There is also the question of the definition of “contains asbestos.” For purposes of abatement and regulation as hazardous waste, this figure is not zero percent.
Asbestos is one of those things that is surrounded by hysteria that gets in the way of common sense.
Airborne asbestos is present at backgound levels in some parts of the country at levels approaching the recommended indoor exposure limits. It is a fairly common mineral often found in rock at or near the surface. However, there are no regulations concerning outdoor exposure levels. That is a good thing, otherwise we might have to evacuate areas near the Rocky Mountains.
Asbestos is frequently found together with other minerals traditionally used as lightweight aggregate in various building materials, such as plaster, sprayed fireproofing, and lightweight CMU. It is very difficult to separate these minerals from each other. This is why you may find trace amounts of asbestos or asbestos-like minerals, such as tremolite, in products made with vermiculite.
The point is, a “zero percent” fiber count may be unobtainable. Can your owner live with that reality?
There is an ASTM standard that defines asbestos containing material (ACM) based on the materials percentage of asbestos content. I have been unable to locate it. The OSHA defination of ACM is “any material which contains more than 1 percent asbestos”.
At a previous office we included the following under Submittals:
“Provide manufacturers certification in accordance with Section 01 60 00 requirements that [Name Product(s) or Material(s)] contain no asbestos containing material (ACM) or other finely-divided particulate matter that can be released as an airborne health hazard during or after installation. Certification may be based on recent or previous test results, provided material or products tested are identical to those proposed for this project.”
Your consultant appears to be following an ASTM protocal for sampling materials for asbestos testing. The basic approach is that if I don’t know or have proof that the material is not an ACM I have to test to confirm one way or the other.
Some potentially useful info at Asbestos | US EPA
The name of the company in question was and still is Grace.
Interesting Observation:
While working with on project in the U.S. Capitol several years ago, the subject of asbestos in plaster came up. I was advised not to worry about it because - - - - in Congress’ wisdom it exempted the Federal asbestos law for the U.S. Capitol when it wrote the legislation.
Contrary to all the jokes about (and in) Congress, someone up there is smarter than we have given them credit.
just to back up on history: the specifier in the Grace case was an EMPLOYEE of the architectural firm at the time the architectural work occurred. This was a remodel of a building that was built in the early 1970’s, back before all the asbestos hysteria occurred, and the building was purchased by the Canadian government (or the Vancouver BC government) for use for its own offices. when the building was remodeled, of course the asbestos had to be abated, and the government was not permitted to enter into contracts that had to do with hazardous materials. there was no money for that in the budget, and the governmental agency sued Grace for having asbestos in the fireproofing to recover those costs.
Remember: at the time the building was built, the product was legal and customary.
Grace then, in its counter suit, alleged that the owner shouldn’t have purchased the building if it knew that there was asbestos, and that the architects were also at fault for not warning the government of this fact. By this time, the specifier for the remodel was a self-employed consultant, but since he was an employee at the time of the project, he was covered under the firm’s liability insurance.
of course, the insurance didn’t cover the lost time, the stress, or any of the other ancillary costs to either the firm or the (by now) independent specifier.
I do consulting with Grace on their marketing and have had a number of conversation wtih them about this case, and the one thing that is emphasized continually is that the circumstances of this were very particular to Canadian case law.
there were a number of us in SCIP who were wary of Grace back when this was happening, which was 15 years ago now. this is not a current issue; the case has been settled for a decade and getting worked up about it now is really shutting the door after the horses have all run out.
Anne, thanks for adding those further details, clarifications and corrections to the story. That’s exactly what I hoped would happen after I posted my own recollections.