Future Environment Designs Training Center's Blog: asbestos inspections

Showing posts with label asbestos inspections. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

Another Great PACNY Conference - Part Two

As we discussed in our previous post, the Professional Abatement Contractors of New York's (PACNY's) 20th Annual Environmental Conference was witty, intelligent, & had a magnetic personality. Held at the Turning Stone Casino in Verona, New York for all three days was magnetic with excitement. Wednesday night included the first annual PACNY Poker Tournament won by Mr. Chuck Kirch of Environmental Compliance Management Corp. However, we digress, the Technical Session on Thursday continued after lunch with presentations from Dr. Bryan Bandli, PhD of RJ Lee Group on the "Quantification of Amphibole Asbestos in Loose Fill Vermiculite - A validation case study" written with an eye to New York State approving it for bulk vermiculite analysis. Then Ed Cahill of EMSL presented on "Identifying and Dealing with Naturally Occurring Asbestos in Surveys". Exhibit Hall break followed and the issuing of the wrist bands for the Vendor reception after the last presentation.

Deb Sanscrainte of Aramsco, Lisa Brown of Summit Environmental the PACNY Adinistrator, & Lynn Burlingham of Cornerstone Training Institute

The final presentation of the Thursday Technical Session was Mr. Tom Laubenthal of The Environmental Institute (A division of ATC Group Services). Mr. Laubenthal's presentation was on the "American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) E2356-14 Standard Practice for Comprehensive Building Asbestos Surveys" which included a letter from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding the ASTM standard and its relevance in performing asbestos surveys for compliance with the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants' (NESHAP's) "thorough inspection" requirement. The letter and the standard are extremely helpful information for performing a proper inspection in order to comply with the NESHAP regulations, which we will add to our asbestos inspector courses (a copy of the letter can be found at our Resource Page on our website, Click on the link to the Dropbox Folder. The letter is in the EPA folder). The day ended with the vendor reception in the Vendor Hall. One of the interesting vendors was qub9 Environmental which is creating portable decontamination units from shipping containers. Unfortunately, they didn't have a container at the conference to see how it would work. We thank everyone who stopped by our booth to say hello and enter there card for the drawing on Friday.

There were 27 vendors in the vendor hall and the reception was a perfect way to end the Technical Session first day.

It was an honor for me to present on Friday with Mr. Bob Krell of IAQ Tech on the New York State (NYS) Mold Law Article 32. A big Thank You! to everyone who encouraged me with my first presentation at PACNY. Our presentation was very well-balanced between technical and overview, in my humble opinion. The usual highlight of the last day of the conference is the panel from NYS Department of Labor (NYSDOL) led by Dr. Eileen Franko, Director of the Division of Safety and Health; which included Mr. James Meachum, P.E., manager of the Asbestos Control Program; Mr. Ed Smith, P.E. of the Engineering Services Unit; and "Mean" Mr. Kirk Fisher, manager of the License and Certification Unit. Some of the highlights of the presentations by the panel included changes to Industrial Code Rule 56; additional inspections of school districts regarding compliance with the AHERA (Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act) regulation (Long Island School Districts can expect to see NYSDOL this spring); there will be a public comment period for rules and regulations under the new mold law (Article 32) and an expectation that mold supervisors may need to be present at mold projects; code officials must provide condemnation letters for demolition projects; emergency projects are handled on a case-by-case basis and the information should be forthright and accurate; and what consists of a contamination assessment. Some of the changes to Code Rule 56 are removing the 1974 cut off date and adding responsibilities and teeth to the project monitor. The conference ended with lunch and a final networking among attendees.

FED Team (Kimberly Granmoe, Sheryl Esposito, Veronica & Angelo Garcia III) at the Vendor Reception

Overall the conference was an excellent source of information, the presentations have helped to improve our classes, and was an excellent networking event in meeting regulators, suppliers, trainers, consultants and contractors. If you missed the conference and you want to get some additional highlights, you can head over to Twitter and search for our tweets during the conference under the hastag #FEDTCPACNY. We look forward to attending next year's event (scheduled for March 1-3, 2017, so save the dates) and hope to see you there!

