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

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

Stop by and Interact with our New Display

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

Scrape Sampling and NYSDOH ELAP Method 198.1

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

Sampling Tools - Tweezers are one of my favorites

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

Microvacuum Sampling and ASTM D5755

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

The sample cassette and the nozzle must be submitted

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

Nozzle example

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

Wipe Sampling and ASTM D6480

ASTM D6480, Standard Test Method for Wipe Sampling of Surfaces, Indirect Preparation, and Analysis for Asbestos Structure Number Concentration by Transmission Electron Microscopy, is another method used to collect dust and debris.  This approach involves wiping a known surface area - again, typically 100 square centimeters - with a particle-free, sealed-edge, continuous filament cloth, such as a cleanroom wipe with 50/50 alcohol/water (no ghost wipes or baby wipes).  Multiple passes, first horizontal, then vertical, then hit the corners. Record the area sampled.  Like D5755, this standard recommends that multiple independent samples be secured from the same area, and that a minimum of three samples be analyzed by the entire procedure.

Cleanroom wipes

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

The Analysis Matters More Than the Collection Method

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

Transmission Electron Microscope

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

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

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

Experience, Knowledge, and Regulatory Awareness Are Critical

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

Asbestos Inspector Initial Class

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

Future Environment Designs wishes all of you a Merry Holidays and a Happy New Year!

As we say goodbye to 2025 and welcome 2026, we reflect that 2025 was a really good year for Future Environment Designs, Inc. (FEDTC).  We trained over 1,000 individuals this past year, and over 870 of them reviewed us and gave us a 4.9 out of 5 evaluation on the over 25 different training programs we provided.  Our At Your Convenience Service provided respirator fit testing and medical evaluations for over 50 individuals.   As we continue to provide these different training programs and services into 2026, we look forward to partnering with more companies and individuals as we enter our 38th year in business.  We are still working on a balance between the company and our personal life (though in 2025, we did celebrate our 40th wedding anniversary by taking a three-week European Vacation).  Which is almost always intertwined.

Verona, Italy, to see the opera Carmen at the Colosseum

HERALD 2025 GreenBIZ Award 

Future Environment Designs was proud to announce that Angelo Garcia III, Principal-Industrial Hygienist and Founder, had been selected as a recipient of the HERALD 2025 GreenBIZ Award, presented by HERALD Community Newspapers and RichnerLIVE. The inaugural GreenBIZ Awards recognize Long Island companies and individuals leading the way in environmental sustainability and community impact. Mr. Garcia was chosen for his more than 30 years of commitment to improving environmental health and safety through education, advocacy, and industry leadership.  

Angelo Garcia, III, Awarded Green Biz Award

PACNY 2025/2026

We were honored to be re-elected to the Professional Abatement Contractors of New York (PACNY). board back in January.  The 2025 Environmental Conference was one of our most successful conferences ever.  Having the highest number of vendors in the Vendor Exhibit Hall.  The panel we put together went over very well. Read about last year's conference in our March 30, 2025, blog post.

Front Row - Tom Laubenthal & Matthew Brooks
Back Row - Chris Alonge, Marc Rutstein, & Angelo Garcia, III

The 2026 PACNY Environmental Conference registration and sponsorship sign-up have already opened.  Visit their website here to register or sign up for sponsorships.  We will have the pleasure of presenting with Martin Rutstein and Marc Rutstein of Environmental Consulting and Management Services, Inc., on "Asbestos in Settled Dust- Is it a valid method in a consultant’s toolbox? Two case studies."  It should be very entertaining.

The Fight to Ban Asbestos and Protect Workers From Asbestos Exposure continues.

In September, we attended the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization's (ADAO's) conference at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Manhattan, New York.  We learned about the continuing work going on regarding Dr. Irving Selikoff's legacy of protecting workers from asbestos exposure.  See our December blogpost regarding the conference.  At the conference, we learned about the industry challenge of the current ban, see our blog post “Chrysotile Asbestos Banned? More Like Certain Conditions of Use Will Be Eventually Banned!“ and the introduction of the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now (ARBAN) Act see our September blog post.  

