Future Environment Designs Training Center's Blog

When Does Your Asbestos Training Expire? Understanding the Difference Between Your Training Certificate and Your NYSDOL Hard Card

noreply@blogger.com (Angelo Garcia, III) — Sat, 26 Sep 2026 18:24:05 +0000

We recently had a dissatisfied customer who didn't understand the training requirements under the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Model Accredited Plan (MAP) and the New York State Department of Health's (NYSDOH's) 10 New York Code of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 73. The customer registered for an asbestos management planner refresher course when his asbestos inspector training was in the grace period. We had to explain that he couldn't take the asbestos management planner refresher course until he refreshed his asbestos inspector training.

We are writing a blog post because many people remain unclear about expiration dates. Expiration dates are the most frequent question we receive at Future Environment Designs, Inc. (FEDTC). “When does my asbestos training expire?” And, just as importantly: “What happens if my training certificate expires?”

The confusion is understandable because there are multiple agencies involved in asbestos accreditation and certification in New York, and they do not all use the same expiration dates. There is the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL), which issues the asbestos handling certificate—what most people in the industry call the “hard card.” This card's expiration date is based on the last day of your birth month in relation to when you took your initial training. NYSDOL may give you a hard card with an expiration date that may be over a year from your initial training expiration date. This is not allowed under the EPA MAP.

Then there is the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH), which oversees asbestos safety training providers and the training certificate, DOH-2832 form. This form follows the requirements for EPA's MAP and 10 NYCRR Part 73, requiring annual training based on the training completion date.

And, for those working in New York City, there is the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP), which has its own certification requirements. NYCDEP certificates are valid for two years from the date of issuance, which is also based on birth month. This, too, is not allowed under the EPA MAP. So let's break this down.

First, Let's Talk About the NYSDOL Hard Card

NYSDOL oversees asbestos licensing and certification in New York State. The company receives an asbestos handling license, while the individual receives an asbestos certificate, the hard card.

NYSDOL License and hard card

The important thing to remember is that the hard card and the training certificate (DOH-2832) are not the same thing.

Your NYSDOL asbestos certificate has its own expiration date based on the birth month. NYSDOL's current information should be checked when determining the status of an individual certificate because the Department's certification requirements and administrative procedures can change. And this is where people sometimes get themselves into trouble. They look at the expiration date on their hard card and think: “I'm good until this date.”

Not necessarily. Let's look at how that can get you in trouble federally.

EPA's 12-Month Grace Period Recommendation

An important piece of this discussion goes back to the EPA's asbestos accreditation requirements. The EPA Model Accreditation Plan specifically recommends that states establish a 12-month grace period that allows formerly accredited individuals whose certificates have expired to complete refresher training and have their accreditation reinstated without having to retake the initial course.

Asbestos Pipe Insulation

That is important because the whole concept behind refresher training is to maintain competency. The idea is not that someone suddenly forgets everything they learned the day their certificate expires. The purpose of the refresher is to keep the individual current with regulations, procedures, technology, and changes in the industry. And NYSDOH's current rules reflect that basic concept by providing the one-year grace period for completing refresher training after the expiration date of the training certificate; after that year you must take the initial course over again. However, NYSDOL's current rules do not comply with the MAP, giving you a hard card expiration date based on the last day of your birth month. That expiration date can be after the expiration date of your DOH-2832 form.

A grace period does not equal authorization to perform asbestos work. That is where we think some of the confusion comes from.

The DOH-2832 Is a Different Certificate

NYSDOH regulates the asbestos safety training providers and the training programs through 10 NYCRR Part 73. The DOH-2832 is the official NYSDOH certificate of asbestos safety training completion. This certificate has an expiration period of one year from the date you successfully completed the training and examination. NYSDOH specifically states that asbestos workers must maintain current training by completing annual refresher training. There is a one-year grace period based on the DOH-2832 form's expiration date.

DOH-2832 Training Certificate

NYSDOH training providers are required to verify initial and refresher training credentials submitted by individuals before their enrollment in a refresher program. Verification of training credentials to ensure valid accredited training is a prerequisite for admittance into a NYSDOH-approved refresher training course. What is valid accredited training? The DOH-2832 form expiration date. In other words, as long as you are in your grace period, you can take a refresher course based on a year from the DOH-2832 expiration date.

So, essentially: Training expires → one-year grace period → refresher training must be completed → after the grace period, initial training is required. That is a very important distinction. The grace period does not mean you can continue performing asbestos work for another year. EPA specifically states that once the training expires, the individual cannot be actively engaged in asbestos work during the grace period.

The Consequences of Birthdate versus Course Completion Date

According to EPA, you cannot do asbestos work in the grace period. So if NYSDOL's hard card expires after your training expiration date, you are technically in a grace period for the purposes of EPA and should not be doing asbestos work. It means you are in violation of EPA's MAP. The problem can come if, for some reason, you go past one year after the expiration date of the DOH-2832. If that should happen, you would need to take an initial training even if your hard card happened to be current or in its grace period.

There Is Another Important Requirement: Management Planners

There is also a reason we emphasize keeping your training current. If you are an inspector and want to move into the management planner discipline, you cannot simply show up for management planner training after your inspector credentials have expired. NYSDOH Part 73 specifically states: “Possession of current and valid inspector accreditation shall be a prerequisite” for admission to the management planner initial or refresher training program.

That means your inspector accreditation needs to be current. This is another reason why waiting until the last minute—or allowing your credentials to expire—can create problems.

What About New York City?

If you work in New York City, you have another layer to consider. The NYCDEP has its own asbestos certification program under Title 15, Chapter 1 of the Rules of the City of New York. NYCDEP certifies asbestos handlers, restricted handlers, handler supervisors, and asbestos investigators. NYCDEP currently states that these certificates are valid for two years.

Ancient NYCDEP hard card (new ones look similar to NYSDOL hard cards)

But here's the important part: A two-year NYCDEP hard card does not mean you only need asbestos training every two years. EPA's and New York State's annual training requirements still apply. So someone working in New York City may have:

NYSDOL certificate: its own expiration date based on birth month.
NYSDOH training: annual refresher requirement based on training date.
NYCDEP certificate: generally two-year certification based on birth month

Three different things. Three different requirements. And this is why we continue to get questions about expiration dates.

Don't Wait Until Your Card Expires

Here's our advice after all these years in the asbestos training business: Don't wait until your expiration date to start looking for a refresher course. Check both your hard card and your DOH-2832. Put the expiration dates on your calendar. Talk to your employer. And schedule your refresher training before you have a problem.

At FEDTC, we have always believed that training never ends. A refresher course shouldn't be viewed as just another regulatory requirement that has to be checked off a list. It is an opportunity to review what has changed, revisit what may have been forgotten, discuss what we are seeing in the field, and learn from the experiences of other professionals in class.

The asbestos regulations continue to evolve. Sampling practices change. Analytical technology changes. Work practices change. And, as we have been discussing in our recent classes, even something as seemingly simple as determining whether a material needs to be sampled can become complicated very quickly. That is why staying current matters.

The Bottom Line

If you take only one thing away from this article, let it be this: Don't confuse your NYSDOL hard card with your NYSDOH training certificate. They are separate requirements.

Asbestos O&M Initial Course

Your NYSDOL certificate has its own expiration requirements based on birth month, while NYSDOH asbestos safety training is required annually based on training date. NYSDOH provides a one-year grace period after training expires, but individuals cannot actively perform asbestos work during that grace period. If the grace period expires without completing the required refresher, the individual must repeat the initial training.

And if you are an inspector planning to become a management planner, remember that current and valid inspector accreditation is required for admission to management planner training. There is really no reason to let your training lapse.

Know your dates. Know which credential is expiring. Know what agency issued it. And, most importantly, don't wait until you are standing at the job site to find out that your credentials are no longer current.

At FEDTC, we would much rather see you in class for your refresher before there is a problem than have you calling us because you just discovered your training expired. Hence the reason we send out reminders (snail mail & email) for refresher training based on the training date.

Training never ends—and neither should your commitment to staying current.

NYSDOL’s New Asbestos Survey Fact Sheet: When the “Guidance” Creates More Questions Than Answers!

noreply@blogger.com (Angelo Garcia, III) — Tue, 01 Sep 2026 17:11:35 +0000

Over the years, one of the things we have learned in the asbestos industry is that "details matter". They matter when an asbestos inspector is conducting a survey. They matter when a consultant is preparing a report. They matter when a contractor is bidding a project. They matter when the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) Asbestos Control Bureau (ACB) reviews a project. And, most importantly, they matter when workers are standing in a building getting ready to disturb material that may contain asbestos.

NYSDOL Fact Sheet on Asbestos Surveys

That is why we were interested in reviewing the NYSDOL Asbestos Control Bureau fact sheet titled “Expectations for Contents of Asbestos Surveys and Assessments.” We introduced this fact sheet in our blog "Regulatory Updates, Industry Concerns, and Straight Talk from OSHA and NYSDOL – Day 3." The intent of the fact sheet appears straightforward: to provide asbestos inspectors and consultants with additional direction on what NYSDOL expects to see in an asbestos survey or assessment.

Unfortunately, when you start comparing the information in the fact sheet with the actual requirements of Industrial Code Rule 56 (ICR56), federal requirements, laboratory analytical methods, and the realities of performing asbestos inspections in the field, there are several areas that deserve closer examination.

Some of the information is useful. Some of it appears to go beyond what the regulation actually says. And some of it is internally inconsistent with other information NYSDOL has provided to the industry.

As someone who has been involved with asbestos inspections, abatement, consulting, training, and regulatory issues for decades, we believe these issues need to be discussed—not to criticize for the sake of criticizing, but because inspectors, consultants, contractors, building owners, and regulators all need to be working from the same set of rules.

The Importance of Getting the Survey Right

An asbestos survey is not simply a report that gets placed in a project file. The survey is the foundation upon which the project is built. The owner uses it to understand what asbestos-containing materials (ACM) may be present. The designer uses it to develop the project specifications. The contractor uses it to prepare a bid and develop an abatement plan. The workers rely on it to understand what they may encounter. If the survey is incomplete, everything downstream can be affected.

We have spent years as an asbestos abatement consultant and trainer. In class and when reviewing other consultants' work, we know what happens when the survey doesn't identify materials that should have been identified:

Change orders,
scope changes,
delays,
disputes,
additional engineering controls,
additional sampling, and
additional abatement.

And sometimes, much worse, workers discover ACM after the project has already started. That is why we have always believed an asbestos survey should be conducted with the understanding that you are not just documenting a building—you are developing the information everyone else will depend on.

Our book "The Role of Asbestos Inspections in Construction Safety"

With that in mind, we developed a comprehensive “Asbestos Bulk Sampling Package” designed to provide practical, field-ready guidance. Click here to purchase the package. The package includes:

An eLearning/On-Demand training course,
A comprehensive reference book,
A durable laminated bulk sampling table designed for field use.

The goal is simple: provide asbestos inspectors with a clear understanding of sampling requirements, sampling strategies, homogeneous area determinations, suspect materials, and regulatory expectations. Too often, inspectors rely on incomplete information, outdated guidance, or interpretations that may not withstand regulatory scrutiny. We wanted to create a resource that inspectors can use both during training and while conducting actual field inspections.

Problem No. 1: “At Least Two Samples” Does Not Mean Two Samples Are Enough

One of the most concerning statements in the fact sheet is under "Minimum Samples Required." The fact sheet states:

“At least two samples of each homogeneous material must be taken to disprove the presence of asbestos.”

