Words From The Field

Here in New York State, Industrial Code Rule 56 went into effect on September 5, 2006. New York State has had the opportunity to enforce this regulation for 7 months now. From what we are hearing from the field, NYS DOL inspectors have not been enforcing most of the new parts of the regulation. The inspectors have not looked for the survey report to be at the project site, they have not looked at the footage requirement of the decons, HEPA exhaust units, and/or licensing requirements for the allied trades title. They are looking for the manometer, and the supervisor's logbook. We are also hearing that NYC DEP is using a new enforcement tactic for dry removals. If a contractor is given a dry removal violation by NYC DEP, NYC DEP is referring the information to EPA and EPA is investigating the project for violations and possible criminal charges (see previous posts regarding press releases regarding EPA and Dept. of Justice indictments). So be careful out there, if the local agencies don't get you, the Federal enforcement people might. If the Feds catch you, that can involve not only fines but jail time.

New Indictments Handed-Out in Plattsburgh Area

On March 29, 2007, the US Department of Justice handed out indictments to John Wood, Mark Desnoyers, and Curtis Collins for numerous illegal activities related to the removal of asbestos in commercial and public buildings and private homes. Wood operated an asbestos abatement company called J&W Construction. Collins worked for Wood, and later started his own company called Adirondack Asbestos. Desnoyers operated Adirondack Environmental Associates an air monitoring company.

The indictments allege that Wood and Collins performed illegal asbestos removals throughout central and upstate New York, while Desnoyers falsified many laboratory samples in order to convince clients that all asbestos was properly removed from their businesses and homes when gross contamination remained.

If convicted Wood faces a maximum possible term of incarceration of 63 years and a fine of $2,500,000; Collins faces a maximum possible term of incarceration of 10 years and a fine of $500,000; and Desnoyers faces a maximum possible term of incarceration of 25 years and a fine of $1,250,000.

Welcome and Happy New Year

The last month or two of 2006 was determined to be as busy as the summer was slow. But we are very thankful for all the training and consulting that came through the door. My family and I went into Manhattan to see the Christmas Tree and ate dinner at our favorite restaurant Nicola Paeone's (photo of the lobby) which is located at 207 East 34th Street Between 3rd & Lexington. We always look forward to eating dinner here and like usual this Italian restaurant did not disappoint us. I always get a veal dish because Nicola Paeone's makes the best veal in NYC. We also usually go to see FAO Schwartz, a remenant from the days when we did the asbestos consulting for the building. As usual NYC is very beautiful for the holidays between the Christmas Tree at Rockerfeller Center, the Windows on Fifth Avenue, and red and green lights on the Empire State Building, it is one of the best times to go and see the City. Hope your Holidays were peaceful and merry and may your New Year be a great one!

Residential Mold Case Goes Against Residents

An interesting piece of information was printed in the New York Law Journal, dated October 18, 2006 regarding residential mold and a resident's ability to sue based on health problems suspected of being caused by the mold. According to the article, Manhattan Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich found that the plaintiffs (Colin and Pamela Fraser) failed to demonstrate that the community of allergists, immunologists, occupational and environmental health physicians accepted their theory - that mold and/or damp indoor environments cause illness.
This is the typical story regarding mold. The Frasers developed a variety of health problems while living in a moldy apartment on East 52nd Street. Justice Kornreich conducted a Frye hearing to assess the scientific viability of the claim. Both sides submitted reams of evidence, laboratory results, and 4 witnesses testified, 2 for the plaintiffs and 2 for the defense.
Though this is not likely the last case we will see, I think it will be interesting to see where this heads since the article also mentions the Netti v. Auburn Enlarged City School District which had an opposite ruling back in September, 2006.

Improved Air Quality, Improves Student Performance

A new study featured in the October issue of the American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineer's (ASHRAE) Journal indicates that student performance improves, when the air quality in the classroom improves. This research indicates that by lowering the temperature in the classroom and increasing the amount of ventilation supplied to the classroom, will reduce how many errors are made and increase how quickly the student works by 10 to 20 percent (%). These results, which confirms earlier research done by ASHRAE, once finalized will be incorporated into ASHRAE's technical guidance, that is used by engineers to design heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems in all buildings. The study also provides several suggestions for school officials to improve learning conditions:

• Visit each classroom to ensure HVAC systems are operating properly.
• Develop and adhere to a preventative maintenance program for all HVAC equipment on site.
• Allow and encourage teachers to lower the temperature in the classroom on warmer days.
• Investigate and implement methods to reduce heat build-up in classrooms.
• Allow and encourage teachers to open operable windows in the classroom on milder days.
• Encourage maintenance staff to replace supply air filters more frequently, particularly during pollen season.
• Investigate the feasibility of introducing more outside air into the classrooms than codes require in an energy efficient manner.

Imagine your son/daughter able to improve themselves by 10-20%. Making 10-20% less errors may be the difference between an A- or B+ for a grade. Being 10-20% quicker may mean the difference between finishing the exam and not finishing the exam. This difference achieved by making sure the classroom is cool and well ventilated. Making sure the student is confortable in the classroom. It is amazing how comfort can have such a significant impact on errors, speed, and for office workers productivity. This research indicates that putting indoor air quality programs in place will provide significant benefits based on their costs. So give us a call to help you implement your own program.