Silica dust or respirable crystalline silica (RCS) is a danger to most any front-line restoration worker, in addition to millions in other industries, due to silica’s presence in drywall, concrete, brick, mortar, stone, sand, and other common building materials. With asbestos, once we identify materials that contain asbestos, those materials must be handled only by licensed companies and certified personnel. Silica interaction, on the other hand, is not confined to a select few.

However, exposure to silica dust is just as dangerous as exposure to asbestos dust, and in both instances, there is a tremendous risk of being subjected to a cancer-causing dust. Both silica and asbestos are carcinogens. Inhaling RCS particles can cause several diseases including lung cancer, COPD, kidney disease, and, most infamously, silicosis, a deadly lung disease that makes taking in oxygen difficult.

OSHA lowered the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for silica to 50 micrograms (µg) per cubic meter of air in 2016, and before that time, the limit was much higher. Every time restoration workers cut, drill, sand, etc. into silica-containing material, they must be conscious of the potential for exposure and the means to limit their risks.

This article aims to provide restoration companies an overview of the risks associated with silica dust, special implications to the restoration industry, and means to keep workers safe and in compliance with OSHA regulations. This is part of a larger series on P.A.L.M.S. (Look for more articles in this series in upcoming issues.), which is an acronym used to discuss these contaminants of concern:

• PCBs/Pandemic
• Asbestos (March/April 2021 issue)
• Lead/Legionella
• Mold/Metals (Nov/Dec 2021)
• Silica.

Facing the restoration problem

Image courtesy of author. A city building labeled with silica damage.

Silica has a direct effect on restoration professionals because everything we touch may have implications concerning silica health hazards and regulatory compliance, specifically when we are cutting drywall (gypsum board, sheetrock, wallboard, etc.), as it contains silica.

In March 2016, OSHA published regulation on silica that specifies how silica-containing materials should be safely handled, providing the “Table 1 Example,” which details silica-related activities that take place on worksites. With this, OSHA provided safe work practices and the required minimal respirative protection for those activities. Table 1 contains the 18 most common worksite activities that put workers at risk of silica exposure, but it, unfortunately, does not include our industry’s biggest concern: drywall. In fairness to OSHA, it is difficult to include every possible task or activity that could take place on the worksite; however, this is obviously a very important one for the restoration industry.

Out of OSHA’s failure to include drywall in Table 1 emerged a question that the restoration industry continues to grapple with: Are the workers involved in restoration work being unnecessarily exposed to silica health hazards? An industry task force that included myself, Lee Senter, and many other restoration industry leaders have been working in an effort to determine what risk, if any, there are for the most frequent activities in the restoration industry. We conducted a pilot test throughout the U.S., with the assistance of IICRC Certified Firms, through which we have monitored workers’ exposure.

We observed the following: Provided the proper work activities, safe work practices, and engineering controls are used, we can alleviate unnecessary exposure to silica dust by the restoration industry in activities related to drywall. Namely the cutting, demolition, or general disturbance of drywall should not occur unless:

1. It is properly wetted.
2. The use of ventilation, filtration, and HEPA-filtered vacuums are employed.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, we compiled our data and submitted it to OSHA for their review and critique with the request of adding it to Table 1. In June of this year, OSHA responded regarding our study on silica exposure potential and the recommended hazard control measures for the restoration industry, reporting that it was assessing comments and developing the best way forward, with plans to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the issue by April 2022.

Adhering to OSHA silica regulation

Image courtesy of author.

In Standard 29 CFR 1926.1153, OSHA requires employers to limit worker exposure to RCS and stipulates the 50 µg PEL. To limit exposure, employers must either 1) use proper work practices and engineering controls laid out in Table 1 for other activities to ensure no dust is being generated, in which case no additional PPE would be required, or 2) use appropriate respiratory PPE to protect workers.

Throughout our task force’s pilot testing, we used silica-specific testing to collect air samples around workers’ breathing zones. Those samples were then sent to a certified laboratory that provided silica exposure results. If the result of testing showed more than 50 µg per cubic meter of respirable crystalline silica, then respiratory protection was necessary according to OSHA. If less than the PEL was found, then no respiratory protection was required.

In simple terms, if your work activities do not generate dust above the PEL, no respiratory protection is required by law. But how does one know? And how do you prove compliance to an OSHA inspector?