Friday, July 25, 2014

NYSDOH Announces The Imminent Availability of Vermiculite Analysis

On July 22, 2014, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) sent out a follow up communication to the July 9, 2013 interim guidance letter. This communication is regarding the imminent availability of two new NYSDOH Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (ELAP)-approved methods for the detection and quantitation of asbestos content in spray-on fireproofing that contains vermiculite. The communication indicates that these new methods will be available by October 31, 2014. Click here for the July 9 2013 letter and click here for the new communication. Otherwise you can find both communications at our website http://futureenvironmentdesigns.com/resources.html click on the FED Training CD in the Helpful Links and Info folder.

Vermiculite-containing Sprayed-on Fireproofing is the focus of the communication

After October 31, 2014, one of the two methods must be used to test sprayed-on fireproofing regardless of the percent of vermiculite. This document does not indicate any information about the methods other than the asbestos inspector must collect a minimum of 10 grams of the sprayed-on fireproofing (versus the 100-500 milligrams for 198.1 and 198.6). Nor does it indicate what labs will be doing this analysis. In addition, the two methods are only for vermiculite-containing sprayed-on fireproofing. Other materials still must use the 2013 interim communication with the disclaimer and bulk vermiculite is still asbestos containing material (ACM).

日本語: バーミキュライト (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The new communication is interesting for its lack of information. First it does not indicate anything about the new methods other than the need for a larger quantity of material. It gives no indication of what it will take to analyze the material, what the turnaround will be, who the laboratories will be, costs, etc. It is specifically only for vermiculite containing sprayed-on fireproofing. In addition, it means an asbestos inspector will need to add a new tool to the sampling kit, a scale. Taking a sufficient sample that ensures the laboratory gets a minimum of 10 grams. Maybe not that difficult, but could be annoying if you make a mistake. Don't forget you are still required to take either 3-5-7 or 9 samples of the sprayed-on fireproofing and it only takes one sample for the homogeneous material to be positive for asbestos. Even more interesting was industry implications on the last page of the communication. That stated after October 31, 2014 you are required to use one of the two methods to analyze vermiculite containing sprayed-on fireproofing, not surprising. Though it is based on what stage your project is in. Needless to say we look forward to hearing more about the new methods and the real implications they will have on the asbestos industry.

Sunday, July 21, 2013

New Vermiculite Guidance Shifts Liability to Consultants & Owners

On July 9, 2013, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (ELAP) released a further clarification regarding the analysis of surfacing materials, thermal system insulation, and miscellaneous materials that contain vermiculite (nothing has changed regarding loose fill vermiculite this still must be reported as an asbestos containing material (ACM)). Visit Future Environment Design's Resource Page for the New Interim Vermiculite Guidance 7/9/13 from NYSDOH.

To sum up the changes, when you send surfacing materials, thermal system insulation, and miscellaneous materials for analysis the lab will start with the friable bulk sample method 198.1. Once the material is determined to contain greater than 10% vermiculite the lab will then use the gravimetric reduction method 198.6. No matter what result you get with the 198.6 method, the result must be accompanied with the following disclaimer:

“This method does not remove vermiculite and may underestimate the level of asbestos present in a sample containing greater than 10% vermiculite.”

We think most of you would agree the problem is not with having a disclaimer on results that report >1% asbestos, these are reported as ACM with the disclaimer. The problem & liability come from materials that are now being reported as < 1% asbestos, these will be reported as non-ACM with the above disclaimer. As far as we are concerned this disclaimer basically says these results may not be accurate. This change puts heavy liability on the asbestos inspector (consultant) as the person who under Industrial Code Rule 56 (ICR 56) makes this decision. As Dr. Eileen Franco, acting director of NYSDOL Division of Safety and Health, stated "The Certified Inspector who performs the sample collection and analysis in support of the required asbestos survey is responsible for determining if a material is ACM or not. If they classify it as ACM, it is ACM and covered by ICR 56. If they classify it as non-ACM, ICR 56 does not apply. DOL enforces ICR 56 which is for asbestos. If a product has greater than 1% asbestos it is asbestos. If they do further testing of something with >10% vermiculite and it is less than or equal to 1% asbestos it is non-ACM. "

Certified Asbestos Free by Who?
Thank you Mr. Henry Alilionis for the photo.