BADGES: A Memorial Tribute to Asbestos Workers

So in 2026 we will be keeping watch regarding the industry challenge to the current ban, the status of ARBAN, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) progress on Legacy issues (see our December 2024 blogpost regarding this issue) and finally the Occupational Safety and Health Administraion (OSHA) proposed changes to the asbestos respirator requirements (see our August blogpost regarding this issue).

Having Fun in 2026

We will continue our podcast "After The Refresher" on our YouTube Channel, we're up to episode 4, and the podcasts have been well received (see our October blogpost regarding the podcast).  We look forward to continuing the episodes and interviewing various individuals who attend our classes.  We look forward to showcasing our new display at this year's PACNY Environmental Conference.  We would like to thank Tom Watral from Watral Brothers, Inc. for doing a promotional video regarding FEDTC's At Your Convenience services.

We are so grateful to all our clients for your loyalty and the support of our business.  We could never have made it to 38 years in business without it.  We would also like thank those who have helped our business operate these past years!  We wish you all a Merry Holiday and a Happy New Year season!

Rockefeller Christmas Tree, NYC

Future Environment Designs’ Angelo Garcia III Named 2025 HERALD GreenBIZ Award Winner

 October 2025 — Future Environment Designs is proud to announce that Angelo Garcia III, Principal-Industrial Hygienist and Founder, has been selected as a recipient of the HERALD 2025 GreenBIZ Award, presented by HERALD Community Newspapers and RichnerLIVE.

The inaugural GreenBIZ Awards recognize Long Island companies and individuals leading the way in environmental sustainability and community impact. Mr. Garcia was chosen for his more than 30 years of commitment to improving environmental health and safety through education, advocacy, and industry leadership.

Under Mr. Garcia’s direction, Future Environment Designs has become one of Long Island’s premier providers of asbestos, mold, indoor air quality, and OSHA compliance training—empowering professionals to create safer and healthier workplaces across New York State and the tri-state region.

“It’s an honor to be recognized among Long Island’s sustainability leaders. For more than three decades, our mission at Future Environment Designs has been to make workplaces safer and communities healthier through education, training, and advocacy.  This award reinforces our belief that protecting the environment and protecting people go hand in hand.” - Angelo Garcia III, Principal-Industrial Hygienist, Future Environment Designs, Inc.

Award recipients will be honored at the GreenBIZ Awards Gala on October 29, 2025, at The Heritage Club at Bethpage, celebrating sustainability leaders shaping a greener, healthier future for Long Island.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OSHA’s Proposed Asbestos Respirator Changes Raise Important Safety Concerns

As someone who has spent decades navigating the complexities of asbestos regulations, we recognize that clarity, practicality, and worker protection must be at the core of any regulatory update.  Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA's) recent proposal to revise certain respirator-related provisions within the asbestos construction standard (29 CFR 1926.1101) attempts that but it’s important for all of us in the industry to carefully evaluate how these changes impact worker protection, especially concerning respirator requirements.

Confusion about the 9/11 type of respirator/filter to wear

Three proposed changes stand out to us as potentially problematic:

1. Removing the HEPA Filter Requirement

For decades, HEPA filters have been the gold standard for respirators, protecting workers from asbestos fibers. The current OSHA standard mandates HEPA filters (P100 filters) on all powered and non-powered air-purifying respirators to ensure maximum filtration efficiency.

OSHA’s proposal to eliminate this specific HEPA filter requirement, citing updated National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) certification standards (42 CFR part 84), raises questions.  While newer filter types may meet certification requirements, HEPA filters’ proven reliability and high filtration efficiency have been foundational in asbestos protection.

The risk here is that removing the HEPA filter mandate could lead to the use of less effective filters (N95s) or confusion over filter equivalency, ultimately compromising worker safety.  The asbestos hazard is too severe to accept any uncertainty about filter performance.