OSHA first asks, “Did you follow the methods described in Table 1? If workers are drilling through concrete, cutting a cement block, etc. on a jobsite they can easily refer to Table 1, document OSHA requirements were followed, and employ OSHA-required PPE to prove compliance. However, in the case of restoration workers, we cannot simply rely on Table 1 because our most commonly interacted-with silica-containing product, drywall, is not included. In this case, OSHA requires companies to either

1. Monitor and do testing like our task force did (using objective data)
2. Prove the activity is the same as activity you have previously monitored on a worksite in which you encountered the same materials and activities currently being employed (using historical data).

Using historical data is a bit tricky but not impossible. To use historical data on a project, it must be similar to the project you compare it to in every way: the work being done, how you perform the work, the materials you are working on, and the tools you are using. For example, the drywall must be the same drywall; your utility knife must be the same utility knife; etc. When we monitored on pilot sites, companies had to utilize the same engineering controls on both sites.

The task force’s studies showed that wetting the materials down and employing ventilation, filtration, and HEPA vacuuming sufficiently limited silica dust. If you’re diligent and recognize that, if the proper work practices are not utilized, you and your workers will be exposed to an extremely dangerous carcinogen, you can bring silica levels below the PEL and ensure worker safety.

Per OSHA, anyone who could potentially be exposed to silica should be trained in silica hazard awareness. This training covers silica OSHA regulations, work practices associated with exposure to silica dust, and the severe impact that dust could have on your health and the health of those around you.

Avoiding future issues

Don’t assume that, by continuing old-way practices, no exposure is occurring to you or your workers. In our task force’s research, we saw cases in which we did not expect our testing to detect any kind of silica in the air, but it did.

A company found to be in violation of OSHA rules on silica faces severe fines from OSHA and potential civil suits from employees. OSHA’s maximum penalty for serious and other than serious violations is $13,653 per violation, and the maximum penalty for willful or repeated violations is $136,532 per violation. These penalties reflect the irreversible nature of health effects associated with silica exposure. These consequences say nothing of the ethical and moral implications of endangering workers’ health that an owner whose company commits these violations must face.

The difficulty with silica (or asbestos exposure, for that matter) is that it does not produce acute, immediate effects. Instead, it produces chronic effects that may take years or even decades to show symptoms. You don’t want to find yourself later in life, kicking yourself, saying, “I wish I knew, and I wish I had protected myself and my workers from hazards.”

Restoration workers must recognize that the death toll and diseases from silica are quite extensive while primarily avoidable. It is important that we do our part to limit silica exposure in the restoration industry. It is crucial to acknowledge that the activities those in the industry perform have a hazard associated with them in silica and that silica in the lungs is just as dangerous as asbestos. Remember that the regulatory PEL is still not a “safe” level; it is simply permissible by law. Exposing workers to zero µg per cubic meter of RCS is a much better goal.

I recommend companies pay attention to all of the steps associated with potential exposure to silica dust. Provide anyone who could be exposed with proper training, implement proper work practices, use engineering controls, and rely on PPE when necessary. This is the only way to protect yourself and those around you from silica exposure.

Further reading:

Mark Drozdov is known for his diverse work in environmental, health, and safety projects worldwide including HazMat remediation; industrial hygiene; hazard/risk assessment; and compliance training, certification, and audits. He actively contributes to the AIHA/RIA/IICRC Crisis-Response Joint Task Force, IICRC Board of Directors, ISO infection control and EHS standards, and AIHA government relations. Drozdov’s PALMS program is the go-to method for dealing with contaminants of concern. He has received multiple awards and commendations, including for his work at Ground Zero. Connect with him on LinkedIn or email him at��mark.drozdov@cooper.edu. ��

Amanda Hosey is the managing editor of Cleanfax. She has worked as an editor and writer for more than a decade, including seven years with Cleanfax. Reach her at��amandah@issa.com.

The post The Silica Problem and Restoration Workers appeared first on Cleanfax.

Working in the remediation field, we often hear client concerns about mold and its associated health risks, hypersensitivities, and finance-crippling lawsuits, but, despite this, some in the industry continue to underestimate the hazardous effects of mold on workers and occupants. But mold, just like the other contaminants of concern, is dangerous to our health, and failure to prioritize mold safety puts our people, clients, and company in harm’s way.

The bodily effects of mold exposure are many but are primarily respiratory related—from sinuses down into the lungs. There is also the potential for mold to affect one’s immune system long term, making a person not only more susceptible to mold, but also to other respiratory-related illnesses. These reactions occur both in immunocompromised people as well as healthy individuals with no prior allergic reactions. This is why it is so important not to overexpose workers in occupational settings.

