 |
| Mold behind sheet rock (asbestos joint compound?). |
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Inspectors Discover Asbestos at East Hampton Middle School
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.
Monday, April 11, 2011
New York State Releases FAQ on Asbestos Analysis
Image via WikipediaLate last week we received a FAQ from New York State Department of Health. The FAQ is focused on analyzing asbestos samples and the environmental laboratory accreditation program. The FAQ has several interesting piece of information. Those of you who attend my classes, have heard me discuss the problems with analyzing vermiculite and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) statement that asbestos inspectors should not sample the material but should assume the material is asbestos. Well Question 10 in this document states "Since there is currently no approved analytical methodology to reliably confirm vermiculite as non-asbestos containing it is best to assume vermiculite is contaminated with asbestos and proceed accordingly." We will add this document to all our course manuals, and/or you can access the document at: http://futureenvironmentdesigns.com/Media/NYS%20Asbestos%20FAQ%20%20April%208-2011%20(2).pdf.
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Asbestos Expert Demands Canada Retract "Safe Use" Statement
Image via WikipediaLeslie Stayner, an asbestos expert at the University of Illinois's school of public health and a key member of the Canadian Government's expert panel on asbestos is demanding Natural Resources Minister Christian Paradis retract recent comments that cited the group's report to promote the "safe use" of asbestos. The expert report, provided to the government in March 2008, was released 13 months later after a long delay under access to information legislation. Paradis, who represents the Quebec town where asbestos is mined, earlier this month told media in Quebec that the government has "adopted a clear position and there have been no new facts since then. Our position remains the same, that of promoting the safe use of asbestos," said Paradis.However, Leslie Stayner, sent a letter sent to Paradis last week and obtained by Postmedia News, says the comments to the media are a "total misrepresentation" of the expert panel's report, commissioned by Health Canada. The letter to Paradis, Stayner said the expert panel was never asked to address the question of whether chrysotile asbestos could be used safely. "Had we been asked this question, I would certainly not have supported the argument that the continued production and use of asbestos in any form, including chrysotile, is safe. It is impossible to believe that developing countries such as India will be able to use chrysotile asbestos in a manner that protects public health when more technically advanced countries like Canada and the United States have failed to do so," Stayner wrote to Paradis.
Visit Canada.com for the full article at: http://www.canada.com/health/Expert+demands+feds+retract+statement+safe+asbestos/4517500/story.html. It seems Canada (Quebec) is determined to show that chrysotile asbestos should not be regulated and their is a potential safe use for chrysotile asbestos. We will see if Quebec reopens the Asbestos mine.
Monday, April 04, 2011
Board Member of Queens Cooperative Has An Asbestos Question
Habitat Magazine does twice a month podcast where they invite a New York co-op or condo board director to ask a legal question, and they host a panel of attorneys who address it. In this podcast, Karen Ward, a board director of a 67-unit co-op in Queens, is facing an asbestos problem. The board president of her co-op had hired a contractor to remove asbestos in their meeting room and a tenant' apartment. The contractor was not licensed to do this type of work, and the proper disposal protocols were not followed. According to Ms. Ward, the building is now facing fines and penalties. Find the podcast at: http://www.habitatmag.com/rss/feed/podcast
The podcast was interesting to listen to on how the panel of attorneys address this issue. First, the panel did not include a specialist (environmental attorney) in this type of problem. These attorneys said they would bring on an environmental attorney, which should have been done as part of the podcast. However, the individuals on the panel acknowledge their limited knowledge of the regulations impacting this issue and made excellant recommendations on how this individual should handle this problem. Including potentially removing the President, calling the insurance company, and possibly even calling the regulatory agencies. Highly recommend this podcast for Co-op and Condo Board members considering asbestos removal.
Friday, April 01, 2011
Hazardous Waste In Landscape Mulch
Image via WikipediaLong Island Business News reported yesterday that Victor Liotta, owner of an Oceanside company, Liotta Bros. Recycling Corporation, was arrested and is being charged of scheming to defraud, prohibited disposal of solid waste, operation of a solid waste management facility without a permit and misbranded or adulterated fertilizer.