It then states that this is consistent with federal sampling requirements. This is an oversimplification. The number of samples required for an asbestos survey cannot simply be reduced to a blanket statement that "two samples are enough."
Sampling requirements depend upon the material, the homogeneous area, the size of the homogeneous area, and the purpose of the survey. See our blog post "The Role of Asbestos Inspections in Construction Safety: Don’t Miss the Asbestos Inspection Panel at PACNY’s Environmental Conference!" for the specifics of asbestos bulk sampling.

Sprayed-on fireproofing requires the 3-5-7 rule for samples, or 9 samples are recommended

AHERA sampling requirements, for example, have specific sampling protocols for surfacing materials, thermal system insulation, and miscellaneous materials. OSHA also has requirements that must be considered depending upon the project. The bigger problem is what happens when someone reads this fact sheet and interprets it as:

“NYSDOL says I only need two samples.”

That is not how a competent asbestos inspection should be performed. Two samples may be appropriate in some circumstances. Two samples may be inadequate in others. The inspector needs to exercise professional judgment and conduct sufficient sampling to adequately characterize the material. The goal should not be to meet the minimum number of samples. The goal should be to adequately characterize the building materials that will be impacted by the project. There is a big difference.

Problem No. 2: Using Linear Feet for All Thermal System Insulation

Another issue we noticed in the NYSDOL fact sheet is the way asbestos quantities are identified. The fact sheet states:

“Linear Feet (LF): Thermal system insulation (TSI). Square Feet (SF): All other ACM, debris and contaminated surfaces, if applicable.”

At first glance, this may seem like a simple way of identifying quantities. However, all thermal system insulation is not measured in linear feet.

Linear feet is appropriate for measuring pipe insulation because the pipe itself is generally identified by its length, as noted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its letter to the City of Newport News in Virginia. But TSI is a much broader category.

Linear feet (LF) is only for pipes

ICR 56 defines TSI as insulation applied to pipes, fittings, boilers, breeching, tanks, ducts, or other structural components to prevent heat gain or loss.

So, how do you measure the asbestos-containing insulation on a boiler? What about a tank? A duct? Breeching? These materials must be quantified by using square feet.

For example, a project may contain 500 linear feet of asbestos-containing pipe insulation, but it may also contain asbestos-containing insulation on boilers, tanks, ducts, and fittings. Those materials are better quantified in square feet or by the individual component, depending upon the material and the purpose of the quantity measurement.

This distinction becomes important when developing an asbestos abatement design and determining the amount of material that needs to be removed. The fact sheet should not imply that all TSI is measured in linear feet. A more accurate approach would be to identify pipe insulation in linear feet, while other TSI components should be quantified using the measurement that accurately represents the material being addressed.

This may seem like a minor issue, but anyone who has prepared an asbestos abatement estimate knows that how you quantify the material directly affects the scope, bid, work plan, and ultimately the cost of the project.

Again, the goal should be accuracy—not simply putting everything into a convenient measurement category.

Problem No. 3: “Fair” and “Poor” Conditions Instead of the AHERA Damage Classifications

Another issue with the fact sheet involves the terminology used to describe the condition of asbestos-containing materials.

The fact sheet provides the following classifications:

Intact: No visible damage.
Good: No visible or very limited damage.
Fair: Some visible, but not extensive, damage.
Poor: Extensive damage and/or deterioration.

The problem is that “fair” and “poor” are not the terminology we would expect to see used when documenting asbestos material conditions based on the training requirements of the EPA Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) for asbestos inspectors.

Damaged or Significantly Damaged?

The AHERA terminology is based on whether asbestos-containing material is damaged (less than <10% evenly distributed or <25% localized) or significantly damaged (greater than >10% evenly distributed or >25% localized). That distinction is important. An asbestos survey is not simply a property-condition assessment where we are deciding whether something looks good, fair, or poor. We are trying to determine the condition of the asbestos-containing material and whether it has been damaged to the point where the regulatory requirements associated with that condition are triggered.

There is a significant difference between saying:

“The pipe insulation is in fair condition", and saying:

“The pipe insulation is damaged.”

The first statement is subjective. The second statement has a regulatory meaning, and there is a quantity associated with the determination.

What one inspector considers “fair,” another inspector may consider “poor.” One consultant may consider “some visible damage” insignificant, while another may determine that the same damage requires corrective action. That is exactly why regulatory terminology matters.

If AHERA wants inspectors to document conditions using “damaged” and “significantly damaged,” then those are the terms that should be prominently identified in the fact sheet. We already have enough confusion in asbestos reports without introducing another set of condition classifications. The purpose of an asbestos survey is not to give the ACM a real-estate-style condition rating. The purpose is to accurately document the condition of the asbestos-containing material and provide information that can be used to make the appropriate regulatory and project decisions.

Problem No. 4: Another Missing Requirement: NVLAP in Addition to NYSDOH ELAP

Perhaps one of the more important omissions in the fact sheet is the discussion of laboratory accreditation. The fact sheet correctly identifies the New York State Department of Health Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (NYSDOH ELAP) and states that bulk asbestos analyses must be performed by an ELAP-accredited laboratory using an approved methodology.

That is important. However, the fact sheet does not adequately address the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) requirement. This is not simply a technicality. The creation of the asbestos fiber analysis Laboratory Accreditation Program (LAP) was mandated by the AHERA, which requires laboratories that analyze asbestos samples taken from public or private elementary or secondary schools to be accredited by NVLAP. By extension, any federal regulation that references AHERA for the purpose of asbestos surveys then requires NVLAP accreditation for sample analysis.

For asbestos bulk analysis, the laboratory needs to meet the applicable New York State requirements, but asbestos bulk analysis under certain federal programs also involves the NVLAP requirements. This is particularly important for inspectors and consultants working on projects where both state and federal requirements apply. The problem with leaving NVLAP out of a document titled “Expectations for Contents of Asbestos Surveys and Assessments” is that an inspector reading the document could come away with the impression that having an ELAP-accredited laboratory is the only laboratory qualification that needs to be considered. It isn't that simple.

We have to look at what type of sample is being analyzed, what analytical method is being used, what regulation applies, and what accreditations are required for that analysis.

The laboratory's accreditation needs to match the work being performed. This is another area where the fact sheet could have been much more useful to the industry by clearly explaining the relationship between NYSDOH ELAP and NVLAP, rather than mentioning one and leaving the other out.

Problem No. 5: The Statement Regarding Debris Is Particularly Concerning

The fact sheet states:

“There is no approved method for sampling debris.”

This is an area where the industry needs significant clarification. In our recent asbestos inspector and designer classes, we have been discussing exactly this issue because dust and debris are identified under Industrial Code Rule 56 as suspect miscellaneous asbestos-containing materials. The obvious question becomes:

If dust and debris are suspect ACM, how are inspectors supposed to determine whether they contain asbestos?

The fact sheet says that mixed heterogeneous or indistinguishable debris cannot be thoroughly sampled and therefore must be assumed to contain asbestos. But there is a difference between heterogeneous debris that cannot reasonably be characterized and settled dust or identifiable debris that can be collected and submitted as a bulk sample. That distinction matters. For a discussion regarding this issue see our After the Refresher Podcast with Dr. Martin Rutstein and Mark Rutstein of Env. Consulting & Mgmt. Services.

For example, an inspector may encounter a pile of identifiable building material debris. It may be possible to collect representative portions of that material and submit them for bulk analysis. There are also established techniques for collecting settled dust from surfaces, including micro-vacuum and wipe sampling methods. For more discussion about this issue, see our blog post "Update of Dust and Debris Sampling in New York State: What Asbestos Inspectors Need to Know".

Bulk sampling tools.

However—and this is where things get interesting—the analytical method and the regulatory purpose of the sampling have to be carefully considered.

Problem No. 6: “If Asbestos Is Detected, It Must Be Addressed”

The fact sheet states that micro-vacuum and wipe sampling cannot be used to disprove the presence of asbestos. It then states that if these methods detect asbestos structures, they must be included and addressed in the contamination assessment. That creates another question:

What does “addressed” mean?

Does the presence of an asbestos structure automatically mean the entire surface is contaminated? Does it mean the surface is

ACM? Does it mean the area requires abatement? Does it mean the material is Regulated Asbestos Containing Material (RACM)? Those are very different regulatory determinations. Finding an asbestos structure on a surface does not automatically tell us:

Where the structure originated;
How much asbestos is present;
Whether the material from which it originated is ACM;
Whether the material is friable;
Whether the asbestos is currently capable of releasing fibers;
Whether the contamination resulted from a previous abatement project;
Whether the contamination is localized or widespread; or
What level of response is appropriate.

The analytical result is one piece of the puzzle. It should not automatically become the entire puzzle.

Problem No. 7: The Fact Sheet's Treatment of Layered Systems

The fact sheet states that layered systems must be sampled so that each layer can be analyzed separately. We agree with the underlying concept. Inspectors need to understand what materials are present in a layered assembly. However, the statement that:

"If one portion of the system is asbestos the entire system must be removed as asbestos containing”

That statement needs careful consideration. Consider a roof assembly. You may have:

Roofing membrane;
Built-up roofing;
Asphalt;
Insulation;
Vapor barrier;
Deck;
Flashing;
Adhesive; and
Other components.

If one component contains asbestos, that does not necessarily mean every component in the entire roof assembly is an asbestos-containing material. The fact sheet does provide an exception where a portion of a layered system exists only in a specific area and can be reliably identified. But again, the language invites broad interpretations. The survey should identify "what material contains asbestos and where it exists". That is much more useful than simply declaring an entire assembly ACM.

So if the patch is ACM and the rest of the roof is not, does it mean it all has to be treated as ACM?

Problem No. 8: Conflicting Laboratory Results

Another interesting section involves conflicting laboratory results.
The fact sheet states that if one sample is found to contain greater than 1% asbestos, the sampled material and all associated homogeneous materials must be classified as ACM.
Again, this is an important concept. You cannot simply ignore a positive sample because another sample tested negative. .

But what happens when the laboratory results are genuinely inconsistent?
Was the material actually homogeneous?
Was there laboratory contamination?
Was there cross-contamination?
Was the sample representative?
Was there a preparation problem?
Was the material layered?
Was there a different material embedded within the sample?
Was the sample location properly documented?

These questions need to be answered before simply declaring that the entire homogeneous area is ACM. The fact sheet suggests that a contractor may attempt to address a questionable positive result through a site-specific variance. But a variance should not become the substitute for proper sampling and laboratory quality control.

Problem No. 9: Pre-Demolition Surveys and Destructive Sampling

One of the more useful portions of the fact sheet discusses pre-demolition surveys. The fact sheet correctly emphasizes that a pre-demolition survey needs to identify PACM, suspect miscellaneous ACM, and ACM throughout the structure. It also says that inaccessible materials should be assumed to contain asbestos rather than simply placing a disclaimer in the report stating that only accessible materials were sampled. We agree with the basic premise. However, this raises another practical issue. How far should an inspector go with destructive sampling?
The fact sheet recommends determining whether walls, ceilings, and floors contain ACM before implementing destructive sampling methods to determine whether ACM exists behind those systems.
That is good advice.

The last thing an inspector should do is disturb an asbestos-containing material simply to determine whether another asbestos-containing material is located behind it. This is where experience becomes extremely important. An inspector needs to understand building construction, recognize suspect materials, anticipate concealed conditions, and plan the investigation accordingly. Sometimes that means coming back to the building more than once. A thorough survey is not always a one-day event.