2. Replacing Supplied-Air Respirators with PAPRs

Current OSHA standards require supplied-air respirators (SARs) operated in pressure-demand mode with an auxiliary positive-pressure self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) backup for exposures exceeding 1 (one) fiber per cubic centimeter (f/cc).  The proposed change to this section would replace the specific respirator requirement (SAR/SCBA, with an Assigned Protection Factor (APF) of 1,000) with a requirement to provide a respirator with a minimum APF of 1,000.  That would include a full-face Powered Air Purifying Respirator (PAPR) and helmet/hood PAPR (having manufacturer test evidence to support an APF of 1,000).

For high-level asbestos exposures, this shift is concerning. Supplied-air respirators provide a higher level of protection against variable airborne fiber concentrations, and the SCBA backup is critical for emergency scenarios.  Moving to PAPRs risks lowering the safety margin in situations where asbestos concentrations spike unexpectedly.

Workers wearing PAPRs 

3. Replacing PAPRs with Full Facepiece APRs

Another change to the current standard includes providing a tight-fitting powered air-purifying respirator (APF 1,000) or a full facepiece, supplied-air respirator operated in the pressure-demand mode, and equipped with either HEPA egress cartridges or an auxiliary positive-pressure, self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) (APF 1,000) for exposure levels at or below 1 f/cc.  The proposed change would require employers to provide a respirator that has a minimum of an APF 50.  This would allow the use of a full-facepiece air purifying respirator (APR).  This is definitely not an increase in protection; it is a significant reduction of protection.

---

Why These Concerns Matter

Asbestos remains one of the most hazardous occupational exposures, with no safe level of exposure (according to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)).  Respiratory protection is the last line of defense when engineering and work practice controls cannot fully eliminate airborne fibers.

Standards must err on the side of maximum protection, not convenience or cost savings.  Removing the HEPA filter requirement, substituting SARs with PAPRs, and PAPRs for full facepiece APRs for high-exposure Class I asbestos work would reduce protection levels at a time when new asbestos exposures still occur daily, and there are questions about whether the current permissible exposure limit is low enough.

Respirator Protection Types

---

What Are the Key Changes?

Replacing Specific Respirator Types with APF-Based Selection: Instead of mandating exact respirator models, employers will select respirators that meet or exceed required APFs (e.g., minimum APF of 50 or 1,000, depending on exposure scenarios).

Removing Redundant Provisions: OSHA is proposing to eliminate duplicative language in asbestos standards that overlaps with general respiratory protection requirements, simplifying the rules without adding burdens.

Updating Filter Requirements: The current HEPA filter mandate for air-purifying respirators is being reconsidered because NIOSH’s certification has evolved, allowing other certified particulate filters that offer equivalent protection.  The fact is that asbestos is not like any other particulate.  Because of the aerodynamics of the fiber and the size of the fibers, which can cause disease.  N95s do not provide equivalent protection to a HEPA filter.

Training Requirements Streamlined: OSHA intends to reduce duplicative respirator training provisions, relying more on the general respiratory protection standard’s comprehensive training requirements.

Asbestos Training Class

What Is OSHA Seeking From the Public?

OSHA is actively requesting comments on several points, including: 

• Concerns about potential decreases in worker safety from these proposed changes. 
• Alternative approaches to respirator provisions.
• The practicality and frequency of employees requesting PAPRs.
• Whether removing certain asbestos-specific provisions might lessen protections.
• The appropriateness of lifting the prohibition on filtering facepiece respirators.
• Employers' experiences with duplicative training requirements.

Final Thoughts

We support OSHA’s goal to update asbestos standards to reflect advances in technology and reduce unnecessary compliance burdens. However, changes to respirator requirements must be grounded in solid evidence and prioritize worker health above all.

OSHA’s proposal is a critical opportunity for industry stakeholders to weigh in. We must ensure that any revisions do not erode decades of hard-earned protection for workers facing asbestos hazards.

---

If you work with asbestos or manage respiratory protection programs, we urge you to review OSHA’s proposal carefully and submit comments highlighting these concerns before the comment period closes on November 1, 2025.

