White Environmental Consultants Inc

Please see our response to this complaint attached.Thank you,Mariam S*White Environmental Consultants Inc.907-258-

Please see attached document for the business initial response to your complaint
RE: Complaint ID# *** White Environmental Consultants Inc (WEC) was hired by *** *** *** to inspect a garage scheduled for demolition as required by OSHA regulations: 1926.1101(k)(2) Duties of
building and facility owners1926.1101(k)(2)(I)Before work subject to this standard is begun, building and facility owners shall determine the presence, location, and quantity of ACM and/or PACM at the work site pursuant to paragraph (k)(l)(i) of this sectionBased on our analysis, asbestos is present in the gypsum joint compound*** *** *** hired Absolute Services Inc (ASI) to remove the drywall and joint compoundASI is not affiliated with WEC and WEC was not aware that ASI had been hired to perform abatement at this siteThe complaint states that the owners received some material from ASI and sent this material outside to another labWEC has not seen the sample results or the sample chain of custody documents so cannot comment directly on the analysis but OSHA has strict language as to appropriately identifying and collecting samplesSpecifically, the sampler is required to be an accredited inspector: 1926.1101(k)(5)(ii)(B) Performing tests of the material containing PACM which demonstrate that no ACM is present in the materialSuch tests shall include analysis of bulk samples collected in the manner described in CFR The tests, evaluation and sample collection shall be conducted by an accredited inspector or by a CIHAnalysis of samples shall be performed by persons or laboratories with proficiency demonstrated by current successful participation in a nationally recognized testing program such as the National Voluntary
Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) or the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) or the Round Robin for bulk samples administered by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) or an equivalent nationally-recognized round robin testing programIt is our position that the Owner may have sent something to another laboratory but if the laboratory did not find asbestos the Owner sent the wrong materialLab Analysis Upon receiving the complaint from the Revdex.com, the samples were located in our archive and re-analyzed by a different analystIt is standard practice by the laboratory to suspend analysis in a multilayer sample upon analysis of a positive layerThis lowers the cost to our clientsThis does not affect the analysis results in that the negative layers are not subject to any regulations concerning asbestosThe result of re-analysis of samples 190-and 190-is that each sample contained a layer of material consistent with joint compound and positive for chrysotile asbestos in the percentage of approximately 4% using a calibrated visual estimate procedureThis material was located over the drywall and under the taping material consistent with industry use of taping mud or joint compound and the use of a topping compoundAlso, each sample contained a layer of gypsum based surfacing material negative for asbestosThis material was not reported on the original reportThis material was under the paint and above the taping materialThis is consistent with either a patching application or skim coating, but as the material was found in both samples skim coating is more probableThe original report has been amended to include the additional layersThe two samples were sent to Scientific Analytical Institute in Greensboro ,North Carolina for independent re-analysisThe laboratory analyzed these samples blind with only instruction to analyze both layers of surfacing in each sampleThe results of their analysis were consistent with the results from White Environmental Consultants, Inc
*** SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS REDACTED BY Revdex.com***

Please see attached document for the business initial response to your complaint
RE: Complaint ID# *** White Environmental Consultants Inc (WEC) was hired by *** *** *** to inspect a garage scheduled for demolition as required by OSHA regulations: 1926.1101(k)(2) Duties of
building and facility owners1926.1101(k)(2)(I)Before work subject to this standard is begun, building and facility owners shall determine the presence, location, and quantity of ACM and/or PACM at the work site pursuant to paragraph (k)(l)(i) of this sectionBased on our analysis, asbestos is present in the gypsum joint compound*** *** *** hired Absolute Services Inc (ASI) to remove the drywall and joint compoundASI is not affiliated with WEC and WEC was not aware that ASI had been hired to perform abatement at this siteThe complaint states that the owners received some material from ASI and sent this material outside to another labWEC has not seen the sample results or the sample chain of custody documents so cannot comment directly on the analysis but OSHA has strict language as to appropriately identifying and collecting samplesSpecifically, the sampler is required to be an accredited inspector: 1926.1101(k)(5)(ii)(B) Performing tests of the material containing PACM which demonstrate that no ACM is present in the materialSuch tests shall include analysis of bulk samples collected in the manner described in CFR The tests, evaluation and sample collection shall be conducted by an accredited inspector or by a CIHAnalysis of samples shall be performed by persons or laboratories with proficiency demonstrated by current successful participation in a nationally recognized testing program such as the National Voluntary
Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) or the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) or the Round Robin for bulk samples administered by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) or an equivalent nationally-recognized round robin testing programIt is our position that the Owner may have sent something to another laboratory but if the laboratory did not find asbestos the Owner sent the wrong materialLab Analysis Upon receiving the complaint from the Revdex.com, the samples were located in our archive and re-analyzed by a different analystIt is standard practice by the laboratory to suspend analysis in a multilayer sample upon analysis of a positive layerThis lowers the cost to our clientsThis does not affect the analysis results in that the negative layers are not subject to any regulations concerning asbestosThe result of re-analysis of samples 190-and 190-is that each sample contained a layer of material consistent with joint compound and positive for chrysotile asbestos in the percentage of approximately 4% using a calibrated visual estimate procedureThis material was located over the drywall and under the taping material consistent with industry use of taping mud or joint compound and the use of a topping compoundAlso, each sample contained a layer of gypsum based surfacing material negative for asbestosThis material was not reported on the original reportThis material was under the paint and above the taping materialThis is consistent with either a patching application or skim coating, but as the material was found in both samples skim coating is more probableThe original report has been amended to include the additional layersThe two samples were sent to Scientific Analytical Institute in Greensboro ,North Carolina for independent re-analysisThe laboratory analyzed these samples blind with only instruction to analyze both layers of surfacing in each sampleThe results of their analysis were consistent with the results from White Environmental Consultants, Inc
***? ? ? ? SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS REDACTED BY Revdex.com***