Problem No. 10: The Definition of “Survey” Versus “Assessment”

Another issue that we believe needs additional clarification is the distinction between a survey and a contamination assessment.
These are not necessarily the same thing.

An asbestos survey is intended to identify asbestos-containing materials that may be impacted by a planned project. A contamination assessment is intended to evaluate areas where asbestos-containing material has already been disturbed or where contamination may exist.

When the two concepts are blended together, the result can be confusion regarding:

Sampling requirements;
Analytical methods;
Quantification;
Delineation;
Abatement requirements;
Variances; and
Final clearance.

The industry needs clear definitions and clear expectations.

The Biggest Problem: The Fact Sheet Should Not Replace the Regulation

This may be the most important point we can make. A fact sheet is useful. Guidance is useful. Frequently Asked Questions are useful. But guidance should not create requirements that do not exist in the regulation without clearly identifying the legal basis for those requirements.

Industrial Code Rule 56 is the regulation. The fact sheet should help inspectors understand the regulation—not create a parallel regulatory system. When consultants and contractors begin treating a fact sheet as though it is itself a regulation, we have a problem. And when different NYSDOL documents appear to provide different answers to the same question, we have an even bigger problem.

Why This Matters to Building Owners

At the end of the day, these aren't simply academic arguments.
They have real financial consequences. If an asbestos survey says an area is contaminated when it may not be, the owner could spend hundreds of thousands of dollars addressing an unnecessary condition. If a survey fails to identify ACM, the contractor could discover the material during construction.
That could result in:

Change orders.
Project delays.
Additional abatement.
Additional air monitoring.
Additional design costs.
Potential regulatory violations.

And, most importantly, "potential exposure to workers and building occupants." Neither extreme is acceptable. We need accurate information.

Experience Still Matters

This is why we continue to emphasize the importance of experience in asbestos consulting.

You can teach someone how to take a sample.
You can teach someone how to fill out a chain of custody.
You can teach someone how to read a laboratory report.

But experience teaches you where to look, what to question, what may be missing, and when the information doesn't make sense. That is particularly important when dealing with complicated buildings, layered materials, debris, concealed materials, contamination assessments, and unusual laboratory results. Technology and regulations will continue to change.
The need for experienced professionals will not.

Training is only the beginning

We Need Better Guidance, Not More Confusion

We believe NYSDOL deserves credit for attempting to provide additional guidance to the asbestos community. However, guidance needs to be technically accurate, internally consistent, and clearly connected to the regulatory requirements.

If the industry is going to use this fact sheet as a standard for preparing asbestos surveys, then the information needs to withstand the same scrutiny that NYSDOL expects consultants to apply to their own surveys. That means asking some difficult questions.

What is the regulatory basis?
What is the sampling methodology?
What does the laboratory result actually tell us?
What does it not tell us?
What is the regulatory threshold?

And perhaps most importantly:

Are we deciding based upon science and regulation—or simply because a piece of paper told us to?

After more than three decades in this industry, we have learned that asbestos work is rarely as simple as checking a box.

The details matter.
The sampling matters.
The laboratory method matters.
The interpretation matters.

And ultimately, the quality of the asbestos survey matters. Because when the survey is wrong, everyone downstream pays the price.

EPA and OSHA Have Interesting Timing for Asbestos Regulations

noreply@blogger.com (Angelo Garcia, III) — Sun, 26 Jul 2026 23:11:51 +0000

As usual, summer is the busy season for the asbestos abatement industry. With most schools closed for the summer, this is the perfect time to do asbestos abatement work for the renovation, remodeling, or demolition work necessary. Interestingly, both the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) thought this would be the best time to ask for comments from the public and the industry about asbestos regulations.

Also interesting is that OSHA is looking to reduce regulatory requirements while EPA is looking to create regulations. OSHA's public comment period ends August 21, 2026, and EPA's docket for public comments closes on September 23, 2026.

OSHA Still Pushing Its Unpopular Asbestos Respirator Proposal

OSHA's proposed changes actually came out July 1, 2025, and that comment period closed on November 1, 2025, after an extension from the original closing date. As we discussed in our classes, the proposed changes are to reduce compliance burdens, allow for the use of more up-to-date technology, and improve the comprehensibility of the requirements for respiratory protection programs under the standards. Part of the intent of this proposal was also to better align these standards with OSHA's respiratory protection standard. However, this proposal would significantly increase a worker's exposure to asbestos. Just the elimination of the HEPA filter requirement would increase a worker's exposure by 24,000 asbestos fibers in an 8-hour workday. For more information about these changes, see our blog post OSHA’s Proposed Asbestos Respirator Changes Raise Important Safety Concerns.

On April 1 and May 19, 2026, OSHA consulted with the Advisory Committee and Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) on the proposed changes to asbestos and the other changes they proposed for the chemicals (there are 16 chemicals) that have specific respiratory protection requirements like asbestos. If you review the meeting minutes of the ACCSH, OSHA's proposal for removing the HEPA filter requirement was rejected, and the same for the proposal to change assigned protection factors. So we hope, based on all this, that should be the end of this dangerous proposal.

EPA Opens Public Docket for Asbestos Part 2 Rulemaking: A Critical Opportunity to Shape the Future of Legacy Asbestos Regulation

For decades, those of us in the asbestos industry have understood one simple truth: legacy asbestos is the problem that isn't going away. While the EPA's 2024 rule addressing chrysotile asbestos represented a step forward, it left many unanswered questions regarding the millions of asbestos-containing materials that remain in schools, commercial buildings, industrial facilities, and homes throughout the United States. Those "legacy uses" continue to expose workers, contractors, maintenance personnel, building occupants, and even homeowners to asbestos every day.

Now, the EPA has officially opened a public docket seeking additional information to assist in developing "Asbestos Part 2: Legacy Uses and Associated Disposals of Asbestos" under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This is more than another request for comments. It is an opportunity for the environmental consulting, remediation, industrial hygiene, laboratory, and construction industries to provide the real-world information EPA needs to develop regulations that are scientifically sound, practical, and enforceable. As someone who has spent decades training asbestos inspectors, project designers, contractors, and consultants, we believe many of these questions deserve thoughtful responses from professionals who perform this work every day.

Why EPA Is Asking for More Information

EPA has determined that additional information is necessary before it can propose a final risk management rule addressing legacy asbestos. Unlike the Part 1 rule, which focused primarily on ongoing commercial uses of chrysotile asbestos, Part 2 addresses the asbestos that already exists throughout our built environment. EPA specifically states that the additional information will help develop:

Practical regulatory requirements
Economic analyses required under TSCA
Science-based worker protections
Feasible implementation strategies

That last point is important. Protecting workers is essential, but regulations must also recognize how asbestos work is actually performed in the field.

Demolition and Renovation Projects

One area EPA is examining involves demolition and renovation projects that fall below the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) thresholds. Anyone working in our industry knows this is where many exposures occur. EPA's asbestos NESHAP requires inspections, notifications, work practices, and trained personnel when projects exceed:

260 linear feet (LF)
160 square feet (SF)
35 cubic feet (CF)

But thousands of smaller renovation projects occur every year that never trigger these requirements. EPA wants to know:

Are building owners hiring accredited asbestos professionals?
What work practices are being used?
Are wet methods, containment, and proper disposal still being followed?
What happens in single-family homes?

These are important questions because many exposures occur during "small jobs" that are incorrectly assumed to present little risk. As we've discussed in our asbestos training classes for years, the amount of material removed does not determine whether asbestos fibers are released. The work practices do. See our blog post on how floor tile removal can cause asbestos exposures: "Asbestos Floor Tile Debate Results"

Self-Employed Contractors

Perhaps one of the most significant sections of EPA's request concerns self-employed contractors. OSHA's asbestos construction standard applies to employees. It does not apply to many self-employed individuals (i.e., handymen).

EPA wants information about:

Flooring installers
Drywall contractors
Roofing contractors
Renovation contractors
Siding contractors
Handymen
Sole proprietors

Questions include:

How often do they disturb asbestos?
How do they identify asbestos-containing materials?
Do they receive asbestos awareness training?
What engineering controls do they use?
What barriers prevent them from having suspect materials analyzed before beginning work?

This is a conversation our industry has needed for years. Many self-employed contractors work in older buildings where asbestos-containing materials remain common. Unfortunately, many rely solely on experience or visual assessment rather than laboratory analysis. That approach is risky—not only for the contractor but also for their clients and anyone occupying the building.

Legacy Asbestos Products Still in Service

EPA is also looking beyond insulation and floor tile. The agency is requesting information about asbestos still present in:

Industrial equipment
Pumps
Valves
Gaskets
Packing materials
Brakes
Clutches
Electrical equipment
Textiles
Heat-resistant fabrics
Commercial appliances
Boilers
Furnaces
Kilns
Elevators
Military equipment

Many younger environmental professionals may never encounter some of these products. Those of us who have been in the industry for several decades know they are still out there. Understanding where they remain, who works with them, and how often they are disturbed will be critical in developing effective regulations.

The Air Sampling Debate Continues

One section of EPA's request immediately caught our attention. EPA is requesting information regarding the use of:

Phase Contrast Microscopy (PCM)
Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM)

Specifically, EPA asks whether laboratories have sufficient TEM capacity if lower exposure limits ultimately require TEM analysis instead of PCM. Anyone who has followed our writing knows we have discussed the limitations of PCM for years. PCM counts fibers. TEM identifies asbestos. Those are two very different things. See our blog post: "The Fallacy of Phase Contrast Microscopy (PCM) Clearance Air Sampling, or 5 Reasons Why We Should Stop Using PCM for Clearance."

EPA is asking practical questions that deserve careful consideration:

Can laboratories handle increased TEM demand?
What would increased costs mean?
How much longer would turnaround times become?
Would compliance monitoring become impractical?

These aren't academic questions. They directly affect contractors, consultants, industrial hygienists, laboratories, regulators, and building owners. Finding the balance between scientific accuracy and practical implementation will be one of the biggest challenges facing EPA.

Practical Experience Matters

One aspect we appreciate about this request is that EPA is not simply asking for opinions. The agency is requesting:

Exposure data
Industry practices
Economic impacts
Laboratory capabilities
Engineering controls
Worker training information
Real-world implementation challenges

This is exactly the type of information regulators need. Those of us working in the field every day understand that regulations look very different on paper than they do during an emergency water loss, a school renovation, a hospital shutdown, or an industrial outage. Field experience matters.

This Is Your Opportunity to Be Heard

EPA cannot develop effective regulations without meaningful participation from those who perform this work every day. If you are an

Asbestos consultant
Industrial hygienist
Laboratory director
Project designer
Contractor
Building owner
Safety professional
Environmental attorney
Training provider
Equipment manufacturer

This is your opportunity to contribute. Your experience can help ensure future regulations improve worker protection while remaining practical and achievable.

Final Thoughts

The asbestos industry has evolved tremendously over the past four decades. Technology has improved. Analytical methods have advanced. Training has become more comprehensive. Yet legacy asbestos remains one of the most significant occupational and environmental health challenges facing our country.

EPA's Part 2 rule has the potential to shape asbestos management for decades to come. Whether that rule becomes practical and effective depends, in part, on the quality of information EPA receives during this public comment process. As we've said many times throughout our careers, "good regulations are built on good science—but they must also be informed by real-world experience."

This is one of those opportunities where the professionals who work with asbestos every day can help shape the future of our industry. Let's make sure our voices are heard.