Still Not a #BanAsbestos: Over 40 Years in the Asbestos Industry and the Ongoing Fight for Real Change

As we celebrate our country's 249th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, recent events have caused us to spend some time reflecting on 37 years of business, and 43 years in the asbestos industry where we started, what’s changed, and what hasn’t.  Back then, we relied on beepers, phone cards, and typewriters to keep the wheels turning.  New York City Department of Environmental Protection's (NYCDEP's) "Not an Asbestos Project Form ACP5s" had to be ordered and picked up at NYCDEP and were typed by hand.  Manuals were several inches thick, and navigating them required patience—and maybe a magnifying glass.  Today, we have digital manuals, searchable PDFs, online filing systems (see our Training Library), smartphones that connect us instantly, and ACP5s that are filed online.

Yet despite all the technology and efficiency, the core of our work hasn’t changed: workers still need respirators, still need to take showers after abatement, still need negative pressure in the containment area, and still need to wet materials to keep dust down.  The tools have evolved, but the risks and the protocols remain stubbornly the same.  And the biggest constant of all?  Asbestos is still here.  

Asbestos Pipe Insulation

When we first opened our doors, people told us the asbestos problem would be solved in 5 or 10 years.  That was the thinking at the time—because how could a substance so toxic, so dangerous, remain legal in any form? (see our blog post "Future Environment Designs Celebrates 30 Years in Business in October. What the heck is SNUR?").

The book we wrote after 30 years in business

Yet here we are, over 40 years later, and we’re still talking about it.  Not only has asbestos not been banned, but what we’re now calling a “ban” - specifically, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA's) Part 1 Final Rule on Chrysotile Asbestos - isn’t a ban at all.  In addition, the EPA plans to rewrite the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) rule on asbestos, leaving the ban’s status unclear (see Inside EPA).  

Cobbing Station with chrysotile asbestos

Let’s be honest: many of you probably read headlines like “EPA Bans Chrysotile Asbestos” and felt a wave of relief.  We did too—until we read the rule (see our blog post "Chrysotile Asbestos Banned? More Like Certain Conditions of Use Will Be Eventually Banned!").  The full title tells the real story:

“Asbestos Part 1 – Chrysotile Asbestos; Regulation of Certain Conditions of Use Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).”

That phrase—“Certain Conditions of Use”—should tell you everything. This isn’t a ban.  It’s a regulation of specific uses.  The media clearly needs a dictionary, because, by definition, a ban is to prohibit or forbid by legal means. That’s not what this rule does.

What the EPA has issued is a partial phase-out of chrysotile asbestos—one type of asbestos, in some uses, with long timelines, carveouts, and industry exceptions.

And it says nothing about the other types of asbestos: amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, actinolite, anthophyllite, or the Libby amphiboles.  None of these are addressed.

Asbestos Display Museum of Natural History

Let’s look closer.  The rule is 40 pages long (starting on page 21970 of the Federal Register), but the actual regulatory section is?  Just five pages long—starting at page 22005. The rule addresses:

• Chrysotile asbestos diaphragms in the chlor-alkali industry

• Sheet gaskets in chemical production

• Oilfield brake blocks and gaskets

• Aftermarket automotive brakes and linings

• Other vehicle friction products

• Interim workplace controls

• Disposal

• Recordkeeping

Here’s the devil in the details:

• As of May 28, 2024, the manufacture and import of chrysotile asbestos for chlor-alkali diaphragms is prohibited.

• Use of those diaphragms? Not prohibited until May 28, 2029, and even then, with exceptions that allow use until 2036 at certain facilities.

• For sheet gaskets, there’s an exception for titanium dioxide production until May 28, 2029, and for the Savannah River Site until December 31, 2037.

• Aftermarket brake parts and gaskets can still be used if already installed, even though we know from studies (including those on auto mechanics) that exposure during repair work is dangerous.

And if that’s not enough to make you question the strength of this so-called “ban,” remember the Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) issued in 2019. That rule allows companies to petition the EPA for permission to resume using asbestos in dozens of legacy products, including:

• Roofing felts

• Vinyl-asbestos floor tiles

• Electrical paper

• Sealants and coatings

• Beater-add gaskets

• Millboard

• Adhesives

• And more

Think about it: if these materials come back into use, every project involving them will need asbestos inspection and possible abatement. The asbestos abatement industry might never go away—and while that might sound good for business, it’s a horrifying thought for public health.

