# Identifying asbestos in plaster



## hausfxr (Jul 25, 2013)

I have a new project which involves gutting and remodeling the entire 2nd story of a house built in 1909. We renovated the same house’s kitchen and did various other improvements in the house last year, and before we did any work, we tested for asbestos and lead. No asbestos was found in the areas we sampled – the kitchen and living room. We just sent five new samples for all of the rooms upstairs, and all of them came back positive for chrysotile asbestos, ranging from 1% to 3%. I was surprised to say the least, because, while we took extra care during the downstairs demolitions to wear respirators and contain lead paint dust, we hadn’t a care about asbestos. We took all of the plaster to the dump with the testing service’s blessing. It’s obvious that the plaster was all applied at the same time when the house was constructed – it even has the same tinted primer paint and initial wall paper pattern on some walls (the owner saved several small wall paper samples from downstairs from various time periods), and visually it looks identical in profile with no finish coat.

After receiving the report, I took pieces from all five areas we tested and examined them with a microscope and the brown to pinkish fibers that are present all appear to be identical to the animal hair fibers I’ve seen all my working life. If you burn them with a lighter, they instantly vaporize and smell like burnt hair. With the microscope, I can see very tiny particles, but no fibrous looking material beyond what look like large animal hairs, period. 

I called the testing company and told the customer service rep about my observations and about the tests they had performed last year, and she said that the only way to accurately detect asbestos is by a trained professional using specialized equipment and the fibers are probably too small for me to see and is most likely only in the finish coat, where the asbestos would be extra-extra fine. When I pointed out that their test indicated there were only four layers – grey course plaster compound, paint layer, wall papers, and various paint layers – and no finish coat, she simply said that there is always a finish coat on plaster (though none is discernable here, at least under a low-power microscope) and we could pay for another round of testing, but the results would be the same (for another $237). 

I’m going to take a sample from the wall location that the service said had 3% asbestos to another service for testing, because I want to know for sure and will have to renegotiate my contract if it’s present. But, I can’t help but be skeptical. Anyone ever encountered this situation before? Is it common to have both animal hair and asbestos in plaster from this time period? 

I also tried to find a picture on the web of asbestos fibers in plaster with no luck. Does anyone know if chrysotile is a form of asbestos that does not have a fibrous look to it when used in plaster? The other thing I could not find on the internet was whether asbestos occurs naturally in the substances used to make up plaster – that is, no one may have intentionally added the asbestos to this plaster and it may not be in a fibrous form.

The report had these notes at the end:
Analysis results are solely for the sample(s) analyzed. Asbestos content for an inhomogeneous sample is reported by layer when it is possible to subsample the discrete strata for individual analysis. Small diameter fibers may not be detected by this method.
Quantification is performed using visual area estimation unless otherwise stated in the report. Qualitative and quantitative transmission electron microscopy (TEM) analysis may be recommended for difficult samples. Quantitative analysis by PLM point count or TEM is recommended for sample(s) testing at < or = to 10% asbestos.
Asbestos includes the following minerals: chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, actinolite, anthophyllite. "Matrix" is defined as non-asbestos, nonbinder fibrous and non-fibrous components. "Binder" is defined as a component added for cohesiveness.Non-asbestos sample constituents may not be definite.
This report may not be used to claim product certification, approval or endorsement by NVLAP, NIST or any agency of the Federal Government. If the NVLAP log does not appear beneath the logo of this report then "This report contains data not covered by the NVLAP accreditation." (NIST Handbook 150, 2006.)


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

> I also tried to find a picture on the web of asbestos fibers in plaster with no luck.


Oh come on:

www.google.com

Search for "asbestos in plaster"

select images, AND BOOM!


As for all that other stuff - really? 

There's only direction that liability flows when it comes to asbestos - staright up your arse, through everything you value (like your company's assets) and that's it.

:no::no:

https://www.google.com/search?q=asb...ved=0ahUKEwiog8j95OPKAhUEYiYKHS5TCjcQ_AUIBigB


----------



## Golden view (Feb 16, 2012)

What lab did you use? Even though upstairs and down looks the same, I don't think it's atypical around here for those floors to be finished at different times.


----------



## hausfxr (Jul 25, 2013)

Thanks John - those are the type of images I was looking for. I most not have been using the right word combination in search - that's one reason I posted! My fibers certainly don't look like the images others say show asbestos.