**Call to Action**

If you work in the environmental, construction, remediation, industrial hygiene, or laboratory industries, we encourage you to review EPA's questions carefully and consider submitting comments based on your professional experience. Your input could influence how legacy asbestos is regulated for years to come—affecting worker protection, building owners, contractors, laboratories, and consultants nationwide.

At Future Environment Designs, we will continue monitoring this rulemaking process and providing updates as additional information becomes available. We will also continue to incorporate these regulatory developments into our asbestos training programs so that inspectors, designers, contractors, and environmental professionals remain informed and prepared for the future.

The best regulations are developed when regulators listen to those who do the work every day. This is one of those opportunities. Don't let it pass.

Recognition, Innovation, and Continuing Our Mission to Educate

noreply@blogger.com (Angelo Garcia, III) — Wed, 17 Jun 2026 14:30:00 +0000

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

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

Two Awards That Reflect Our Commitment to Excellence

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

Environmental Business Review's Top Indoor Air Quality Services 2026

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

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

The service combines:

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

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

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

CourseCheck 2026 Brilliance Award

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

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

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

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

Introducing Our New Asbestos Bulk Sampling Package

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

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

The Reference Book

As a result, we developed a comprehensive "Asbestos Bulk Sampling Package" designed to provide practical, field-ready guidance. Click here to purchase the package.

The package includes:

An eLearning/On-Demand training course,
A comprehensive reference book,
A durable laminated bulk sampling table designed for field use

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

Preserving Experience for the Next Generation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking Ahead

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

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

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

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

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

noreply@blogger.com (Angelo Garcia, III) — Thu, 21 May 2026 16:51:45 +0000

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

The Mohawk Room

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

PACNY Leadership Opens the Day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bridget Ruane moderating "Crystal Ball" panel

Several recurring themes emerged:

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

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

OSHA Provides Regulatory and Enforcement Updates

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

The presentation focused heavily on:

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

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

Jeff Presbin from OSHA

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

NYSDOL Roundtable Closes Out the Conference

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

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

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

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

Expansion of the MPWR System

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

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

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

Variance Statistics and Processing Times

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

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

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

New NYSDOL Fact Sheets

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some of the issues discussed included:

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

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

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

Final Thoughts

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

NYSDOL representatives at the Conference

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

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

PACNY 29th Annual Environmental Conference Part Two – Day Two Recap

noreply@blogger.com (Angelo Garcia, III) — Thu, 16 Apr 2026 16:35:00 +0000

Day Two of the Professional Abatement Contractors of New York (PACNY) 29th Annual Environmental Conference on February 26, 2026, at the Turning Stone Resort & Casino delivered a full schedule of technical presentations, regulatory updates, and practical field discussions, all complemented by strong engagement in the Vendor Exhibit Hall.

Future Environment Design's Team in the Vendor Hall

With the morning sessions split between the Mohawk and Tuscarora Rooms, attendees could tailor their experience to their discipline and interests while still coming together throughout the day in the Oneida Room for networking, lunch, and the always-popular Happy Hour.

Vendor Exhibit Hall Sets New Record

Before diving into the sessions, it’s worth highlighting that this year’s Vendor Exhibit Hall, located in the Oneida Room, featured 32 vendors, setting a new conference record.

This continues to reflect the industry's growth and the importance of direct interaction among service providers, manufacturers, trainers, consultants, and contractors. The exhibit hall remained active throughout the day, especially during lunch and the closing Happy Hour, providing valuable opportunities to connect and discuss new products, services, and technologies.

Morning Sessions – Mohawk Room

"Lead-Based Paint Regulations: Recent Changes & Updated Standards" by Brad Arthur, PE – Arthur Engineering DPC. The day began with a regulatory-focused presentation on lead-based paint, where one of the more notable updates discussed was the shift away from using the term “clearance.” Instead, the industry is moving toward defined terminology using two distinct clearance-related levels:

Work Completed
Pre-Occupancy

2026 Changes to the Lead Standard

Brad also addressed the growing challenges associated with analytical methods at increasingly lower detection limits. The cost differences between methodologies were particularly eye-opening:

Flame AA: approximately $4 per sample
ICP: approximately $45 per sample

This has significant implications for project budgeting and laboratory selection as regulatory thresholds continue to tighten.

"The Science You Should Know" by Kevin Hutton – EAST Centers of NY. Kevin delivered a science-driven session reinforcing the importance of understanding the “why” behind what we do in the field. While many of us operate within regulatory frameworks daily, revisiting the underlying science helps strengthen decision-making, interpretation of results, and overall credibility in the field.

"Exposure Assessments Under OSHA’s Asbestos Construction Standard" by Peter DeLucia – Riedman Companies. This presentation focused on the practical application of exposure assessments under 29 CFR 1926.1101, highlighting:

Real-world compliance challenges
Proper interpretation of exposure data
The importance of defensible assessment strategies

The discussion resonated with many in the room, particularly regarding the gap between regulatory language and field implementation.

Morning Sessions – Tuscarora Room

"Immigration Enforcement: Know Your Rights – Employer Edition" by Michael Paglialonga, Attorney at Law, at Littler Labor & Employment Law Solutions. This session provided a timely and important briefing on the evolving landscape of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and I-9 compliance, particularly in construction and hospitality sectors. The key takeaway was clear:

We are seeing a shift from historically routine, paper-based audits to more aggressive, high-frequency site inspections and enforcement actions, with projections reaching up to 15,000 audits annually.
The emphasis has moved toward proactive compliance, or what was described as “preventative maintenance” of documentation, to avoid significant civil and potential criminal liability.

Michael Paglialonga, ICE Presenter, photo by Nathan Boor of AAC

"Workers’ Compensation: Protecting Yourself and Your Team" by Anthony Tomeselli – NYS Workers’ Compensation Board. Anthony provided a comprehensive overview of workers’ compensation, focusing on:

The distinction between business advocates and injured worker advocates
Proper classification of independent contractors
The implications of the Construction Industry Fair Play Act

This was a valuable reminder that misclassification and misunderstanding coverage requirements can have serious financial and legal consequences.

Anthony Tomeselli's points regarding the Business Advocate

"From Mold to Measurement: A Practical Overview of Mycotoxins" by Aaron Wilson – Hayes Microbial Consulting. Aaron’s presentation highlighted the complexity of mycotoxins and their impact on indoor environmental quality. One of the most critical takeaways:

Mycotoxins are toxic at extremely low concentrations—parts per billion (ppb) and even parts per trillion (ppt).

This reinforces the need for careful interpretation of sampling data and a strong understanding of the limitations and capabilities of current analytical methods.

Aaron Wilson discussing types of mycotoxins

Afternoon Sessions

"Asbestos in Settled Dust – Is it a Valid Method?" Panel Discussion Panelists:

Angelo Garcia, III – Future Environment Designs, Inc.
Martin S. Rutstein, Ph.D. – Environmental Consulting and Management Services, Inc.
Marc Rutstein – Environmental Consulting and Management Services, Inc.

This panel sparked significant discussion around one of the more debated topics in the industry—the validity and application of settled dust sampling for asbestos. The conversation focused on:

Whether it should be used as a screening or decision-making tool
Interpretation challenges
Regulatory limitations
Real-world implications, including cost impacts when misapplied

We really enjoyed working with the Rutsteins in putting this presentation together. Though Dr. Rutstein's review of our presentation made us feel like we were back in college working with our professors. See our presentation below, and our slides can be found in our training library.

"Diversity in Safety – Inclusive Safety Designs" by Courtney Connelly – The El Group, Inc. Courtney delivered an important session on designing safety programs that are not just compliant, but inclusive. The focus was on providing equity tools—ensuring that all workers, regardless of background or ability, have access to the same level of protection. This is an area that continues to evolve and deserves ongoing attention in safety program development.

Courtney Connelly discussing OSHA PPE Update

"From the People’s House to Every House" by Linda Reinstein – Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization. Linda Reinstein presented from Washington, D.C., on enforcement gaps, accountability, and the current status of the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now (ARBAN) Act. The central question: Where do we stand today? The presentation reinforced:

Ongoing regulatory gaps
The need for comprehensive legislative action
The human impact of delayed policy decisions

As always, Linda’s presentation grounded the technical discussions in real-world consequences and public health impact.

Linda Reinstein discussing asbestos disease

"Common Compliance Issues in the Field" by Stacy Portnoy – New York State Department of Labor Asbestos Control Bureau. Closing out the formal sessions, Stacy provided a practical look at common compliance issues observed in the field. These types of presentations are always valuable, as they reflect what regulators are actually seeing on projects—often highlighting recurring issues that are entirely preventable with proper planning and oversight.

Stacy Portnoy discusses the most common violations in 2025

Closing the Day: Networking and Industry Engagement

The day concluded with the Happy Hour Networking Event in the Vendor Exhibit Hall. With record vendor participation and strong attendee turnout, the room remained active and engaged. These interactions continue to be a key component of the conference—providing an opportunity to discuss challenges, share solutions, and strengthen professional relationships across the industry. One of the interesting vendors was A2Z Environmental LLC because they have a battery-operated pump capable of sampling for asbestos (both NIOSH 7400 method and the AHERA TEM method) and mold (spore trap sampling). See the video from the Happy Hour Networking Event below:

Final Thoughts

Day Two of the PACNY Conference successfully balanced technical depth, regulatory insight, and practical field application. From evolving enforcement trends and analytical challenges to emerging discussions on equity and technology, the sessions reflected where the industry stands today—and where it’s heading.

Stay tuned for Part 3, where we’ll wrap up the final day of the conference and key takeaways

PACNY 29th Annual Environmental Conference Returns to Three-Day Format at Turning Stone

PACNY 29th Annual Environmental Conference Returns to Three-Day Format at Turning Stone

noreply@blogger.com (Angelo Garcia, III) — Thu, 19 Mar 2026 14:00:00 +0000

The Professional Abatement Contractors of New York (PACNY) 29th Annual Environmental Conference, held at the Turning Stone Resort & Casino, marked a strong return to a full three-day format, taking place February 25th, 26th, and 27th, 2026. The expanded schedule provided additional opportunities for education, collaboration, and industry engagement, beginning with the President’s Reception on the evening of February 25th.

Early Afternoon Session: Technology, Design, and Industry Insight

The conference officially opened on Wednesday with a timely and forward-looking presentation by Mark and Mike Gonzales, of Cornerstone Training Institute, titled: “The Emergence of AI, Robotics, Virtual Reality, and Modern Technologies in the Environmental Remediation Industry.” This was an excellent, highly relevant session that explored not only the availability of these technologies but also their active implementation across the environmental and remediation sectors.

Mark Gonzales of Cornerstone Training Institute

The discussion covered:

Real-world applications of artificial intelligence and robotics
The role of virtual reality in training and hazard simulation
The benefits of increased efficiency, safety, and data collection
The limitations and challenges that still exist with AI adoption

A key takeaway was the growing role of advanced sensors and exoskeletons, which are now being used to assess hazards in real time and, in many cases, eliminate or significantly reduce worker exposure. The integration of these tools represents a meaningful step forward in both safety and productivity.

Mike Gonzales of Cornerstone Training Institute

Additionally, the use of drones equipped with 360-degree cameras continues to evolve, offering enhanced site assessments, documentation, and inspection capabilities—particularly in areas that are difficult or unsafe to access.

The session struck a balanced tone, emphasizing both the promise of these technologies and the practical limitations the industry must still navigate.