This article aims to provide restoration companies an overview of the risks related to mold remediation work and how to keep workers safe while protecting the company from associated liability. This is part of a larger series (Look for more articles from this series in past and upcoming issues.) on PALMS, which is an acronym used to discuss these contaminants of concern:

• PCBs/Pandemic
• Asbestos (March/April 2021)
• Lead/Legionella
• Mold/Metals
• Silica (July/August 2021).

Hypersensitivity and workers

For years, clients who reported hypersensitive reactions to mold were met with suspicion and derision from many restoration and insurance companies alike. However, scientific studies like those from the Institute of Medicine have found sufficient evidence to link indoor mold exposure with upper respiratory tract symptoms—coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath, stuffy nose, itchy eyes and skin, fever, etc.—in otherwise healthy people, in addition to the immunocompromised. These findings have compelled most of the industry to accept the existence of hypersensitivities.

It is important to remember that those same sensitivities in clients can occur in front-line workers—and hypersensitivity can develop over time from overexposure to mold. Many remediators working in the field prior to the rise of safety equipment use were exposed to high concentrations of mold over the years and have since developed their own hypersensitivity to the substance. Those in the industry who still do not take the proper precautions (PPE, pressure differentials, containment, etc.) are opening themselves up to the same problems, and the adverse effects of exposure might not be evident until much later.

Many have questioned whether hypersensitivity or the potential for hypersensitivity should preclude someone from working in the industry altogether, but avoiding the work is unnecessary—and unrealistic on a larger scale. If we avoided all hazardous materials, restoration and many other industries would cease to exist.

There are many hazardous materials that workers can interact with safely. The other contaminants of concern on the P.A.L.M.S. list all pose dangers to workers, and potentially more so than mold, but technicians are able to work with them without harm. The key is exposure prevention. If workers understand the materials they work with, whether mold, asbestos, PCBs, silica, or other contaminants; know how to prevent exposure through containments, negative air, engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment (PPE); follow best practices; and get licensed, they will be protected.

Despite the interaction with dangerous materials, hazard pay is illegal in settings with mold or other contaminants because it offsets the exposure prevention responsibility by shifting focus from prevention to reaction. The responsibility to prevent exposure is both a moral and legal one that depends on proper controls.

Personal protective equipment

Remediators should always wear proper PPE for every potential exposure. This means skin coverage, respiratory protection (with a HEPA-filtered P100 and organic vapor cartridge), and eye protection. Per the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the level and type of PPE for each project should be determined by performing a risk/hazard assessment.

While we recommend workers wear full-face respirators whenever possible because it gives a slightly higher protection factor and covers the eyes, many workers prefer half-face respirators because they wear glasses, have respiratory issues, etc. Added eye protection in these cases is essential, and skin should be protected using disposable coveralls, booties, and sometimes a double layer of nitrile gloves. A hood is highly recommended, and in some cases, work gloves are, too. Any openings—at the wrist and ankles and around the hood and respirator—should be sealed with tape.

Regulations and training

Mold remediation work is not regulated at the federal level in the United States, but more and more states (15 currently) are implementing their own regulations on the industry. Likewise, in Canada, mold remediation, except for in health care facilities and government buildings, is not regulated at the federal level, and a push for providence-level regulations is underway. (Quebec currently has regulations in place.) With the continued growth of weather-related water-infiltration events, like major hurricanes and flooding, regulations will, no doubt, grow in response to needed large-scale remediation recovery work.

OSHA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have issued numerous guidance documents on safe work practices with mold, especially in schools and other institutional and health care settings, that address proper management of mold growth and limiting worker exposure, but these are recommended practices, not laws. Importantly, however, the General Duty Clause of the OSH Act of 1970 requires “due diligence,” and similar requirements for due diligence exist in Canada under the guidance of the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety.

Due diligence places the onus on employers to ensure workers are not exposed to hazardous conditions that could cause serious harm on the job site, as well as to comply with the safety and health standards set forth in the Act. This means that, while there may be no direct laws regulating the work in an area, it is still the responsibility of the employer to protect employees or face penalties ($13,653 per serious violation and up to $132,598 per violation in the case of willful or repeated offenses per OSHA). Due diligence requires a site risk/hazard assessment and the development of an exposure control plan that lays out the appropriate equipment and PPE needed, among other requirements, but it is unfortunately not uncommon for workers to go forward with a project without performing an acceptable risk assessment.