The arrest occurred after a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) engineer uncovered that a sample of wood chips from Liotta’s landscaping company contained altered wood and demolition debris, including plastic chips, floor tiles, rags, sheet metal and rubber.
Liotta Bros. Recycling Corporation, operates a solid waste management facility in Oceanside and a retail store called “Island Hopper Landscape Supplies” in Island Park.
Floor tiles being part of the waste in the mulch brings up the question is it asbestos containing or not. If it is asbestos the mulching process obviously makes it friable and would make it regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a category I nonfriable that has become friable. Hopefully, not many people used this company's products. It will be interesting to see how this is handled.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Restoration & Remediation Magazine - The RRP Rule: One Year Later
In this month's issue of Restoration & Remediation Magazine, Mr. John Banta wrote an excellant article regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Lead Paint regulation - Renovation, Remodeling, & Painting Rule. The article covers the history of the rule and discusses enforcement issues.
As the article discusses the roll-out period for firms to become certified by filing their paperwork and paying their fees to the EPA, as well as for the Certified Renovators supervising these jobs to be trained, was extended to the end of 2010, but the effective date for using lead safe work practices remained April 22, 2010. As Mr. Banta indicates in his article "this means...that any firm performing work for hire in target housing or child-occupied facilities built prior to 1978 is required to follow the regulations, even if their paperwork hasn’t been processed or even filed." However, this grace period is over.
The EPA may audit the records of any firm in violation of the regulation for up to three years after the job is complete and be fined up to $37,500 per occurrence per day. If the violation of the law is willful, the fine can be doubled and jail time may be assigned by the courts. This law applies in all federal jurisdictions; except states, tribes, and territories that EPA has approved to administer their own RRP programs. According to the article those states are, Wisconsin, Iowa, North Carolina, Mississippi, Kansas, Rhode Island, Utah, Oregon, Massachusetts, and Alabama have had their programs approved in lieu of the Federal program. Approved State programs must be at least as strict as the EPA regulations.
Don't forget tomorrow is the EPA Information Session at Hofstra and if you have any questions please post them here or at Future Environment Designs Forum, and I will try to get an answer to your questions.
As the article discusses the roll-out period for firms to become certified by filing their paperwork and paying their fees to the EPA, as well as for the Certified Renovators supervising these jobs to be trained, was extended to the end of 2010, but the effective date for using lead safe work practices remained April 22, 2010. As Mr. Banta indicates in his article "this means...that any firm performing work for hire in target housing or child-occupied facilities built prior to 1978 is required to follow the regulations, even if their paperwork hasn’t been processed or even filed." However, this grace period is over.
The EPA may audit the records of any firm in violation of the regulation for up to three years after the job is complete and be fined up to $37,500 per occurrence per day. If the violation of the law is willful, the fine can be doubled and jail time may be assigned by the courts. This law applies in all federal jurisdictions; except states, tribes, and territories that EPA has approved to administer their own RRP programs. According to the article those states are, Wisconsin, Iowa, North Carolina, Mississippi, Kansas, Rhode Island, Utah, Oregon, Massachusetts, and Alabama have had their programs approved in lieu of the Federal program. Approved State programs must be at least as strict as the EPA regulations.
Don't forget tomorrow is the EPA Information Session at Hofstra and if you have any questions please post them here or at Future Environment Designs Forum, and I will try to get an answer to your questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Conference Season Starts in 3 Months Save the Date: PACNY 2025 Environmental Conference & EIA 2025 National Conference
With the end of 2024 fast approaching, we are looking ahead to 2025, we are excited to announce the dates for the Professional Abatement Con...
-
… … … This debate regarding asbestos floor tiles started at the Professional Abatement Contractors of New York's ... -
The New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYC DEP) has introduced proposed amendments to Chapter 1 of Title 15 of the Rules... -
In our mold refresher courses, we've been discussing the 2016 edition of the Nassau County Fire Prevention Ordinance . This Ordinance ...