Late Afternoon Panel Discussion: The Criticality of Design

Following a short break, the focus shifted from emerging technology to one of the foundational elements of our industry—project design. Benjamin Reddy of Ravi Engineering moderated a panel discussion with Gary Lasky of LCP Group Inc. on “The Criticality of Design.” This was a highly engaging and comprehensive discussion that drew significant participation from attendees. What made this session particularly valuable was the open exchange of real-world experiences related to asbestos project design.

Ben Reddy of Ravi Engineering

Topics included:

Common strengths and weaknesses in project specifications
Challenges encountered in the field due to design deficiencies
The importance of clear, enforceable, and practical design documents
Lessons learned from both successful and problematic projects

The dialogue reinforced something many in the room already know—good design sets the tone for the entire project, while poor design can lead to confusion, delays, increased costs, and compliance issues.

President’s Reception: Kicking Off the Conference

The day concluded with the PACNY President’s Reception, which provided an excellent opportunity for attendees to reconnect with colleagues, meet new professionals, and begin the conference on a strong networking note.

As always, these informal settings continue to be just as valuable as the formal sessions, fostering conversations that often lead to collaboration and shared solutions across the industry.

Looking Ahead

With a strong opening day that balanced innovation with practical field experience, the PACNY Conference set the stage for two more days of education and discussion. Stay tuned for Part 2 and Part 3, where we’ll cover the remainder of the conference sessions, speakers, and key takeaways.

Our new booth is set up and ready to go!

OSHA 300A Posting Requirements and 2026 Penalty Updates: What Employers Need to Know

noreply@blogger.com (Angelo Garcia, III) — Mon, 23 Feb 2026 04:11:00 +0000

It’s time once again to focus on an important requirement from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Employers with 10 or more employees are required to post the OSHA 300A Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses from February 1 through April 30, 2026. This annual posting reflects injury and illness data from calendar year 2025 and ensures transparency for employees regarding workplace safety performance. If you need guidance in completing the OSHA 300A form, we’ve got resources to help you out. We partnered with Keevily Spero & Whitelaw to create a webinar that walks you through the steps for both the OSHA 300 and 300A forms. You can find the webinar on our YouTube Channel or watch the video below.

In addition to posting, many employers are required to electronically submit their OSHA 300A data by March 2, 2026. Let’s break this down.

OSHA 300A Form – Posting Requirements

The OSHA 300A form summarizes the injury and illness data recorded throughout the year on the OSHA 300 Log. It provides totals for:

Total cases
Cases with days away from work
Cases with job transfer or restriction
Recordable injuries and illnesses by category
Total number of days away or restricted
Establishment information and annual average employment

Covered employers must ensure that the 300 Log is completed as the year progresses and that totals are accurately calculated at year-end for the 300A summary.

300A is the Summary of Work-Related Injuries & Illnesses

The OSHA 300A must:

Be certified by a company executive
Be posted in a conspicuous location where employee notices are normally placed
Remain posted from February 1 through April 30
Be retained for five years
Be updated if new recordable information becomes available

Electronic Submission – March 2, 2026 Deadline

OSHA’s electronic reporting rule requires certain establishments to submit injury and illness data through the OSHA Injury Tracking Application (ITA). OSHA began collecting 2025 data on January 2, 2026, and submissions must be completed by March 2, 2026.

You must submit OSHA 300A data electronically if your establishment meets one of the following:

250 or more employees and not in an exempt industry (Appendix A to Subpart B of 29 CFR Part 1904), or
20–249 employees and in an industry listed in Appendix A to Subpart E of 29 CFR Part 1904.

Additionally:

Establishments with 100 or more employees in industries listed in Appendix B to Subpart E must submit OSHA 300 and 301 data in addition to the 300A.

300 Form is the Log of Work-Related Injuries & Illnesses

What This Means for Our Industry

Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services are generally exempt.
Construction, Remediation, and Waste Management Services that meet size thresholds (20–249 employees) must electronically submit 300A data.
Larger employers (100+ employees in covered industries) must submit expanded datasets.

If you are unsure whether your establishment must submit, the OSHA ITA portal provides a coverage determination tool.

2026 OSHA Penalty Updates (Applicable for 2026 Citations)

As of today, there have been no changes to the penalty structure issued on January 15, 2025. Despite ongoing discussion in the regulatory space, OSHA has not released any additional inflation adjustments or revisions beyond the 2025 annual update required under federal law.

For employers, safety managers, and compliance professionals, this means the current penalty framework remains fully in effect.

Current OSHA Penalty Structure (Effective January 15, 2025)

Under the annual adjustment mandated by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, OSHA applied a cost-of-living multiplier of 1.02598 for 2025. Those figures remain unchanged.

2025 Maximum and Minimum Penalties

Type of Violation Penalty Minimum Penalty Maximum

Serious $1,221 per violation $16,550 per violation

Other-Than-Serious $0 per violation $16,550 per violation

Willful or Repeated $11,823 per violation $165,514 per violation

Posting Requirements $0 per violation $16,550 per violation

Failure to Abate N/A $16,550 per day (up to 30 days)

These amounts are reflected in OSHA’s Information Systems (OIS) and enforcement guidance under Chapter 6 of the Field Operations Manual (FOM).

What This Means for Employers

There is sometimes confusion mid-year about whether OSHA penalties change outside the annual January adjustment cycle. They do not.

OSHA is required to:

Publish updated civil penalty amounts annually.
Implement those changes no later than January 15 of each year.

Unless Congress amends the statute or OSHA issues a formal rulemaking update, penalties remain static until the next annual adjustment.

Why This Still Matters

Even without a new increase, the current maximum penalties remain significant:

A single serious violation can reach $16,550.
A willful or repeated violation can reach $165,514 per violation.
Failure-to-abate penalties accrue daily.

For construction, remediation, environmental services, and other higher-risk industries, multi-item citations can escalate quickly.

The absence of a 2026 update (so far) does not reduce enforcement activity. OSHA continues to:

Conduct programmed and unprogrammed inspections
Increase emphasis on programs
Focus on repeat and willful classifications
Utilize the Gravity-Based Penalty (GBP) system for calculation

Final Thoughts

OSHA recordkeeping and reporting are not administrative formalities. They are compliance obligations that carry significant financial consequences when ignored.

Between:

OSHA 300A posting requirements,
Electronic submission deadlines, and
Current penalty structures, employers in construction, remediation, environmental services, and related industries must remain vigilant.

Now is the time to:

Verify your 300 Log accuracy,
Confirm executive certification of the 300A,
Ensure timely posting,
Determine electronic submission requirements,
Review your safety program to reduce exposure to costly violations.

If you need assistance navigating OSHA recordkeeping or understanding how these penalties affect your organization, reach out. Staying proactive is always less expensive than reacting to a citation.

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

noreply@blogger.com (Angelo Garcia, III) — Mon, 26 Jan 2026 15:00:00 +0000

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!

noreply@blogger.com (Angelo Garcia, III) — Thu, 01 Jan 2026 18:23:00 +0000

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

Honoring Legacy, Advancing Justice: ADAO’s 20th Annual Asbestos Awareness and Prevention Conference at Mount Sinai

noreply@blogger.com (Angelo Garcia, III) — Tue, 02 Dec 2025 13:30:00 +0000

Future Environment Designs, Inc. (FEDTC) was honored to be invited to the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization’s (ADAO's) 20th Annual Asbestos Awareness and Prevention Conference (AAPC 2025), held at the historic Mount Sinai Hospital (fun fact: Angelo Garcia, III was born there) in New York City. The conference was an extraordinary success—an inspiring gathering that honored frontline heroes, scientists, advocates, and policymakers who continue to advance asbestos science, prevention, and justice. Their work, rooted in Dr. Irving Selikoff’s groundbreaking contributions, continues to guide ADAO's mission and strengthen its resolve.

Candlelight Vigil at 9/11 Memorial

This milestone year—two decades of ADAO’s leadership in education, advocacy, and community building—brought together a global network of experts and survivors committed to ending asbestos exposure and saving lives. The conference shared life-saving information, reached new audiences, and deepened the collaborative spirit that has defined ADAO since its founding.

Linda Reinstein, Co-Founder & President of ADAO, declared: "On behalf of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, we extend our heartfelt gratitude to every attendee, speaker, honoree, presenter, volunteer, sponsor, and steadfast supporter who made this historic event possible."

A Legacy Honored: Dr. Irving Selikoff’s Enduring Impact

This year’s theme, “Building on Dr. Selikoff’s Legacy in Asbestos Science, Prevention & Justice,” paid tribute to the physician whose pioneering work exposed the dangers of asbestos and reshaped occupational health policy worldwide. To commemorate this legacy, the conference proudly unveiled the 10th poster in "BADGES: A Memorial Tribute to Asbestos Workers," created by award-winning documentary photographer Earl Dotter. Titled “Science. Prevention. Justice.”, the tribute honors Dr. Selikoff’s transformative influence and reaffirms everyone's commitment to continuing the critical work he began.

BADGES: A Memorial Tribute to Asbestos Workers

The program also included a moving remembrance of September 11, honoring those who lost their lives to asbestos-related diseases following that tragic day — a solemn reminder of the long-term consequences of toxic exposures and the urgency of prevention.

Celebrating Excellence: Honoring Advocates, Researchers & Community Leaders

ADAO’s annual awards ceremony recognized remarkable individuals and organizations whose contributions embody the spirit of their mission:

Alan Reinstein Award — John Feal, for his tireless advocacy for 9/11 first responders and dedication to securing justice for survivors.

Warren Zevon “Keep Me in Your Heart” Award — Danny Goldberg, for keeping public attention on asbestos victims through meaningful storytelling.

Saturday Keynote Address — The Honorable Gale Brewer, NYC Council Member for the 6th District, whose leadership continues to advance public health protections.

The Dr. Irving Selikoff Awards - Presented to three exemplary leaders in asbestos research and clinical innovation:

Dr. Claudia Henschke & Dr. David Yankelevitz

Their groundbreaking contributions in detection, screening, and treatment continue to offer hope to patients and families.

Additional honors included:

Tribute of Hope Award — Greg Russell
Tribute of Unity Awards — Uniformed Firefighters Association & Uniformed Fire Officers Association
Tribute of Inspiration Award — United Federation of Teachers

ADAO also paid tribute to Karen Grant, who was posthumously honored with the Alan Reinstein Award. Her powerful recorded message—shared courageously before her passing—left an indelible mark on all who heard her story.

Karen Grant

A Robust Academic Program: From Selikoff’s Vision to Today’s Innovations

Saturday’s academic program featured five comprehensive sessions, each tracing the evolution of asbestos science and policy from 1964 to the present:

1. From Then to Now – Selikoff’s Vision and Our Journey Forward - A sweeping overview of six decades of scientific discovery, regulatory shifts, and advocacy milestones.

2. Diagnosing and Treating Asbestos-Related Diseases - Experts from Mount Sinai and Memorial Sloan Kettering unveiled promising new treatment options and clinical trial advances that provide real hope for patients.

Andrea Wolf, MD, MPH, Director, NY Mesothelioma Program Professor, The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

3. Prevention Is the Cure – Strategies for Exposure Reduction - Discussions ranged from 9/11 firefighter screenings to wildfire toxicity in Lahaina and Los Angeles, while also highlighting digital tools and innovative prevention strategies presented by Chris Carberg and Linda Reinstein.

David Prezant, MD, Chief Medical Officer for the FDNY

4. Dr. Irving Selikoff, Paul Brodeur, and Beyond - A critical examination of scientific suppression, transparency, and Paul Brodeur’s groundbreaking 1970 New Yorker exposé.