Proper remediation training is key to ensuring due diligence is followed. It is more important than simply making sure workers know how to do their jobs; training also teaches them how to protect their own health and safety, as well as that of their families and others they could expose secondhand. The ANSI/IICRC S520 Standard for Professional Mold Remediation provides guidelines for workers to properly decontaminate themselves when leaving a containment area to prevent just that. If workers are not aware of the practices laid out in the Standard and the required due diligence, they will open themselves up to exposure, and the company opens itself up to legal, moral, and potentially criminal liabilities due to health-related issues.

[infobox title=’A Note on Containment’]Outside of small amounts of mold or where it is limited to the surface and can, therefore, be remediated with source removal, containment should be built. Once we have moderate or significant levels of mold present and must remove building materials, containment with pressure differentials is necessary to contain dust and spores in a localized area. This prevents cross contamination of unaffected areas.

If you spread the hazards to otherwise clean areas, you are creating additional work for yourself to rectify the situation—or worse, if left unaddressed, creating liabilities for your company. In states and jurisdictions with mold regulations in place, it is illegal not to build containment.[/infobox]

Pre-sampling and PRV

Sampling costs money, but it is an expenditure that protects workers, occupants, and companies, both before and after a remediation project.

One of the most important aspects of remediation is to initially locate the mold. Condition 3 contamination (“Conditions” are defined in the ANSI/IICRC S520.) identification is easy to find, as it consists of visible mold and/or active growth, but in situations with Condition 2 mold, where an area is contaminated with settled spores spread there by airflow, people, etc., it can typically only be identified by sampling.

Clients might be apt to say, “The mold is there on that wall. I just want it removed,” but discovering any other contaminated parts of the building is critical to the work. As a contractor, it is important to identify Condition 2 areas via pre-sampling to

avoid taking blame for their contamination, and the only way to do that is to find them ahead of time. Entering a project without establishing background levels leaves you open to liabilities if Condition 2 contamination is later found.

We sometimes hear people in the industry say sampling is unnecessary because there is no established threshold limit to which we can compare samples, as exist for PCBs, asbestos, lead, or silica. While it is true there are no recognized limits for mold contamination, comparing post-remediation samples against pre-work samples taken in unaffected areas provides proof of success (or failure) on a project; alternatively, juxtaposing post-remediation sampling with samples taken from outside also offers a means for judging success. The air inside the building should have the same types of mold as outside, only at much lower concentrations.

Sampling is key to post-remediation verification (PRV), which serves as a risk assessment for reoccupancy. There are other verification processes beyond sampling that are important, like visual and olfactory inspection, but surface and air sampling are highly important for gauging remediation success. It is important to note that PRV by a third-party, independent of the contractor, is required in areas where mold remediation is regulated.

An indoor environmental professional (as defined by the ANSI/IICRC S520), which may be refered to as a certified mold accessor or industrial hygienist depending on jurisdiction, certifies a project’s completion by ensuring: all visible mold is removed, areas are dust free, no dirty water is left behind, and everything is clean overall with nothing of concern left behind for occupants.

Focusing on safety

Recognition of mold hazards and early remediation date back thousands of years. The Bible chapter Leviticus refers to “defiling mold” and provides methods of remediation, including inspection and removal of contaminated areas and ultimate demolition of the entire structure if the mold could not be removed or contained.

If people living more than two millennia ago recognized the inherent dangers mold exposure poses, then perhaps it is well beyond time all remediation professionals do as well. We must ensure anyone interacting with mold contamination is properly trained and equipped to protect themselves and those around them, that we use all the tools in our box—including proper work practices, containment, and sampling—to guarantee success, and that we lean on post-remediation verification to prove that success to insurance adjusters, clients, regulators, and ourselves.

Ultimately, adhering to safety guidelines for mold remediation can only serve our companies. They benefit us by protecting our most important resources, our workers and clients, while also protecting our businesses from lawsuits and a destroyed reputation.