In our opinion, this is insufficient to advise a client on what to do with a material that has a result of < 1% ACM with the disclaimer. So the question is how do we proceed? We obviously need more information. It means asbestos inspectors need to do more research on the material (material safety data sheets, manufacture specifications, etc.) and the source of the vermiculite. If that is not possible for whatever reason, maybe other types of analysis could be used. Presently, other methods available are the Cincinnati method (Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) method A 600/R-04/004) which is a research method or the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D22.07 method, neither are approved by NYSDOH ELAP. However, at this point NYSDOH has given us a result which says the material is non-ACM with a disclaimer. As asbestos inspectors we must address the disclaimer. NYSDOH has not given us a way to do that, allowing us to find our own way. Our advice would be to research the material and if that is now successful, then use one of the other lab methods to address the disclaimer. In our view this is what a reasonable person would do to avoid the potential liability of exposing construction workers to asbestos.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Future Environment Designs Has Published Its 2013 Future Focus Newsletter

Future Environment Designs has published our 2013 newsletter "Future Focus". As usual the current newsletter will be part of our manuals and handed out in our classes. If you don't want to wait until you take a class with us, you can find our newsletter at our website at: http://futureenvironmentdesigns.com/newsletter.html.

Chrysotile Asbestos display at Thetford Mines Mineralogical & Mining Mueseum

In our current newsletter, the lead article is about "Asbestos In Current Building Materials". We discuss how material safety data sheets (MSDS) and the new safety data sheets (SDS) cannot be used to determine if current building materials contain asbestos, especially when discussing foreign building materials. We hope this newsletter acts as a warning to asbestos inspectors, facility directors, building managers, architects/engineers, and building owners, etc. in determining whether current and new building materials have asbestos.

Monday, July 09, 2012

NYS Department Of Health Vermiculite Clarification

New York State Department of Health's (NYSDOH) Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (ELAP) has released an update that revises FAQ #10 from the 4/8/11 FAQ document. This update is posted at:
http://www.wadsworth.org/labcert/elapcert/forms/Vermiculite%20Guidance_Rev062212.pdf.

The revision separates vermiculite into two types. Vermiculite material used for thermal systems insulation (TSI), surfacing materials, and other miscellaneous ACM (including but not limited to: existing or new surfacing material, plaster, pipe lagging, and sprayed-on fireproofing) or vermiculite material used for attic fill, block fill, and other loose bulk vermiculite material. For the vermiculite material used for attic fill, etc. nothing has changed. We still cannot analyze it and material must be assumed to contain asbestos and designated an asbestos containing material.

New Evaluation for Surfacing Material Containing Vermiculite

For the vermiculite used for TSI, surfacing material, etc. anaylze by ELAP certification manual item 198.1 (polarized light microscopy [PLM] friable method). Vermiculite evaluation shall follow these three steps:

If vermiculite is calculated to be less than 10% of the entire material composition and no asbestos fibers are detected, the material may be reported as non-ACM.
If any asbestos fibers are identified, analysis must proceed according to Item 198.1 PLM and reported as ACM according to Section 6.3.
If vermiculite is calculated to be 10% or more of the material, the material must be reported as ACM.

According to NYSDOH ELAP the reason for the difference is that vermiculite used for TSI, etc can be more constrained that loose fill, there is less of a public health concern pertaining to airborne asbestos fibers following disturbance.

Thursday, April 26, 2012

NYSDOH ELAP Decision Trees

In our previous blog post on the Professional Abatement Contractors of New York's (PACNY's) 16th Annual Environmental Conference, we mentioned that Dr. Stephanie Ostrowski, of the New York State Department of Health's Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (ELAP), was one of the presenters. Dr. Ostrowski's presentation, as we mentioned in our blog, included lengthy discussions on vermiculite and ceiling tiles.

The discussion regarding ceiling tiles included reviewing the decision trees she provided us to help explain the analysis process for regular bulk samples and samples required to undergo gravimetric reduction. Analysis of friable bulk sample (material) must use analysis method 198.1, while non-friable, organically bound (NOB) bulk material must use analysis method 198.6/198.4. Visit my website under Resources for the copy of the decision trees she provided us. Her explainations were excellent and the decision trees did make it easier to understand.

There was also some discussion regarding whether this meant that ceiling tiles were considered NOBs and hence could be removed under the In-plant regulations of New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) Industrial Code Rule 56 (ICR56). Mr. Chris Alonge of NYSDOL came to the microphone and immediately put that issue to rest, saying that ceiling tiles are not considered non-friable, so as such cannot be removed under the In-plant operations section of the regulation. This year's conference was as informative as usual, a great job was done by PACNY, Deborah Johnson of Aramsco, Darren Yehl of LeChase Construction Services and Kevin Hutton of Cornerstone Training Institute.