5. Asbestos and the Law - A deep dive into the role of litigation in driving corporate accountability, protecting public health, and enabling justice for victims.

Nearly 40 distinguished experts from four countries enriched these discussions, making this one of ADAO’s most comprehensive programs to date. ADAO's 158-page conference program, available online, reflects the depth, diversity, and rigor of this year’s content.

Global Access, Free for All

In keeping with ADAO’s commitment to health equity, this year’s conference will be accessible online at no cost. Access to life-saving public health information should never be restricted—and we remain steadfast in ensuring that education reaches all who need it.

Conference session videos will be available on the ADAO YouTube Channel, allowing global audiences to learn from and engage with this important content.

Building Momentum for Change: ARBAN 2025

The program contains letters of support — not only for the conference but also for the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now (ARBAN) Act. Special thanks were given to:

Senator Jeff Merkley
Representative Suzanne Bonamici
Representative Don Bacon
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF)
Collegium Ramazzini
Olin Corporation

Their continued support demonstrates the growing national momentum toward comprehensive asbestos reform and the critical importance of achieving a long-overdue ban.

ADAO Donors and Sponsors

Donors and sponsors of the conference included:

Platinum: Dean Omar Branham Shirley, LLP; Simmons Hanly Conroy, LLP
Gold: The Gori Law Firm; Motley Rice LLC
Silver: Early, Lucarelli, Sweeney & Meisenkothen

Linda Reinstein said: "Your generous support ensures that ADAO’s education, advocacy, and community outreach efforts remain free and accessible to the public. Your partnership fuels our mission to create a world free from asbestos exposure."

Looking Ahead: Renewed Strength, Shared Purpose

We would again like to thank Linda Reinstein and ADAO for inviting us and the members of the Professional Abatement Contractors of New York (PACNY) to the conference. For someone who has attended our share of conferences, it truly was educational and eye-opening. We have shared our experience, the hope, and the information we learned from the conference in our classes since September.

As Linda Reinstein said: "The path toward an asbestos-free future is long, but with your support, your voices, and your unwavering dedication, we are closer than ever."

Join Us in Advancing Science, Prevention, and Justice

Though the 20th Annual Asbestos Awareness and Prevention Conference has ended, the work does not end there. Your voice, your engagement, and your advocacy are essential in driving the policy changes and public health protections our communities urgently need.

Stay connected with ADAO, share their resources, contact your lawmakers about ARBAN, and help us push for a future where no family suffers from preventable asbestos exposure. Together, we can finish the work Dr. Selikoff began.

Related Posts:

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

noreply@blogger.com (Angelo Garcia, III) — Tue, 21 Oct 2025 16:36:00 +0000

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"

noreply@blogger.com (Angelo Garcia, III) — Fri, 10 Oct 2025 16:00:00 +0000

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!

EIA Joins Coalition in Strong Support of the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act of 2025

noreply@blogger.com (Angelo Garcia, III) — Sun, 28 Sep 2025 22:38:00 +0000

On September 16, 2025, Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Representative Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), and Representative Don Bacon (R-NE) introduced the bipartisan, bicameral Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now (ARBAN) Act of 2025. This long-overdue legislation finally addresses what many of us in the asbestos and environmental industry have been fighting for decades: a complete ban on asbestos in all its forms.

Asbestos Pipe Insulation Properly Managed

The bill is named in honor of Alan Reinstein, a passionate advocate for asbestos awareness whose legacy continues through the tireless work of his widow, Linda Reinstein, and the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO). If passed, ARBAN will eliminate all asbestos imports and uses, close the dangerous loopholes left by the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA's) 2024 Risk Management for Asbestos, Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos rule, and ensure that protections are permanent through law - removing the risk of judicial reversal.

J. Brent Kynoch, Managing Director of EIA

The Environmental Information Association (EIA), representing professionals across asbestos abatement and environmental remediation (Future Environment Designs, Inc. (FEDTC) is a proud member of EIA), has proudly announced its strong support for ARBAN. J. Brent Kynoch, Managing Director of EIA, stated:

“On behalf of the Environmental Information Association, I express our strong support for the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act of 2025. We greatly appreciate the continuing commitment of Congress to finally ban commercial asbestos—a toxic substance our members have worked tirelessly to help manage and remediate for decades. With the passage of ARBAN, the United States will finally join nearly 70 countries that have already taken decisive action to protect public health.”

For those of us in the industry, the facts remain painfully clear: asbestos exposure has caused generations of suffering, disease, and death. The scientific consensus is undeniable—there is no safe level of asbestos exposure. Yet in 2025, asbestos remains legal in the United States. ARBAN represents the first comprehensive solution that will finally align the U.S. with international public health standards and put an end to preventable asbestos-related tragedies.

Linda Reinstein of ADAO

Linda Reinstein, President of ADAO, powerfully reminded us:

“We have known for decades that asbestos causes suffering, disease, and death. It is long past time to end the importation and use of all asbestos in the United States and put a stop to the preventable tragedies that have claimed far too many American lives.”

The legislation has already garnered strong early support from a broad coalition, including ADAO, the American Public Health Association (APHA), Environmental Working Group (EWG), International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Center for Environmental Health (CEH), and EIA, among others. These organizations represent public health advocates, labor unions, scientists, and industry experts who have all witnessed firsthand the devastating impact of asbestos exposure.

ARBAN would:

Ban all asbestos — including all six recognized fibers, plus winchite and richterite
Close regulatory loopholes left by EPA’s 2024 rule
Ensure permanent protections through legislation immune to court reversal

With more than 40,000 Americans dying each year from asbestos-related diseases, the stakes could not be higher. Passing ARBAN is not only about preventing illness and death today - it is about securing a healthier, safer future for workers, families, and communities across the nation.

As someone who has spent their career in the asbestos and industrial hygiene field, we cannot stress enough how critical this legislation is. The United States has delayed for far too long. It is time for Congress to act. Contact your legislators today and urge them to support the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act of 2025. Together, we can end asbestos use in the U.S. once and for all.

Related Posts:

September 11, 2001 – Honoring the Past, Protecting the Present: The World Trade Center Health Program

noreply@blogger.com (Angelo Garcia, III) — Sun, 07 Sep 2025 20:23:00 +0000

September 11, 2001, is a day that remains etched in all our memories. The tragic events at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, PA, changed our nation forever. But beyond the immediate loss of life, another tragedy unfolded quietly in the months and years that followed - tens of thousands of responders, survivors, and community members began experiencing serious health problems directly related to their 9/11 exposure.

That’s why the World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program, managed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), is so critical. Established to provide medical monitoring and treatment, this program continues to serve those whose health was compromised by their bravery or simply by their presence in lower Manhattan during and after 9/11. Today, more than 127,000 members are enrolled, including over 83,000 responders and 44,000 survivors.

Who is Eligible?

Eligibility is broader than many realize. You may qualify if you:

Worked, lived, or went to school or daycare in the NYC disaster area between 9/11/01 and mid-2002.
They were present in the dust cloud on 9/11.
Performed rescue, recovery, cleanup, or related work at Ground Zero, the Staten Island Landfill, PATH tunnels, barge loading piers, the Pentagon, or Shanksville.

Even indirect roles—such as site security, administrative support, providing supplies, or working with the Medical Examiner’s Office—count toward eligibility.

Covered Health Conditions

The WTC Health Program recognizes and treats a wide range of certified WTC-related health conditions, including:

Top Health Conditions

Respiratory diseases: asthma, chronic cough, sinusitis
Digestive disorders: GERD, chronic acid reflux
Mental health conditions: PTSD, anxiety, depression, trouble sleeping
Cancers linked to toxic exposures
Acute traumatic injuries sustained during response work

Many survivors and responders still don’t realize their health issues—persistent cough, runny nose, chronic heartburn, or ongoing anxiety—may be related to their 9/11 exposure.

Top Cancer Certifications

Where to Get Care

The program offers treatment through Clinical Centers of Excellence (CCE) in the New York metropolitan area, and for those outside NY, through the Nationwide Provider Network (NPN). Benefits include medical monitoring, prescription coverage, mental health care, and treatment tailored specifically to certified WTC-related conditions.

Why It Matters

The work of the WTC Health Program isn’t just about honoring those who served or survived—it’s about ensuring that no one is left behind in their fight for health. With over 400,000 people estimated to have been affected by 9/11, the program remains a lifeline for many and a reminder that the impact of that day continues.

On this September 11, we honor those we lost, but we also reaffirm our commitment to care for those still living with the health consequences of that day. The WTC Health Program, guided by NIOSH, ensures that the promise made in the aftermath—that we would not forget—continues to be fulfilled.

Call to Action: How to Apply

If you or someone you know may qualify for the World Trade Center Health Program, don’t wait:

Visit the WTC Health Program website to learn more.
Review the eligibility checklists for survivors and responders.
Apply online or download an application to begin the process.

Getting connected to the program can provide access to the care, monitoring, and support needed to manage 9/11-related health conditions—and ensure no one faces these challenges alone.

Previous Posts Regarding 9/11

Re-Post of our 20 Year Anniversary of 9/11, 10-Year Anniversary of the World Trade Center Health Program. Lesson Learned?

Its Been 15 Years Since 9/11. 4 Things We Have Learned!

The Toxic Clouds of 9/11

OSHA’s Proposed Asbestos Respirator Changes Raise Important Safety Concerns

noreply@blogger.com (Angelo Garcia, III) — Fri, 08 Aug 2025 17:12:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Angelo Garcia, III) — Fri, 04 Jul 2025 16:48:00 +0000

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

Day Two at the PACNY Environmental Conference: Industry Insight, Asbestos Updates, and DOL Dialogue

noreply@blogger.com (Angelo Garcia, III) — Wed, 28 May 2025 21:10:00 +0000

The second day of the 2025 Professional Abatement Contractors of New York (PACNY) 28th Annual Environmental Conference at Turning Stone Resort and Casino built on the momentum of Day One, delivering another impressive lineup of speakers, powerful insights, and meaningful conversations that underscored the challenges — and opportunities — in our industry.

Russell Vent Introducing New Members of PACNY

The morning opened with a “PACNY – State of the Union” address delivered by PACNY President Kevin Hutton and Vice President Russell C. Vent. Their presentation outlined the association’s accomplishments over the past year, current legislative concerns, and PACNY’s continued commitment to environmental and worker safety advocacy. Their remarks reinforced PACNY’s role as a vital voice for our industry, especially in times of shifting regulatory landscapes.

BJ Fungaroli makes several points about why the Asbestos Industry has 125+ years

Next up was our Keynote Speaker, BJ Fungaroli, President/CEO of Environmental Holdings Group, LLC, who gave a compelling presentation on “The State of the Asbestos Industry.” BJ didn’t hold back — and he didn’t sugarcoat things either. According to him, the asbestos industry isn’t going away anytime soon. In fact, BJ emphasized that we’re looking at another 125+ years of work, oversight, and regulation, due to the enormous volume of asbestos still present in our building stock and infrastructure. His presentation was a stark reminder of the long-term responsibility that asbestos professionals must continue to shoulder.

