenges facing the asbestos, remediation, and environmental consulting industries.

"A Crystal Ball” Panel Brings Owner Perspectives Front and Center

One of the most engaging discussions of the day was the panel presentation titled:

“A Crystal Ball – What Owners and General Managers Want You To Know”

The session was moderated by Bridget Ruane of C&S Companies and featured panelists representing multiple perspectives within the construction and environmental industry:

• James Riscica of C&S Technical Services, representing general contractors
• Sean Dollaway of C&S Companies, representing construction managers
• Conor Osterman of SUNY Upstate Medical University, representing owners and clients

This panel generated substantial discussion because it addressed a growing frustration that many owners, construction managers, and contractors are experiencing regarding asbestos surveys and project design documents.

Bridget Ruane moderating "Crystal Ball" panel

Several recurring themes emerged:

• Lack of sufficient detail in asbestos surveys
• Overreliance on asbestos presumptions in specifications and designs
• Disconnects between field conditions and design assumptions
• Challenges owners face when incomplete information results in costly change orders or project delays
• Difficulties contractors encounter when survey limitations are not clearly communicated upfront

The panelists emphasized that owners and construction managers are increasingly expecting consultants and designers to provide clearer documentation, more defensible assumptions, and practical project planning. It was an honest conversation that many attendees clearly related to based on the audience participation and follow-up discussions afterward.

OSHA Provides Regulatory and Enforcement Updates

Following a coffee break in the exhibit hall, Jeff Presbin from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) presented updates regarding OSHA standards and enforcement trends

The presentation focused heavily on:

• OSHA’s Top Ten Violations from 2025
• Enforcement trends involving asbestos work
• Common compliance failures seen during inspections
• Regulatory expectations for documentation and worker protection

For environmental contractors and consultants, these discussions are always valuable because they provide insight into where OSHA is placing emphasis during inspections and enforcement actions.

Jeff Presbin from OSHA

Asbestos compliance continues to remain a significant area of concern, particularly involving respiratory protection, regulated areas, exposure assessments, competent person oversight, and proper work practices under the asbestos construction standard.

NYSDOL Roundtable Closes Out the Conference

The final presentation of the conference featured representatives from the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) Asbestos Control Bureau:

• Vincent Rapacciuolo, Deputy Director of Safety & Health
• Chek Beng Ng, Professional Engineer 2
• Jason Pensabene, Program Manager 2

As always, the NYSDOL session drew substantial attendance and participation because attendees had the opportunity to directly engage with regulators and ask real-world compliance questions.

Chek Beng Ng, Jason Pensabene, & Vincent Rapacciuolo, NYSDOL

Expansion of the MPWR System

Vincent Rapacciuolo discussed the proposed expansion of the MPWR website platform, including increased electronic functionality involving:

• Notifications
• Payment of fines
• Opt-in electronic communications
• Asbestos license renewals

The overall direction is clear — NYSDOL continues moving toward expanded electronic communications and digital administration processes.  For contractors, consultants, and building owners, staying current with these electronic systems will become increasingly important.

Variance Statistics and Processing Times

Chek Beng Ng provided updates regarding variance activity processed by the NYSDOL Engineering Services Unit (ESU) over the past year. The numbers were eye-opening:

• 1,759 total variances processed
• 120 statewide variances
• 121 school variances
• 380 emergency variances
• 1,130 site-specific variances

Average processing time was reported at approximately two weeks. These statistics highlight both the volume of asbestos-related work occurring throughout NYS and the continued importance of understanding the variance process under Industrial Code Rule 56.

New NYSDOL Fact Sheets

Jason Pensabene discussed several newly released NYSDOL fact sheets concerning asbestos survey requirements in NYS, with another guidance document currently in development.  The fact sheets are all asbestos survey-related:

• Asbestos Survey Always Required - (Published based on a PACNY initiative)
• NYS Asbestos Survey Requirements - Municipalities
• NYS Asbestos Survey Requirements - Building Permit Applicants
• Expectations for Contents of Asbestos Surveys and Assessments (published after the conference in March)

These fact sheets are expected to provide additional clarification regarding survey expectations and compliance obligations — areas that continue to generate questions throughout the industry.

One of the Most Active Q&A Sessions in Recent Memory

The conference concluded with an extensive roundtable question-and-answer session that utilized a newer structured format designed to encourage broader audience participation.  The result was one of the most active Q&A sessions many attendees could remember.

To their credit, the NYSDOL representatives remained engaged and attempted to address the large number of questions raised by attendees.

Some of the issues discussed included:

• Partial asbestos removal with encapsulated edges and flood cuts
• Interpretation of survey requirements
• Variance considerations
• Enforcement consistency
• Field compliance challenges

One particularly notable discussion involved bead blasting methods. NYSDOL representatives explained that refusals involving bead blasting are based on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) documentation and agency experience indicating the equipment cannot be successfully used with water under those conditions.

These types of direct exchanges between regulators and industry professionals are one of the major reasons PACNY continues to provide such value to attendees year after year.

Final Thoughts

The 29th Annual PACNY Environmental Conference successfully returned to a three-day format and delivered another strong educational program covering technology, compliance, project design, exposure assessment, regulatory interpretation, and public health advocacy.  From discussions on AI and robotics to owner expectations, OSHA enforcement, and NYSDOL compliance updates, the conference reflected an industry continuing to evolve while facing increasingly complex regulatory and operational challenges.

NYSDOL representatives at the Conference

Perhaps most importantly, the conference once again reinforced the importance of communication between contractors, consultants, regulators, building owners, laboratories, and public health advocates. These conversations — even when difficult — are critical to improving worker protection, project quality, and regulatory compliance.

PACNY, its leadership, presenters, vendors, and attendees should be commended for putting together another outstanding conference.  If this year’s event is any indication, the environmental industry in NYS continues to move forward through collaboration, education, and honest discussion about the challenges we all face in the field every day.