----------



## Anti-wingnut (Mar 12, 2009)

Plaster would not have any serpentine or fiberous amphiboles unless specifically added.

It is easy to tell the difference between hair and minerals. Under a petrographic microscope, hair should be opaque under crossed Nicols.


----------



## hausfxr (Jul 25, 2013)

Andrew: Is there a lab you would recommend?


----------



## Golden view (Feb 16, 2012)

hausfxr said:


> Andrew: Is there a lab you would recommend?


No, I'm trying to find one!


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

They are the fibers that don't look like horse hairs


----------



## Metro M & L (Jun 3, 2009)

I've used Alexan analytical in the past.

It's unfortunate the testing didn't turn out the way you wanted. But the lab don't lie.


----------



## CarpenterSFO (Dec 12, 2012)

Just to put a perspective on things, the asbestos fibers that cause cancers might be 1/50th as long as a horse hair is thick, and 200 to 500 times thinner.

Asbestos can have a macro structure that's fibrous, but the absence of any of that macro structure doesn't mean that asbestos isn't there. It would be very tough to defend ignoring a test result.


----------



## Golden view (Feb 16, 2012)

CarpenterSFO said:


> Just to put a perspective on things, the asbestos fibers that cause cancers might be 1/50th as long as a horse hair is thick, and 200 to 500 times thinner. They cause cancer because they are small enough to disrupt a single molecule of DNA or RNA.
> 
> It would be foolish to ignore a test result from a lab, and you would never be able to defend doing so, legally or otherwise.


This is all true, but I believe only the larger fibers are useful as plaster reinforcement, so odds are you can see them easier. Obviously, you don't want the liability of DIY asbestos investigation, but it's still nice to have a good expectation of what the lab will find.


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

I know enough to not tempt fate.

I know asbestos was used in ground coats AND top coats.
I know it was used in plaster patching compounds.
I know it was used in drywall compounds to make them "slicker" - that is to improve workability - before they switched to vinylized mud.

I know that the stuff used in top coats would not be readily visible.

I know that as recently as 2000, Artex was still being marketed - some had asbestos - some not.


United States Gypsum Red Top Cement Plaster 1920	1958
United States Gypsum Red Top Firecode Plaster 1962	1969
United States Gypsum Red Top Gypsum Plaster 1920	1958
United States Gypsum Red Top Patching Plaster 
United States Gypsum Red Top Plaster 
United States Gypsum Structolite 1950	1975
United States Gypsum Structo-lite Perlited Gypsum Plaster


http://www.mesothelioma.com/asbestos-exposure/products/plaster/#ixzz3zRTk6Vk7


----------



## Tom Struble (Mar 2, 2007)

i believe the hair used was cattle not horse


----------



## hausfxr (Jul 25, 2013)

CarpenterSFO said:


> Just to put a perspective on things, the asbestos fibers that cause cancers might be 1/50th as long as a horse hair is thick, and 200 to 500 times thinner.
> 
> Asbestos can have a macro structure that's fibrous, but the absence of any of that macro structure doesn't mean that asbestos isn't there. It would be very tough to defend ignoring a test result.





Golden view said:


> This is all true, but I believe only the larger fibers are useful as plaster reinforcement, so odds are you can see them easier. Obviously, you don't want the liability of DIY asbestos investigation, but it's still nice to have a good expectation of what the lab will find.


Thanks for the feedback Andrew and Bob. I have no intention of doing any demolition without asbestos abatement. Costly, but I'd already talked with the client about additional costs and what walls we could simply stabilize or cover what's there.

A primary concern is that the downstairs might have actually contained asbestos, and, while we were careful, we were mostly just concerned with dust containment and cleanup and we did not take any of the precautions one would take with asbestos - such as letting licensed abatement contractor do that part of the work! I'm going to have the downstairs retested too, so, Brian, I sure hope you are right about asbestos labs never being wrong. Except for duct insulation and asbestos siding, I have had the good fortune of never having (knowingly) encountered other forms of asbestos myself - so my query here was to gain from others experience.

John, you do seem to know an _awful lot_, and I appreciate your intentions, but you are preaching to the choir.


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

hausfxr said:


> ...I'm going to have the downstairs retested too, so, Brian, I sure hope you are right about asbestos labs never being wrong. Except for duct insulation and asbestos siding, I have had the good fortune of never having (knowingly) encountered other forms of asbestos myself - so my query here was to gain from others experience.
> 
> John, you do seem to know an _awful lot_, and I appreciate your intentions, but you are preaching to the choir.