Further reading:

ANSI/IICRC S520 Standard and IICRC R520 Reference Guide for Professional Mold Remediation

OSHA Safety and Health Topics: Mold

EPA Mold Guide

CDC Mold Guide

“General Duty Clause,” OSH Act of 1970

NYS Department of Labor Mold Program

NYC Health Mold Guide

“Damp Indoor Spaces and Health,” Institute of Medicine

NIEHS Disaster Recovery: Mold Remediation

Mark Drozdov is known for his diverse work in environmental, health, and safety (EHS) projects worldwide including HazMat remediation; industrial hygiene; hazard/risk assessment; and compliance training, certification, and audits. He contributes to the AIHA/RIA/IICRC Crisis-Response Joint Task Force, IICRC Board of Directors, ISO infection control and EHS standards, and AIHA government relations. Drozdov’s PALMS program is the go-to method for dealing with contaminants of concern. Email him at��mark.drozdov@cooper.edu. ��

Carey Vermeulen is the owner of Indoor Air Management Canada. He is known as one of the IICRC’s busiest instructors, averaging more than 70 classes yearly, has served on the IICRC Board of directors for 23 years, including three as president, and was elected chair of the executive committee for 2022. Vermeulen helped develop the ANSI/IICRC S500, S520, S100, and S300 (for which he was chair) standards. He is an industry speaker, technical author, and consultant to the restoration, cleaning, and insurance industries.

Amanda Hosey is the managing editor of Cleanfax. She has worked as an editor and writer for more than a decade, including seven years with Cleanfax. Reach her at��amandah@issa.com.

The post Mold Safety Concerns appeared first on Cleanfax.

Some people know what they know; some know what they don’t know; and some don’t know what they don’t know. If you work in the restoration industry, here is something important to know: Because of the interaction with building materials, restoration is one of the occupations most at risk of exposure to asbestos, a known carcinogen.

Many are surprised to learn that asbestos is not illegal in the U.S. In fact, it is still used in small amounts and often is found in building materials shipped from other countries with higher allowable limits.

Despite this, there are some in the industry who either know they are not knowledgeable enough about asbestos (and choose to stay that way) or do not know they should be better educated on the issue. This article aims to fill in some gaps in general asbestos education and to encourage those reading it to seek out further education and training if needed.

[two_third]

This is part of a larger series on PALMS (Look for more articles in this series in upcoming issues.), which is an acronym used to discuss these contaminants of concern:

• PCBs/Pandemic
• Asbestos
• Lead/Legionella
• Mold/Metals
• Silica

I first developed the PALMS acronym during my work testing and supporting restoration and remediation efforts following the 9/11 attacks. At Ground Zero, it was mindboggling trying to test for everything. Eventually, the list of 300 elements shrunk to what was referred to as contaminants of concern. The PALMS acronym arose from those contaminants of concern because, with all the regulatory oversight at Ground Zero, it was clear this list was the list for use on any project. The list has evolved in the time since to keep up with changing concerns. By recognizing and eliminating each of the contaminants from the list prior to beginning a restoration project, we can ensure the safest site possible.

Asbestos testing should always be performed before a restoration project begins. One does not want to be unpleasantly surprised by the presence of asbestos and have your work or well-being permanently damaged. Unknowingly disturbing asbestos-containing material* (ACM) is hazardous to health of all who breathe it. The EPA says there are more than 3,000 construction materials that could contain asbestos, but the Restoration Industry Association (RIA) narrowed this to a list of the 30 most relevant to the industry, often referred to in the field as “The Dirty 30.” (See sidebar.)

Knowledge of asbestos serves only to benefit a restoration company.

.��

Awareness and testing

Testing for asbestos is not where preparedness begins. Recognition of potentially hazardous materials is where a project must start. To this end, all restoration professionals should have, at minimum, asbestos awareness training (more on this later) to instill in them the knowledge necessary to recognize presumed asbestos-containing materials (PACM), which must then be tested by a qualified professional.

Those qualified to test for asbestos vary in name by location and certifying body. For example, I am an accredited inspector for asbestos according to the EPA; in New York state, I am a certified asbestos inspector; and in New York City, I am a certified asbestos investigator. Regardless of the name given to them, a qualified professional is necessary to test for asbestos when PACM are present on a jobsite. If an individual is not available to test—or a company chooses not to or forgets to test—then all material must be treated as if it contains asbestos. When material contains or is presumed to contain asbestos, only asbestos abatement-trained, certified professionals may interact with it.

[/two_third]

[one_third_last]

[/one_third_last]

Responsibility and consequences

In a way, there are many parties responsible for ensuring suspect materials are tested for asbestos. The facility owner is ultimately responsible for all that happens in their facility, but they will often claim ignorance—that they did not know to do it or that they thought the contractor was handling it. Likewise, a contractor might claim they believed the materials had already been tested.

Image courtesy of Mark Drozdov.