We find it troubling that while the EPA is creating tighter exposure standards—like their Interim Existing Chemical Exposure Limit (ECEL) of 0.005 f/cc, which is 20 times more protective than the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA's) current limit—they’re simultaneously allowing asbestos to linger in commerce for another decade or more.

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

Even their respirator guidance underscores the danger.  EPA is requiring supplied air respirators for exposure levels that OSHA still considers acceptable. That speaks volumes.

Supplied Airline Respirator

And while the EPA sets these rules, they’re also challenging them.  Under pressure from industry, the agency recently filed a motion to reconsider its own chrysotile asbestos rule, which will delay full implementation for at least 30 months.  That would be a massive setback.

In 2009, we interviewed Linda Reinstein on asbestos for my show, Keeping Your Family Safe 

Linda Reinstein, President and Co-Founder of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), called it what it is: “a move that puts lives at risk.”  Listen to her at Reinstein Notebook “EPA’s Motion & Trump’s Administration Consideration of an Asbestos Ban Reversal”.

Here’s the thing: asbestos kills 40,000 Americans a year. This isn’t just about regulation—it’s about life and death.  And that’s why we support ADAO’s fight to pass the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act (ARBAN). This legislation would prohibit the manufacture, processing, use, and distribution of all forms of asbestos in commerce. Period. No loopholes, no exceptions.

We urge you to tell Congress to act. The ADAO has made it easy—use this link to contact your Representatives and Senators and demand a true, complete ban.

---

Tags: #BanAsbestosNow #ChrysotileMyth #EPARegulations #AsbestosKills #SNUR #TSCA #ARBAN #PublicHealth #AsbestosAbatement #ADAO #37YearsStrong #EnvironmentalJustice #AutoMechanicsAtRisk

Insights and Updates from Day 1 of PACNY's Environmental Conference: A Must-Attend Event for Industry Leaders

The Professional Abatement Contractors of New York's (PACNY's) 28th Annual Environmental Conference started with an action-packed first day (February 28th, 2025) at Turning Stone Casino in Verona, New York, setting the stage for a dynamic exchange of ideas, regulatory updates, and thought leadership. Attendees were treated to a robust lineup of expert speakers covering various critical topics, from asbestos and lead regulations to safety leadership and mental health in the workplace.

Frank Ehrenfeld (at the podium) and Tom Laubenthal speaking on the EPA Lead Rule

The morning session began with side-by-side presentations with Frank Ehrenfield, from Eurofins, and Tom Laubenthal, from TGL Consulting, Inc., delivering an essential update on "The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Lead Rule Update from November 2024" in the Mohawk room.  Their presentation discussed the EPA's November 2024, published new Lead-Based Paint rules regarding various definitions, dust levels for risk determination, and “clearance” values (which are now called “action levels”).  Once again, these values will be lowered to further lower risks to children in pre-1978 target housing and child-occupied facilities.  The new dust values are very low to “at reporting limits” (similar to a detection limit for simplicity), and the presentation also described in terms of the difficulties that may exist for some National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program (NLLAP)-accredited labs, in meeting reporting limits. All stakeholders must read these regulations to understand the details and various applicability dates (see Lead and Environmental Hazards Association (LEHA) fact sheet).  While in the Cayuga room, Mary Parish, Principal Worker's Compensation Examiner in the office of the Advocate for Business, presented “Protecting Yourself and Your Team,” shifting the focus to workers' compensation and the legal framework protecting both employers and workers.  A key point from her talk was a reminder to make sure you are a certificate holder on your subcontractor's workmen's compensation insurance.

Mary Parish speaking about NYS Workmen's Compensation

The next speakers in the Mohawk Room, David Duford, from CanAm Environmental Safety, Inc., and Ryan Carney, from Wegmans Food Markets, took the stage to present "Managing Exposure Decisions and Improving Exposure Judgements," diving into practical strategies for assessing and managing workplace hazards. Their discussion highlighted the importance of accurate exposure judgments in protecting workers from hazardous environments utilizing Bayesian Statistics. Meanwhile, in the Cayuga Room, Anthony DiTucci, of Livingston Associates, continued the theme of leadership with "Safety Leadership in Project Management." He delivered a compelling case for strong safety leadership as a cornerstone of effective project management, underscoring the need for safety-first cultures in construction and abatement projects.