I don't know squat about asbestos. I do know what LIABILITY represents.

What do you hope to accomplish by retesting the areas where your company has already performed work?

That's a dance with the devil.


----------



## hausfxr (Jul 25, 2013)

SmallTownGuy said:


> I don't know squat about asbestos. I do know what LIABILITY represents.
> 
> What do you hope to accomplish by retesting the areas where your company has already performed work?
> 
> That's a dance with the devil.


John, again, I appreciate your advice, but I don’t quite get your liability concerns. To me, the downstairs plaster looking exactly like the upstairs is precisely the reason to retest them. While we could take last year’s tests as proof enough to satisfy our liability obligations, I would not want to expose myself, or anyone else to any demo for the new plumbing. We’ve already talked with the homeowner about running the plumbing through a new chase below the new upstairs bath, thus avoiding the majority of plaster demolition, but that, unfortunately, is unacceptable. As I’ve indicated before, I also personally want to know if the testing company simply got it wrong last year – if we were unknowingly exposed to asbestos while working. 

There is perhaps a missing piece to my original narrative that was not relevant to my three original questions: the tests on plasters and paints done last year were done by the homeowner before I was contracted - they were seeking multiple bids, and I insisted they be performed before we'd bid. So, when I say, we tested, I really mean, the client had the tests done, albeit, at my request. So, in the case of last year's testing, it's a question of the third party lab’s tests validity and purposes, verses the client's own attempts at due diligence, verses your responsibilities as a licensed contractor and being the more knowledgeable party. It is a question of liability, but which party is most responsible, the testing company or the person who orders the tests.


----------



## builditguy (Nov 10, 2013)

What is your goal here?

You had the upstairs tested. It came back positive. You seem to have a hard time believing the results. You even used a microscope to look for yourself. Like you could actually know what to look for? Maybe you could, but I know I couldn't. I don't think a cheap microscope is what you need.

Now you want to have it re-tested by another company? What are you hoping for, the new company will say, "It's okay, go ahead and tear it out." or "Yep, the first company was right."?

You also want to re-test the completed downstairs. I think the only thing that can be accomplished is a lawsuit by you, against the homeowner, if the results come back as positive for asbestos.
Believe me, if you've been exposed, you won't know it for 30 years. Even if they can prove it now, its too late. Once it's stuck in your lungs, it's stuck for good.
This is according to the latest classes I took on asbestos. Maybe something has changed.

So, back to my original question. What are you hoping go gain by all of this?


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

hausfxr said:


> John, again, I appreciate your advice, but I don’t quite get your liability concerns. To me, the downstairs plaster looking exactly like the upstairs is precisely the reason to retest them. While we could take last year’s tests as proof enough to satisfy our liability obligations, I would not want to expose myself, or anyone else to any demo for the new plumbing. We’ve already talked with the homeowner about running the plumbing through a new chase below the new upstairs bath, thus avoiding the majority of plaster demolition, but that, unfortunately, is unacceptable. As I’ve indicated before, I also personally want to know if the testing company simply got it wrong last year – if we were unknowingly exposed to asbestos while working.
> 
> There is perhaps a missing piece to my original narrative that was not relevant to my three original questions: the tests on plasters and paints done last year were done by the homeowner before I was contracted - they were seeking multiple bids, and I insisted they be performed before we'd bid. So, when I say, we tested, I really mean, the client had the tests done, albeit, at my request. So, in the case of last year's testing, it's a question of the third party lab’s tests validity and purposes, verses the client's own attempts at due diligence, verses your responsibilities as a licensed contractor and being the more knowledgeable party. It is a question of liability, but which party is most responsible, the testing company or the person who orders the tests.


It was a simple question.

Convoluted replies are the art of politicians, lawyers and opportunists (all the same critter).


----------



## AnonBuilderGuy (Feb 10, 2016)

HausFxr,
I just read through your topic discussion, and I thought you could use a little candid advice about your current situation, especially in regards to the liability issue. While I’m at it, I’ll also give you a few pointers on forum discussion best practices. 