BJ Fungaroli discussing automation of the Asbestos Industry

Following BJ’s keynote, Linda Reinstein, Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, and Brent Kynoch, Environmental Information Association presented “The State of the Asbestos Ban.” Their presentation clarified where things currently stand with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) risk evaluation process. While we’ve seen progress with Part 1: Chrysotile asbestos, the bigger challenge lies ahead with Part 2: The Supplemental Evaluation, which will include legacy uses and associated disposal of asbestos-containing materials. This upcoming phase could have far-reaching implications for how asbestos is regulated and managed across the U.S. Because of EPA's footdragging regarding banning all forms of asbestos it is even more important to support the passage of Bicameral Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act (S.1069 and H.R. 2402). Linda and Brent’s message was clear: the fight isn’t over, and active industry participation in public comment and advocacy will be critical in shaping the future of asbestos regulation.

Brent Kynoch and Linda Reinstein speaking on the Asbestos Ban

After the morning session, attendees enjoyed a coffee break in the Exhibit Hall, which was buzzing with conversations, new product demos, and vendor networking.

NYS Department of Labor (NYSDOL) Presentation and Roundtable Q&A

We returned to the main conference room for one of the most anticipated segments of the day — the NYS Department of Labor (NYSDOL) Presentation and Roundtable Q&A. This session featured:

Vincent Rapacciuolo, Deputy Director
Kirk Fisher, Head of the Asbestos Control Bureau
Chek Beng Ng, Head of the Engineering Services Unit
Conor Donnelly, Head of Licensing & Certification

This panel provided critical updates and fielded questions from attendees on a wide range of topics. Among the highlights:

An overview of NYSDOL’s ongoing rollout of the Management System for Protecting Workers Rights (MPWER) online system for training certificates and variances
A look at NYSDOL’s pilot use of drone technology to enhance enforcement and inspection efforts
Clarification on licensing, enforcement priorities, and the department’s approach to fielding variance requests

The roundtable format offered attendees a unique opportunity to engage directly with the regulators shaping policy on the ground — and the PACNY audience took full advantage of it. The conversation was lively, informative, and — at times — refreshingly candid.

NYSDOL sent their enforcement staff to attend the conference and meet attendees

The day concluded with a networking lunch, giving attendees one last chance to connect, reflect on the conference’s content, and strengthen professional relationships. It was the perfect cap to two days filled with insight, energy, and community.

Tony Rich & Linda Reinstein visited our booth in the Exhibit Hall!

As always, PACNY continues to deliver high-quality education and real-world dialogue that keeps our industry informed and engaged. Whether it’s regulatory shifts, the future of asbestos management, or technological innovations, this year’s conference reminded us that our work is far from done — and that it’s going to take all of us to move it forward.

A Bitter Birthday: Celebrating NIOSH’s Legacy Amid Uncertain Times

noreply@blogger.com (Angelo Garcia, III) — Mon, 28 Apr 2025 19:24:00 +0000

Today, April 28, marks the anniversary of the day NIOSH first opened its doors in 1971, following the passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Congress created NIOSH — the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health — to "assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions."

Types of Respirators

For more than half a century, NIOSH has stood as a cornerstone of worker protection. Its research has helped shape critical safety standards for asbestos, silica, lead, heat stress, mental health, and countless other hazards across industries. From construction sites to healthcare settings, from manufacturing floors to environmental consulting offices, NIOSH’s work has been integral to safeguarding the health and lives of American workers.

But this year’s celebration is bittersweet — and frankly, alarming.

In a stunning and deeply concerning move, mass layoffs have gutted key NIOSH research and education programs. Overnight, the agency’s capacity to investigate workplace hazards, develop scientific guidelines, and educate the next generation of safety professionals has been drastically reduced.

The consequences of this cannot be overstated. Without NIOSH’s leadership:

Standards for silica, a deadly airborne hazard linked to silicosis and lung cancer, are now at risk of stagnating.
Protections against lead exposure, which affects the brain and nervous system, could weaken.
Efforts to address heat-related illness, a growing crisis as climate change intensifies, are left vulnerable.
Momentum around mental health in the workplace, a long-ignored pillar of occupational safety, may lose critical support just when it's finally gaining ground.

Occupational safety and health cannot afford to stand still — and it certainly cannot afford to move backward. Every advance we’ve made — every reduced injury rate, every improved standard, every saved life — was built on a foundation of science, research, and proactive leadership. Without a strong, fully functioning NIOSH, that foundation starts to crack.

Thankfully, the fight to #SaveNIOSH is growing stronger by the day.

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) and the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) are actively advocating through letters, partnerships, and a public #SaveNIOSH campaign. Workers, safety professionals, and the general public are encouraged to use the Voter Voice system to contact legislators, share their support on social media, and help safeguard worker protections that are critical to U.S. health, safety, and economic well-being.

A coalition of 460 organizations is urging Congress to stop the planned layoffs at NIOSH, warning that cutting more than 870 employees would cripple efforts to protect the health and safety of 164 million U.S. workers. These cuts — part of a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) restructuring set to take effect by June 30 — would devastate critical programs like the National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, providing info on Firefighter research, services, and health and safety information, and Coal Workers' Health Surveillance Program and other such initiatives.

NYC FireFighter

The coalition emphasizes that NIOSH provides the nation’s only dedicated federal research on preventing workplace injuries and illnesses — losses that cost the U.S. economy more than $250 billion annually.

Lawmakers, including Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), are demanding hearings and greater transparency, arguing that gutting NIOSH would not only endanger workers but also undermine decades of public health progress and weaken evidence-based solutions that have saved countless lives.

Protecting NIOSH is not just about preserving an institution — it's about maintaining a safer, healthier workforce and a stronger economy. It’s about continuing the work that has made American workplaces among the safest in the world.

As we mark this important milestone, let’s honor NIOSH’s legacy — not just with words, but with action. Speak up. Get involved. Fight for the future of occupational health and safety.

Because workers deserve better.

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

noreply@blogger.com (Angelo Garcia, III) — Sun, 30 Mar 2025 20:27:00 +0000

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!

noreply@blogger.com (Angelo Garcia, III) — Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:39:00 +0000

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.

OSHA 2024 Reporting Requirements and 2025 Penalty Adjustments: Key Compliance Guidelines for Employers

noreply@blogger.com (Angelo Garcia, III) — Mon, 20 Jan 2025 16:51:00 +0000

As we enter 2025, it’s time to once again focus on an important requirement from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Employers with 10 or more employees are required to post the OSHA 300A form from February 1 to April 30, 2025. This annual posting ensures transparency in workplace injury and illness data for the previous year. In addition, many employers must electronically submit the OSHA 300A data by March 2, 2025.

OSHA 300A Form

The OSHA 300A form is a summary of the injury and illness information that was recorded in the OSHA 300 log throughout the past year (2024). It plays a key role in workplace safety, helping employers analyze and reduce hazards in their operations. It’s important to remember that COVID-19 is considered a recordable and reportable illness if it is confirmed, work-related, and results in days away from work. In these cases, it would be logged as a respiratory illness. However, if an employee requests that their name not appear on the log for privacy reasons, employers must comply as per 29 CFR 1904.29(b)(7)(vi) and treat it as a privacy case.

OSHA 300 must be filled out as the year progresses

If you need guidance in completing the OSHA 300A form, we’ve got resources to help you out. We partnered with Keevily Spero & Whitelaw to create a webinar that walks you through the steps for both the OSHA 300 and 300A forms. You can find the webinar on our YouTube Channel or watch the video below. Remember, covered employers are required to maintain accurate records of serious occupational injuries and illnesses and tally the totals at the end of each year for the OSHA 300A form. The data should be used by employers to evaluate workplace safety and make improvements to reduce risks. Keep in mind that the OSHA 300A form must be posted until April 30, 2024, and retained for five years. During this time, employers are also required to update the log as new information becomes available.

Electronic Submissions – March 2, 2025, Deadline

OSHA’s final rule, which took effect on January 1, 2017, requires certain employers to submit injury and illness data electronically. OSHA has provided a secure website for submitting this data. If you are required to submit your OSHA 300A information, be aware that there’s a login procedure that took effect in October 2022. Hopefully, you've handled this process previously. The OSHA Injury Tracking Application (ITA) helps to determine if your establishment is required to electronically submit 300A and 300/301 data through the ITA. You can watch a tutorial video on how to use the ITA to submit your data. Submissions must be completed by March 2, 2025, and OSHA began collecting data starting January 2, 2025.

You must submit 300A data if your establishment meets one of the following requirements:

250 or more employees and is not in an industry listed in the exempt industries list in Appendix A to Subpart B of OSHA’s recordkeeping regulation of 29 CFR Part 1904, or
20-249 employees and is in an industry listed in Appendix A to Subpart E of 29 CFR Part 1904.

YOU MUST also submit 300/301 data if your establishment(s) has 100 or more employees and is in an industry listed in Appendix B to Subpart E of 29 CFR Part 1904. What does this mean for our industry? If you are in the industry of Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services you are exempt. However, for Construction, Remediation, or Waste Management Services that meet the size requirements (20 to 249 employees), you are required to submit your OSHA 300A information electronically.

Ensure you’re compliant with OSHA’s posting and reporting requirements; if you need any assistance or clarification, don’t hesitate to reach out. We’re here to help!

Construction Site

2025 OSHA Penalty Updates What You Need to Know

In 2025, OSHA updated the penalty structure as required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. Each year, OSHA adjusts civil penalty amounts to account for inflation, ensuring penalties maintain their deterrent effect and reflect current economic conditions. This year is no different, with the penalty adjustments now updated for 2025 based on the latest inflation data.

Purpose of the Update

The information contained in this update supplements OSHA’s existing penalties and debt collection guidelines, which can be found in Chapter 6 of the Field Operations Manual (FOM). The updated tables provided in this memorandum reflect the penalty amounts for the calendar year 2025, corresponding to adjusted figures in OSHA Information Systems (OIS). These annual adjustments allow employers and safety professionals to access the most current penalty information and ensure compliance with OSHA regulations.

Background

This annual update follows the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, which was enacted on November 2, 2015. This act builds upon the original Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 and the 1996 Debt Collection Improvement Act to strengthen the impact of civil monetary penalties. The Inflation Adjustment Act requires two key actions by regulatory agencies:

Perform a "catch-up" adjustment of civil penalties (completed through an interim final rule in 2016), and
Implement subsequent annual adjustments for inflation by January 15 of each year.

For 2025, the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier is 1.02598, based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers from October 2024. This multiplier is applied to the previous year's penalty amounts and rounded to the nearest dollar. The adjustment ensures that both minimum and maximum penalties set forth under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and the Field Operations Manual (FOM) remain consistent with inflation.

Minimum and Maximum Penalty Amounts for 2025

To give you a clearer picture, Table 1 outlines the updated penalty amounts for various types of violations:

Type of Violation	Penalty Minimum	Penalty Maximum
Serious	$1,221 per violation	$16,550 per violation
Other-Than-Serious	$0 per violation	$16,550 per violation
Willful or Repeated	$11,823 per violation	$165,514 per violation
Posting Requirements	$0 per violation	$16,550 per violation
Failure to Abate	N/A	$16,550 per day beyond the abatement date (up to 30 days max)

Note: For repeated other-than-serious violations, the penalty starts at $472 for the first repeat offense, increasing to $1,182 for the second and $2,364 for a third repetition.