Anthony DiTucci in the Cayuga room, Ryan Carney (at the Podium), and Dr. David Duford in the Mohawk room

After a small break in the Vendor Exhibition Hall, Dr. Joe Spurgeon, CIH, followed in the Mohawk room with a targeted presentation, “Write a Mold Assessment Report, Not a Data Report,” emphasizing the need for clear, actionable mold assessment reports. Spurgeon challenged attendees to move beyond merely collecting data and focus on producing comprehensive reports that drive decision-making.  Zooming into the Cayuga Room, Dr. Barry Castleman delivered a hard-hitting presentation on the "Saranac Laboratory Coverups for the Asbestos Industry," revealing the historical injustices faced by asbestos victims and how industry efforts were made to downplay the dangers of asbestos exposure.

Joe Spurgeon in the Mohawk room and Barry Castleman zooming in the Cayuga room,

Closing out the morning session in Mohawk room was Steven Smigielski and Sean Fitzgerald, of Encorus Group, who addressed another timely issue in their talk, "Impact of New York State's Building and Energy Code Revisions on Hazardous Material Abatement." They examined how these revisions are shaping hazardous materials management and abatement strategies, giving attendees practical insights into compliance and operational adjustments.  Closing the morning session in the Cayuga Room, Megan Beaushemin, of New York State Department of Labor, provided a vital introduction to "NYS Code Rule 59 & 60," offering a comprehensive overview of these key regulations and how they impact worker safety practices and workers' compensation insurance.

Steven Smigielski and Sean Fitzgerald in the Mohawk room, and Megan Beauchemin in the Cayuga room

After a networking lunch, the highlight of the day was undoubtedly the Asbestos Inspections Panel moderated by Angelo Garcia, III, of Future Environment Designs, Inc. This distinguished panel, titled "Asbestos Inspections: EPA, OSHA, NYSDOL, NYCDEP & ASTM. Different Requirements and Goals," brought together leading experts to explore the varying requirements and objectives in asbestos inspections. Tom Laubenthal, of TGL Consulting, Inc., led the discussion with a focus on the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) E2356 standard, offering a technical perspective. Chris Alonge, of the Dormitory Authority of New York (DASNY), presented the building owner's perspective, diving into the importance of thorough inspections to protect occupants and workers. Mr. Alonge shared some of the resources DASNY (click here for the DASNY resource page) provides to environmental consultants and contractors working for DASNY. Marc Rutstein, of Environmental Consulting and Management Services, Inc., shared his insights as a consultant, highlighting the regulatory challenges in NYCDEP and NYSDOL compliance. Finally, Matthew Brooks, of International Asbestos Removal, Inc., wrapped up with a contractor’s view, emphasizing the real-world application and costs of when inspectors don't follow these standards on job sites. The panel then had a discussion regarding the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA's) Varga Letter regarding materials containing one percent or less of asbestos and how those materials should be handled.

Front Row - Tom Laubenthal & Matthew Brooks
Back Row - Chris Alonge, Marc Rutstein, & Angelo Garcia, III

The afternoon continued with Peter DeLucia, of Riedman Companies, and Mark Wiktorski, of Wonder Windows Showers and Baths, tackling an important but often overlooked topic—mental health. Their presentation, “Breaking the Stigma: Mental Health as a Critical Component of Workplace Safety,” emphasized how breaking the stigma attached to mental health issues is important to maintaining a safe, productive work environment.  An important website that promotes mental wellbeing in the workplace from the Construction Industry Alliance for Suicide Prevention.

Mark Wiktorski & Peter Delucia (at the Podium) 

Kevin Hutton, of EAST Centers of NY, rounded out the day with a much-anticipated session on "2024 TOP DOL Violations." His presentation gave attendees a close look at the year’s top safety violations, offering key takeaways for improving compliance and reducing risks in the workplace.