First, I will wager that you are over 40 years old, and more likely in your 50s or older. Your lack of postings on this site over time, as well as your willingness to engage all comers tells me you have a bit of internet naiveté. Nothing really wrong with such attributes, but if you want constructive feedback on this and any other construction related site, you should learn more about protocols. If you have not done so already, read this forum's thread http://www.contractortalk.com/f11/new-have-question-read-first-118790/ and just do a general Google search on the troubles and tribulations of internet forums. 

Your original questions were not badly presented, and I believe they’ve all been addressed in one way or another, but, nonetheless I’ll address each as I see them . I also realize you were just expressing some of your frustrations with your current situation, but don’t expect much sympathy here – we’ve all been there, done that or this dumb thing, so buck up and move on. 

To your first question - Anyone ever encountered this before?: I’ve come across plenty of asbestos before, but not in wall plaster. Mostly lots of floor tile and adhesive – expensive removal. What I have encountered is third party location services mis-identifying below surface utilities. I’ve dug up gas lines, cut through in-slab electrical conduits, and severed water lines, to name a few, and let’s not get started on architects and engineers – I’ve learned, trust but verify. Supposed experts get things wrong all the time, so trust your instincts on whether the plaster is all made with the same binders – assume it probably is and someone either before or this time got a test result wrong.

Next question - Is it common to have both animal hair and asbestos in plaster from this time period?: As someone has already pointed out, asbestos can be ground really fine and therefor may be hard to see, and if it makes for better plaster workability and strength, then why wouldn’t it be added along with hair. Also, it has been known to be used for various purposes since the time of ancient Greeks, so 1909 predates nothing. 

Last Question - Does anyone know if chrysotile is a form of asbestos that does not have a fibrous look to it when used in plaster?: Assuming you’re asking if asbestos may be present but not visible in plaster to the human eye, even with the aid of a magnifying device, I’d agree with the other posters - only trust an expert to verify it’s presence on this one. 

So the first respondent to your post, our beloved John the Builder, reframed your dilemma and questioned why you’d want to risk any liability. He wasn’t too specific with his meaning, but giving you advice wasn’t his intent in this instance. He was trying to provoke you by belittling you in the way that all internet trolls do. If you were more internet savvy, you would have simply ignored him and not responded to his post at all. That’s what I do with John and his ilk, and it’s the only thing to do with those who consistently present themselves as sociopathic and use discussion forums as their outlets. Whether you try to appease him (as you did initially by thanking him for b*tch slapping you good), take offense, or try to give back in kind, you’ve given him attention, and that is really what he wants. 

Now, to give John some credit, he frequently does give some very sound advice, and it’s apparent that he has many years of experience in construction. And the poor guy must spend an inordinate amount of his life surfing the various forums he participates in, with all the responding or antagonizing he does – maybe it’s better than drinking. So, HausFxr, when you see a poster who’s sig is something were they self-profess to being an unapologetic [blank]hole, or even their avatar looks like a real life maniac (or maybe it’s Sasquatch in John’s case?), never respond, quote, or in any way recognize their existence. 

I’ll grant that by mentioning John here specifically, I’m feeding his addiction, but notice I’m doing it anonymously, and for good reason – despite the constant dribble that infects this forum and others like it, I love participating in online discussions and I know trolls can be monomaniacal in their pursuit of you and want nothing to do with them. So, when John or any of his yes-men take umbrage to you for any random reason, you may never escape them. But with John we probably don’t have to worry offending him if reads this - he will get a thrill from it – it will probably make his day. He’s gotten some of the attention he so desperately craves.

As to the issue of liability and your test result skepticisms, I think you answered Builditguy’s and John’s questions when you said you’d be doing work downstairs again too. As the “licensed contractor and being the more knowledgeable party”, as you put it, whether or not it even occurred to you that the downstairs might actually have asbestos in it, you’d be 100% responsible for any exposure. You can find countless similar scenarios on the web where the contractor, as the one person most fully in possession of all the facts and in control of the work being done, is held responsible for any negative outcomes. For you, the cat’s out of bag, because the thought has occurred to you and you have talked to the client about the risks involved. Your actions show you’re a smart guy who’d prefer to do the ethical and legally required thing, and retest the downstairs. Any lawyer would tell you the same thing. 

Finally, HausFxr, do yourself a favor and don’t respond to my posting or anyone else’s and just let this thread die. However, please let us all know the new test results. If you are indeed in Portland, private message me and I’ll invite you as my guest to the next Oregon Remodelers Association meeting, if you are not already a member.


----------