However, if a restoration company begins a project without testing and does not treat suspect material as PACM, that company is then responsible and subject to the consequences, both legal and moral, that arise. Sometimes people make honest mistakes where asbestos is involved, but not knowing the law does not alleviate them from taking legal, proper steps.

At the end of the day, these mistakes could be considered criminal because we are dealing with health and safety. People have been imprisoned, faced large regulatory fines, and been found legally responsible financially for various missteps involving asbestos.

Often, when people make these mistakes, they try to make things better or hide or change the narrative of what happened in an effort to protect themselves, but this only makes matters worse, as they are then venturing into fraud.

Training and working

All restorers should understand asbestos basics, which include what are considered hazardous materials, the restrictions associated with dealing with those hazardous materials, and the implications of not handling the situation properly.

Asbestos awareness training is not only important for restoration professionals to have, but also is required by law. It is the minimal requirement of training and understanding necessary to perform the work, and every restoration technician and supervisor should have it. Awareness training teaches how to spot hazardous materials, allowing a technician to know when testing must be performed before work can begin—in order to protect themselves, building occupants, and the company.

Image courtesy of Mark Drozdov.

Anyone can get trained in asbestos abatement. There are no prerequisites, and training generally takes only four days for technicians and five days for supervisors. Training consists of learning federal, state, and local regulations; proper abatement techniques; PPE best practices; disposal requirements; and more, as well as participation in hands-on exercises for varied aspects of the work.

However, restoration companies looking to add asbestos abatement to their service offerings should first and foremost realize that asbestos work is a completely different business, and no one should take it lightly. While asbestos abatement training is fairly straightforward, the work itself is not so easily added. One cannot simply go through a training program and begin providing the service the next day.

All personnel involved in the abatement process must be trained and certified. Supervisors must be designated and receive advanced training and certification. Specialized equipment is required. The company must put in place protocols, receive licensing, and acquire needed insurance. Again, asbestos abatement is a different business from standard restoration work.

Asbestos abatement work requires organization and planning. Companies must always have a plan of attack to prevent any inadvertent spread of asbestos-containing material dust. The work also requires permits for each individual project. Companies must file plans for the work with the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). The AHJ on a given job could be the municipality, the state, and, depending on the quantity, the EPA.

When PACM is recognized by a restoration company, and qualified testing confirms the presence of asbestos (or testing was not performed, leaving suspect materials to be treated as asbestos-containing by a certified firm), the restoration company cannot legally disturb those materials. ACM is often not throughout an entire building (i.e., it could be the floor tiles; pipe, boiler, or duct insulation; a wall in a boiler room; etc.), so the traditional restoration company can generally continue with caution performing most of their work as long as the asbestos-affected areas are properly isolated and there is no crossover. Again, only asbestos-certified firms are permited to handle ACM.

Restorers and their obligation

According to the Mesothelioma Center, there are more than 39,000 asbestos-related deaths in the United States alone each year. Nowadays, it is simply unacceptable and illegal for a restoration professional not to have awareness-level training regarding asbestos hazards. This basic training can save countless lives—those of staff, their families (due to secondary exposure), and building occupants.

When I present my yearly PALMS update, there is always a large crowd in attendance. Some might wonder what there is to discuss yearly about well-established hazards. At the 2021 update in February, there were more than 100 high-level professionals in the field, people who do this work every day, still learning new things.

Asbestos work is a highly regulated area, and restorers should feel neither intimidated by it, nor overly confident that they know everything. There is not a single person who can claim to know everything about the subject. Proceed with caution and consult with experienced, licensed professionals to ensure there are no mistakes.

* According to OSHA/EPA, material containing more than 1% asbestos is asbestos-containing material (ACM).

Look for more articles in this series on PALMS in future issues of Cleanfax.

Mark Drozdov is known for his diverse work in environmental, health, and safety projects worldwide including HazMat remediation; industrial hygiene; hazard/risk assessment; and compliance training, certification, and audits. He actively contributes to the AIHA/RIA/IICRC Crisis-Response Joint Task Force, IICRC Board of Directors, ISO infection control and EHS standards, and AIHA government relations. Drozdov’s PALMS program is the go-to method for dealing with contaminants of concern. He has received multiple awards and commendations, including for his work at Ground Zero. Connect with him on LinkedIn or email him at mark.drozdov@cooper.edu. ��

Amanda Hosey is the managing editor of Cleanfax. She has worked as an editor and writer for more than a decade, including six years with Cleanfax. Reach her at��amandah@issa.com.

The post What to Know About Asbestos appeared first on Cleanfax.