Thursday, June 09, 2011

NYCDEP Creates a New Closeout Process for A-TRU (Asbestos) Permitted Projects

Image via WikipediaNew York City Department of Environmental Protection just sent out information regarding a new closeout process that has been developed in ARTS for A-TRU (Asbestos) Permitted Projects to allow the registered design professional to handle the A-TR1.

1. The registered design professional needs to create an account by going to http://a826-web01.nyc.gov/atr1 and registering.

2. Once the registered design professional registers at the web site, they will give the email they used to register to the ACP7 applicant.

3. When closing out permitted locations the ACP7, the applicant will select the abatement locations and enter the email address the registered design professional used to register at the web site.
4. The applicant hits submit and the A-TR1 goes to the registered design professional who will complete and submit the A-TRI form to DEP for approval.
Instructions for both the applicant and registered design professional can be found at our website at http://futureenvironmentdesigns.com/news.html.

Monday, May 02, 2011

First Quebec, Now Zimbabwe

Zimbabwean asbestos mine King Mine, Mashava, f...

Image via WikipediaIn a previous posting we discussed that the Quebec government had decided to back the loan that would reopen the Jeffrey Mine in Asbestos Canada. This loan would allow the mine to begin mining asbestos again and exporting it to countries like India. Now in the following article "Zimbabwe in bid to revive asbestos mines" in the English version of the People's Daily Online (China), we find out that Zimbabwe intends on doing the same thing for two of their mines (Shabanie and Mashava). These mines used to produce about 180,000 tons of asbestos fibers per year. According to this article, Zimbabwe has been spending millions of dollars on fiber imports from Russia and Brazil. Seems to me, that Zimbabwe is tired of importing asbestos when they could be mining it.

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Controversy Regarding Brodeur's Asbestos Research Information at The New York Public Library.

The Main Branch building of the New York Publi...

Image via WikipediaMy first full-time job was working with Hygienetics which at the time was located in Jersey City, New Jersey. My boss and my mentor was Mr. Eugene Pinzer, CIH. Mr. Pinzer was a great boss and did an excellant job mentoring me (as far as I am concerned). At times he would train by hands-on practices, other times he would ask me to read some article or book that would help with my education and help me gain valuable experience and knowledge. When I read the Felix Salmon's blog post "The case of Paul Brodeur vs the NYPL" and then Paul Brodeur's, a staff writer for The New Yorker for nearly 40 years, article for The Author's Guild titled "Paul Brodeur: A Breach of Trust at The New York Public Library" it brought back the some great memories. One of the articles Mr. Pinzer requested that I read was Mr. Brodeur's article "Annals of Law - The Asbestos Industry on Trial". This four part article written for The New Yorker Magazine ran from June 10 - July 1, 1985. At the time I was, are you kidding me. The articles were the equivalent of a 300-400 page book and I really didn't see the importance. However, as Mr. Pinzer was apt to do he cajoled me into reading it. The articles are well written and documents the asbestos industry's fall from grace. I strongly suggest that if you are in the asbestos industry you read these articles. It details the downfall of the industry, including how the information that exposed the industry of hiding the dangers of asbestos.
As the title indicates the New York Public Library has notified Mr. Brodeur that they intend on breaking up his collection of papers that he donated to the library. Included in this collection of papers is Mr. Paul Brodeur's investigation of the asbestos health hazard and its cover-up by the asbestos industry. Though I am not a curator or librarian, it seems to be a waste of the research that Mr. Brodeur did to back-up the facts, assertions, and evidence he writes about in his articles. I hope the New York Public Library reconsiders their decision or at least allow the collection to remain together by returning the full documents to Mr. Brodeur.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Quebec Government Decides to Back Loan to Restart Asbestos Mine

Image via WikipediaQuebec government announced that it was providing conditional support of the reopening of the Jeffrey Mine Inc in the town of Asbestos through a $58 million loan guarantee. Economic development minister Clément Gignac also suggested that chrysotile asbestos from that mine could help save lives in India. Gignac said, the relaunched mine would create 425 full-time jobs in the region plus provide millions of dollars in taxes and royalties to Quebec which in turn will create a $7.5 million economic diversification fund for the region.
To justify the decision, Gignac told reporters that millions of people in India die of cholera every year because they lack access to potable water and proper sanitary infrastructure. "Excuse me, but the fact is that chrysotile asbestos cement can be used to make many more kilometres of infrastructure because it is less expensive and is a durable material and we can improve the quality of life of citizens in India," he said.