Kevin Hutton

The day concluded with a lively happy hour in the exhibition hall, where a record 31 exhibitors were on hand, showcasing the latest products and services in the industry. It was a fitting end to a day full of rich learning and networking opportunities, giving attendees a chance to connect and unwind after a full day of presentations.

As the conference continues (Day 2 was Friday, February 28, 2025; look out for Part Two), the knowledge and insights shared on day one have already set a high bar for the discussions to come. Whether you're looking to stay ahead of regulatory changes or enhance your leadership in safety practices, PACNY's Environmental Conference is the place to be.

Always thankful for Sheryl Esposito's (and Matt Desch) presence managing the booth!

The Role of Asbestos Inspections in Construction Safety: Don't Miss the Asbestos Inspection Panel at PACNY's Environmental Conference!

In the construction world, one of the most pressing concerns for worker safety is the potential asbestos exposure.  This hazardous material, once commonly used in various building materials for its fire-resistant and other properties, has been linked to serious health risks, including lung cancer, asbestosis, and mesothelioma.  Asbestos exposure remains a significant threat, especially in older buildings undergoing renovation or demolition.  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) have set strict guidelines to minimize this danger, but compliance hinges on one key factor: thorough and accurate asbestos inspections.

To explore the intricacies of asbestos inspections, Angelo Garcia, III of Future Environment Designs, Inc., will be moderating a distinguished panel at PACNY's 2025 Environmental Conference on Thursday, February 27, 2025. The panel will dive deep into the importance and differences in asbestos inspections from various perspectives. This includes Tom Laubenthal of TGL Consulting and ASTM E2356 Chairman, who will discuss the ASTM asbestos inspection standard, Chris Alonge now with Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (DASNY) who will provide insights from an owner's perspective, Marc Rutstein from Environmental Consulting & Management Services, who will offer a consultant's viewpoint and highlight the differences between NYCDEP and NYSDOL inspections, and Matt Brooks from International Asbestos Removal (IAR), who will speak on the contractor’s perspective.

Asbestos pipe insulation with fitting insulation

Asbestos inspections play a vital role in identifying materials that may contain asbestos before they are disturbed. This proactive approach not only prevents worker exposure but also ensures that proper abatement procedures are followed. A well-executed asbestos inspection is the first line of defense against the release of airborne asbestos fibers, which can be deadly when inhaled.

Understanding the Importance of Homogeneous Areas

At the heart of every asbestos inspection is the process of determining whether a material is classified as a surfacing material, thermal system insulation, or miscellaneous material.  Once the material type is identified, the inspector must establish whether the materials are homogeneous.  According to the EPA’s Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA), a homogeneous area is defined as one where the material is uniform in color and texture.  

Floor tiles and numerous homogeneous areas

However, that is not the only definition of homogeneous area/material.  For example, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has established a Standard Practice for Comprehensive Asbestos Surveys (ASTM E2356-18) in this standard the definition of homogeneous area is surfacing material, thermal system insulation material, or miscellaneous material that is uniform in color and texture and apparent or known date of installation. The other definitions that are used by inspectors also include some reference to installation or formulation in addition to color and texture.  This classification is crucial because it informs the number of samples that must be taken to accurately assess the presence of asbestos.

Sampling Procedures: The Foundation of a Successful Inspection

For surfacing materials, the size of the homogeneous area directly influences the number of samples needed. Under the EPA’s guidelines, inspectors follow the “3-5-7 rule.” This means that three samples are required for areas smaller than 1,000 square feet, five samples for areas between 1,000 and 5,000 square feet, and seven samples for areas larger than 5,000 square feet. Additionally, the EPA’s “Pink Book,” formally known as Asbestos in Buildings: Simplified Sampling Scheme for Friable Surfacing Materials, recommends taking nine samples per homogeneous area, regardless of the square footage, for increased accuracy.