Gravity-Based Penalty (GBP) System

The Gravity-Based Penalty (GBP) is used to determine the severity of violations and assess penalties accordingly. The gravity of a violation is categorized into high, moderate, or low based on the risk it presents:

High Gravity: $16,550 penalty
Moderate Gravity: Penalties range from $9,457 to $14,187
Low Gravity: $7,093 penalty

For serious violations, the GBP is determined by a combination of severity and probability, as shown in Table 2:

Severity	Probability	GBP	Gravity	OIS/GRAVITY Code
High	Greater	$16,550	High	10
Medium	Greater	$14,187	Moderate	5
Low	Greater	$11,823	Moderate	5
High	Lesser	$11,823	Moderate	5
Medium	Lesser	$9,457	Moderate	5
Low	Lesser	$7,093	Low	1

For other-than-serious violations, only minimal severity is assigned. However, if the Area Director determines a higher penalty is necessary for deterrence, the maximum penalty of $16,550 may be applied.

Serious Willful Penalty Reductions

When calculating penalties for serious willful violations, employers may be eligible for penalty reductions based on the size of their workforce. The reductions are shown in Table 3 below:

Number of Employees	Percent Reduction
10 or fewer	80%
11-20	60%
21-30	50%
31-40	40%
41-50	30%
51-100	20%
101-250	10%
251 or more	0%

These reductions are applied after considering other factors such as the company’s history of violations and overall safety performance.

Final Thoughts

As OSHA updates penalties each year to keep pace with inflation, employers must remain informed and compliant. These adjustments not only ensure that penalties maintain their deterrent effect but also encourage safer workplace practices. Staying on top of OSHA’s evolving regulations and penalty structures is essential for companies operating in high-risk industries.

If you have questions about these updates or need assistance navigating OSHA’s penalty framework, feel free to reach out for further guidance.

Future Environment Designs wishes all of you a Merry Holidays and a Happy New Year! EPA delivers an early holiday present!

noreply@blogger.com (Angelo Garcia, III) — Fri, 27 Dec 2024 23:33:00 +0000

As we say goodbye to 2024 and welcome 2025, we reflect on 2024 and how it has changed us. 2024 has been a good year for Future Environment Designs which helps to keep the business viable as we enter our 37th year in business. We are still working on a balance between the company and our personal life. Which at times can be so entertwined.

PACNY's Holiday Meeting at Skaneateles, NY

Future Environment Designs is looking forward to 2025 as many of our clients have asked for initial courses in the coming year and we look forward to assisting them with their needs. We will continue to service the other areas of the State (such as Plattsburgh, Rochester, Syracuse, Hudson Valley, and Buffalo) looking for quality training. Thank you to all our clients for helping us maintain a 4.8 rating out of 5 for another year! Your positive feedback means a lot to us. If you'd like to share your experience, please visit our course reviews at CourseCheck. We look forward to continuing our work on the Professional Abatement Contractors of New York (PACNY) Board of Directors (if reelected), event, and communications committees. In addition, some indoor air quality consulting work has also come through the door for the New Year we look forward to meeting those needs, too.

Anthony's Restaurant in Plattsburgh, NY

On a more global note, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on December 3, 2024, that it has determined that disturbing and handling asbestos associated with legacy uses, and asbestos as a chemical substance, poses an unreasonable risk to human health. EPA's Risk Evaluation for Asbestos Part 2: Supplemental Evaluation Including Legacy Uses and Associated Disposals of Asbestos - Part 2 of the Risk Evaluation for Asbestos, EPA considered chrysotile (serpentine), crocidolite (riebeckite), amosite (cummingtonite-grunerite), anthophyllite, tremolite, actinolite, and Libby Amphibole Asbestos (and its tremolite, winchite, and richterite constituents). EPA considers this expansion to be consistent with the focus of Part 2 of the Risk Evaluation for Asbestos on legacy uses and associated disposals. Additionally, the EPA assessed the relevant conditions for the use of asbestos-containing talc because talc has been implicated as a potential source of asbestos exposure.

Rockefeller Centre, NYC

It will be interesting moving forward since this announcement means rules or regulations must be promulgated to mediate the risk. Especially with a new administration that is looking to reduce regulation. It will be interesting to see if we get another SNUR. See our post on the SNUR. Several items we hope will be addressed:

a National Aggressive TEM Clearance requirement for all-size asbestos projects. Read my post regarding clearance.
a reduction of the exposure limit for all asbestos workers. Remember EPA in Part One set an exposure limit of 0.005 f/cc for chlor-alkali workers. Read my post regarding Part One.
in addition, a plan to replace phase contrast microscopy with a better method for evaluating worker exposures.
Getting rid of the greater than 1% rule for asbestos-containing materials (ACM). Changing it to any percentage even trace amounts would eliminate some confusion between EPA and OSHA regulations.
Coming up with a method for handling Libby-Amphibole Asbestos.

Bergdorf Goodman, NYC

On a personal note, we will miss our youngest sister Dr. Melissa Garcia who passed on in May. This has altered our view of things a bit. How short life is and the time we have on this planet can end at any time. Specifically, most will not see much of a difference because we have always been a positive (glass half-full) person. Though we're starting to feel our age. Our worries and cares are very different now and going forward.

Bryant Park, NYC

We look forward to seeing many of you in 2025 as we continue our journey together!

Conference Season Starts in 3 Months Save the Date: PACNY 2025 Environmental Conference & EIA 2025 National Conference

noreply@blogger.com (Angelo Garcia, III) — Mon, 25 Nov 2024 15:30:00 +0000

With the end of 2024 fast approaching, we are looking ahead to 2025, we are excited to announce the dates for the Professional Abatement Contractors of New York's (PACNY's) 2025 Environmental Conference, taking place on Thursday, February 27th, and Friday, February 28th, 2025, being held at Turning Stone Resort and Casino in Verona, New York. This is your chance to participate in the most educational and informative environmental abatement conference in New York State, known for delivering critical insights on the industry’s evolving challenges.

Long Island Attendees of the 2024 PACNY Conference

This year’s PACNY Conference will feature multiple simultaneous sessions to cover a wide range of topics relevant to abatement and environmental professionals. We are bringing in exciting speakers to address pressing issues facing businesses connected to environmental management today. Some of the speakers already committed include Tom Laubenthal, of TGL Consulting, Inc.; Chris Alonge, PE, of Dormitory Authority of the State of NewYork (DASNY); J. Brent Kynoch, of the Environmmental Information Association (EIA); Dr. David Duoford, CIH, CSP, CHMM, of CanAm Environmental Safety; and Marc Rutstein, of Environmental Consulting & Management Services, Inc. Whether you’re dealing with asbestos, mold, lead-based paint, or general regulatory compliance, there will be sessions tailored to meet your needs.

Meet the NYSDOL regulators at the PACNY Environmental Conference

For PACNY's sponsors, this is a unique opportunity to engage with over 200 attendees from across the abatement industry. With networking events built into the schedule, you’ll have the perfect chance to introduce your products and services to a captive audience of professionals eager to learn about the latest innovations in the field.

The PACNY Conference Sponsors in the Exhibition Hall

EIA National Conference & Exhibition

And don't forget, right on the heels of the PACNY event, the EIA 2025 National Conference & Exhibition will be held March 9-12, 2025 at the Hyatt Regency in Jacksonville, Florida. Over the past 40 years, the EIA has solidified its reputation as a gathering place for the best minds in asbestos management, mold remediation, environmental sampling, indoor air quality, and environmental management systems.

Part of the New York Contigent at EIA

The EIA 2025 conference offers an unmatched platform for industry experts to exchange ideas, build connections, and explore the most cutting-edge solutions to today’s environmental challenges. Sessions will cover everything from regulatory compliance to cost-effective remediation strategies, providing valuable takeaways for attendees from all sectors.

Not all work at EIA

As with PACNY, the EIA 2025 National Conference presents excellent opportunities for businesses to maximize their visibility. Whether through an exhibit booth, sponsorship, or advertisement, you’ll have the chance to showcase your offerings to a broad audience of decision-makers. Don't miss out—take advantage of the special EIA room rate of $239, available until February 21!

Seen during EIA's Women's Committee Social

Mark your calendars and prepare for a dynamic year of learning, networking, and opportunity at both the PACNY and EIA 2025 events. We look forward to seeing you there!

Angelo Garcia, III's presentation at the EIA 2024 National Conference in San Diego, CA.

Future Environment Designs Celebrating 36 Years in Business: A Journey of Growth, Dedication, and Innovation

noreply@blogger.com (Angelo Garcia, III) — Tue, 08 Oct 2024 21:45:00 +0000

As we mark the 36th anniversary of Future Environment Designs, Inc., we find ourselves reflecting on the incredible journey that brought us here. It’s been a ride filled with countless milestones, hard-earned lessons, and the unrelenting pursuit of excellence. From our humble beginnings in 1988 to where we stand today, one thing has remained constant: our commitment to protecting your employee's health and safety while delivering top-notch occupational safety and health training and indoor air quality consulting services.

Keeping Employees Safe is part of our business and our motto!

Building a Legacy Through Expertise and Dedication

In the beginning, like most small businesses, we faced our share of challenges. Navigating a highly regulated industry, gaining the trust of clients, and keeping up with rapidly changing indoor environmental and occupational safety and health standards were no easy tasks. But what set us apart from day one was our dedication to truly understanding the intricacies of the environmental and occupational health and safety field. Whether it was asbestos abatement, mold remediation, managing indoor air quality, or lead hazard control, we immersed ourselves in the details—so that our clients didn’t have to.

Speaking at PACNY!

Our expertise and relentless pursuit of staying ahead in the industry have been the foundation of our success. Over the years, we have expanded our services, invested in new technologies, and continuously improved our training programs to better serve our clients and partners. This journey of continuous growth allowed us to build long-standing relationships with clients who trust us to handle their most complex indoor air quality and occupational safety and health challenges.

A Focus on Innovation and Adaptability

The occupational health and safety industry is not one that stands still. Regulations change, technology evolves, and the needs of clients shift. Over the last three and a half decades, we’ve prided ourselves on being ahead of the curve. From adapting to new asbestos and mold regulations to embracing the digital transformation in project management and compliance, innovation has been at the core of everything we do.

Speaking at EIA

We’ve taken our knowledge beyond the office and into the field, teaching and training the next generation of environmental health and occupational safety and health professionals. Our training programs have evolved over the years to meet the demands of an ever-changing regulatory landscape, helping hundreds of professionals stay compliant and safe.

The Value of Relationships and Trust

Being in business for 36 years also means we’ve had the privilege of forming deep, lasting relationships with our clients, partners, and team members. Trust is a word we never take lightly, and earning that trust has been paramount to our success. Whether it’s a new client who needs guidance through a complex abatement project or a returning partner who knows they can rely on us for expert advice, we’ve always approached each project with the same level of commitment and integrity.

PSEG a long time client

BNL a long time client

To our clients—some of whom have been with us since our early years—thank you for putting your trust in us time and time again. It is your faith in our ability to deliver results that has allowed us to grow and thrive in this industry.

Looking Ahead to the Future

As we look to the future, we are more excited than ever about the possibilities that lie ahead. The challenges we face today, from climate change to emerging contaminants like PFAS, demand new levels of expertise, innovation, and collaboration. We are ready to meet these challenges head-on, continuing to evolve (see our updated website) and adapt (changes to the virtual training process) just as we have for the past 36 years.

Updated Website

Our vision remains the same: to protect people, property, and the environment through high-quality consulting, training, and project management services. As we step into our next chapter, we will continue to push boundaries, embrace change, and lead with integrity ("Fallacy of Clearance Air Sampling")—just as we’ve done since 1988.

Fallacy of Clearance Air Sampling at EIA

Thank you to everyone who has been part of this incredible journey. Here’s to the next 36 years of innovation, leadership, and success!