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Inspectors Discover Asbestos at East Hampton Middle School

Mold behind sheet rock (asbestos joint compound?).

Interesting article "Inspectors Discover Asbestos at East Hampton Middle School" regarding asbestos and mold in the East Hampton Patch. Kind of interesting how this ties into my last post regarding avoiding tunnel vision. The original focus of the inspection was mold and Ms. Barbara Eisenberg, the inspector for the New York State Department of Labor, instead found asbestos containing debris. This is another perfect example of making sure all issues are addressed not just the mold concern but realizing the mold may be growing on the asbestos containing material and the asbestos needs to be addressed, too. Since asbestos is regulated in New York State and mold is not (yet?), the asbestos will take priority in the way the work will be handled.

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Asbestos Article in Indoor Environment Discusses Cross Issues with Radon

In the March 2011 issue of Indoor Environment Connections, Douglas Kladder the Director of the Center for Environmental Research & Training in Colorado Springs, Colorado wrote an excellant article regarding asbestos. Being on the asbestos side of the fence, it is interesting how sometimes we get tunnel vision in dealing with indoor air quality/environmental issues. Mr. Kladder article "Asbestos? What Asbestos? I'm a Radon Guy!" discusses the dangers of tunnel vision. Mr. Kladder discusses that their are few activities involved in radon mitigation that would not impact asbestos containing materials. He then provides several war stories of issues related to this topic. In many ways the same statement can be made to those of us in the asbestos field. We tend to get tunnel vision regarding asbestos and forget that lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or, even for that matter, radon may also be a concern. For example, lead paint could be on asbestos siding or asbestos spackles/joint compounds, and window caulk, in addition to containing asbestos, may also contain lead and/or PCBs. It is important for indoor air quality/environmental professional to keep abreast of the field and to consider the potential possibilities of various environmental hazards being present.

Wednesday, March 09, 2011

NYC Title 15 Revisions Took Effect February 3, 2011

We recently received an email from Steven A. Camaiore, P.E., the Deputy Director of the New York City Environmental Protection - Environmental Compliance Asbestos Control Program. In the email he advised that Title 15, Chapter 1 RCNY Asbestos Control Program Rules & Regulations were revised and the new Rules took effect February 3, 2011. Find the revised rule at: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/asbestos/asbestos.shtml.

In addition, he also advised that the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYC DEP) will be strictly enforcing the following provisions of Title 15, Chapter 1 RCNY Asbestos Control Program Rules & Regulations effective May 1, 2011:

“§ 1-01 (j) (3) DEP may deny any application for an asbestos abatement permit pursuant to section 1-26 of these rules, or a variance application pursuant to section 1-03 of these rules, where any party to the asbestos project, including but not limited to the abatement contractor, building owner, and air monitoring company, has docketed, unpaid civil penalties imposed by the Environmental Control Board for violations of these rules, sections 24-146.1 and 24-146.3 of the Administrative Code, or NYSDOL ICR 56.”

Companies with outstanding penalties can pay their outstanding penalties in any of the following ways:

• On-line at http://nycserv.nyc.gov/NYCServWeb/NYCSERVMain

• By phone at (212) 504-4041

• By mail:
New York City Department of Finance,
345 Adams, 3rd Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Attention: Timeko Hunte

• In person at any Finance Business Center. For location and hours of operation, visit: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/contact/contact_visit.shtml.

Related articles

Wednesday, March 02, 2011

Businessman Pleads Guilty To Failing To Conduct An Asbestos Inspection

Postcard: Erie Railroad Station, Jamestown, Ne...