Asbestos Fireproofing

For thermal system insulation, the process differs slightly. Inspectors must determine if the material is homogeneous, patch material, or material used on fittings like elbows and valves. Homogeneous areas of thermal system insulation require three samples, while patch materials smaller than six linear or square feet only need one sample (the only time one sample is allowed). Cement or plaster used on fittings must be sampled based on the specific mechanical system in question, and a minimum of two samples is required for each system. However, the EPA in A Guide to Performing Reinspections Under AHERA strongly advises taking at least three samples in larger homogeneous areas, even if regulations don't mandate it.

For materials such as joint compound and add-on materials, however, the EPA’s “Asbestos Sampling Bulletin dated September 30, 1994” specifies that three samples are required for each material. These distinctions are critical for asbestos inspectors to ensure compliance and accuracy in their assessments (see our original blog post on asbestos surveys).

In May 2007, the EPA provided important clarification on sampling requirements.  Mr. Chris Alonge, at the time, was working for New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) and he requested clarification regarding the number of samples that should be taken for each suspect asbestos-containing homogeneous miscellaneous material.  The clarification was distributed by the Professional Abatement Contractors of New York (PACNY) in November 2007. According to this clarification, the minimum number of samples that should be taken of miscellaneous materials (i.e., floor tiles, roofing, caulk, ceiling tiles) is two (see our original blog post on this issue).

Respirator and protective clothing should be worn by the inspector during sampling

Following proper sampling protocols is crucial because asbestos is considered present if any one of the samples from a homogeneous area contains more than 1% asbestos. Conversely, if all samples return asbestos concentrations at or below 1%, the area is deemed asbestos-free—though it’s important to remember that materials containing 1% or less of asbestos are still regulated under OSHA’s asbestos standard (see the Varga letter).

The Legal and Health Implications of Incomplete Inspections

Inadequate or incorrect asbestos inspections can have severe consequences.  From a legal standpoint, failing to adhere to EPA and OSHA regulations can result in hefty fines and penalties.  Remember neither regulation has a specific end date for buildings not containing asbestos (see our post Is There an Appropriate End Date for Asbestos Use?).  More importantly, from a health perspective, improperly identifying or failing to identify asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) can expose construction workers to dangerous fibers, leading to long-term health problems.  Given that asbestos-related diseases may take decades to develop, the human cost of negligent inspections can be devastating.

The closet door with asbestos core was cut without any precautions costing over $30,000 to clean up the contamination.

Mr. Tom Laubenthal wrote EPA in November 2014 regarding The Standard Practice for Comprehensive Asbestos Surveys (ASTM E2356-18) Pre-Construction Survey (section 8 of the standard) meeting the requirement under National Emissions Standards of Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) of a thorough inspection.  EPA responded that they would expect an owner/operator to follow the steps in Sections 1 through 5 and Section 8 to comply with the NESHAPS regulation. This standard provides a framework for conducting thorough asbestos inspections, particularly in pre-construction scenarios, ensuring that no asbestos-containing material goes unnoticed.

Conclusion: The Essential Role of Inspections

Asbestos inspections are the cornerstone of any effort to protect workers from exposure to this hazardous material. By adhering to the EPA’s and OSHA’s strict sampling and inspection guidelines, inspectors can identify asbestos-containing materials before they are disturbed, reducing the risk of airborne fibers and subsequent health issues. Given the serious implications of asbestos exposure, thorough inspections are not just a regulatory requirement—they are a moral imperative in safeguarding the health and well-being of workers.

Asbestos Floor Tiles disturbed before identification led to a clean-up costing over $250,000

In the end, the responsibility lies with all stakeholders—building owners, contractors, and asbestos inspectors alike—to ensure that every construction or renovation project is free from asbestos hazards. As inspectors, staying current on regulations, maintaining rigorous sampling standards, and educating clients on the risks and regulations associated with asbestos are critical components in this ongoing battle against a deadly substance.

The asbestos inspection panel promises to be an invaluable session for professionals across the construction, consulting, and regulatory industries. With these diverse viewpoints, we aim to shed light on the critical role inspections play in protecting workers and ensuring compliance with ever-evolving asbestos regulations.  Asbestos inspections are not just about checking boxes—they are about saving lives.