Image via WikipediaSorry we've been so busy we are just getting to this bit of information. About Mesothelioma.net reported on Thursday, October 28, 2010 that a Bemus Point, New York businessman, Daniel Black, 56, pleaded guilty in federal court to failing to conduct an inspection before an asbestos removal project, exposing workers and neighbors to deadly asbestos fibers. Mr. Black, president of Blackstone Business Enterprises Inc., a sheet metal and structural steel fabricator in Jamestown, New York, faces up to five years in prison, a $250,000 fine for the Clean Air Act Violation. Blackstone Business will also pay a $205,000 penalty to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for citations related to improper asbestos removal and an additional $25,000 to the New York Department of Labor. Black also pleaded guilty to tax-related violations that came to light during the asbestos investigation.
According to the About Mesothelioma.net report in 2008, Black hired four temporary workers to remove asbestos insulation from steam pipes and cut down the steam pipes as scrap metal as part of a renovation of a four-story building at 100 Blackstone Avenue in Jamestown. The four men were exposed to asbestos during the renovation work, U.S. Attorney William Hochul, Jr., told The Post-Journal.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Asbestos Worries Close Saint Louis Park Schools

Image by angelogarciaiii via FlickrThose of us in the asbestos industry will find the above news story very interesting (find the original news story at StarTribune.com). The officials of St. Louis Park schools in Minnesota were worried that asbestos floor tiles (approximately 10% asbestos) were being worn down, by tracked-in salt and sand, and could be releasing dangerous asbestos. The officials decided to close the city's junior and senior high schools on Monday, February 14, 2011. The schools will remain closed Tuesday as state and school officials work to assess the hazard and determine if other schools face similar problems. Asbestos floor tile was commonly installed in hundreds of 1960s-era schools across the metro area, but it remains unclear how many could still have the asbestos tile or how much risk St. Louis Park students faced, said one expert at the Minnesota Department of Health.
Quoted in the article was Diedra Hudgens, senior project manager at Brooklyn Park-based Institute for Environmental Assessment, or IEA. Her company tested the two St. Louis Park schools for asbestos Monday and Tuesday and will be "taking a closer eye" on the 60 other Minnesota schools it works with. "We're definitely going to be informing our clients -- other school districts -- about what we found, and we'll definitely be taking steps to monitor it," said Diedra Hudgens. "Every district has an elementary school or something this vintage."
So what started this concern of salt and sand releasing asbestos? St. Louis Park school staffers complained late last week about dust outside a school nurse's office, prompting IEA tests on Saturday. A protective wax layer had been worn down by salt and sand tracked in from roads and sidewalks, dulling the floor. As a precautionary measure on Monday, school was dismissed for additional testing at both the high school and the nearby junior high -- which has similar flooring. These tiles were removed from the high school and Monday the school was tested by IEA crews in full protective gear.
What makes this interesting is that the article does not discuss the results of any of the testing done nor does it discuss what type of testing was done? We can only assume that the results must of indicated a need to do something because the schools were closed and the tiles were removed. Since Long Island had alot of snowfall this year, and I'm sure we used more salt and sand this year then in the past, this news story implies that there is an increase potential for the release of asbestos from floor tiles that are subjected to tracked-in salt and sand. It will be interesting to see if and how this story plays out or if it just dies on the vine.

Monday, February 07, 2011

Steven Mancuso Is Barred From Practicing Law By Federal Authorities.

Image via Wikipedia

Asbestos fibres - a single fibre is believed to cause mesothelioma

As we have discussed in our asbestos refresher classes, and previously in our blog, the Mancuso family is in the news again. This time it is Lawyer Steven Mancuso of Utica, New York being disbarred from practicing law upon his conviction for conspiring with his brother, Paul Mancuso, to cover-up illegal asbestos removal operations. Steven, Paul and their father, Lester Mancuso, were sentenced to three years in federal prison last June.

An attorney since 2002, Steven Mancuso was found guilty in a federal trial for wrongfully aiding his brother in the creation of fraudulent partnerships and submission of false legal documents in an effort to conceal the illegality of Paul Mancuso’s asbestos business. Steven Mancuso denied the charges, yet U.S. District Court Judge Frederick Scullin ruled that he had used his legal skills in the furtherance of his brother’s criminal conspiracy. “When an attorney used his law license to commit crimes and to aid another in the commission of crimes, the appropriate sanction is disbarment,” stated the December 30th ruling. Reports said that Mancuso is currently in the process of appealing to the court, saying that the prosecutors failed to properly handle a variety of legal issues.

Future Environment Designs Training Center's Blog

Search This Blog