Case Study: PLM Point Count & Composite Analysis Methods

A significant portion of our business comes from insurance and restoration companies specializing in mitigating the effects of flooding and fires. These companies require asbestos testing whenever the damage caused by natural disasters—small or big—necessitates the removal of existing building materials.

In November 2024, Nicole, a Project Manager at Mitigate Pros in Denver, reached out to us for asbestos testing in a condo bathroom that required renovation due to a major pipe leak. Our inspector collected a total of nine samples from the following homogeneous materials:

• Orange peel texture
• Drywall with joint compound
• Vinyl sheet flooring 3 layers
• Tile, mortar, grout

The samples were tested at Atlas Laboratory in Englewood with a standard preliminary  PLM Bulk method and all 5 drywall samples came out positive for asbestos. See Table 1 below for the details.

Table 1.

Sample			Asbestos Content					(Suspect) Asbestos Containing Material
Number	Location	Homogeneous Material	Layer	Description	PLM Bulk	Point Count	Composite Analysis	Friability	Condition	Quantity (sq. ft.)
1-11-21-3	Bathroom, Wall B Bathroom, Ceiling Bathroom, Wall D	SM- Orange Peel Texture	1	Paint / Texture	2%  Chrysotile	–	–	Friable	Significantly Damaged	300
			1	Paint / Texture	<1% Chrysotile	–	–	Friable	Significantly Damaged	300
			1	Paint / Texture	2%  Chrysotile	–	–	Friable	Significantly Damaged	300
			2	Drywall	ND	–	–	Friable	Significantly Damaged	300
2-12-2	Bathroom, Ceiling Bathroom, Wall D	MISC- Drywall with Joint Compound	1	Paint / Joint Compound	2% Chrysotile	–	–	Friable	Significantly Damaged	300
			2	Drywall Tape	ND	–	–	Friable	Significantly Damaged	300
			3	Joint Compound	3% Chrysotile	–	–	Friable	Significantly Damaged	300
			4	Drywall	ND	–	–	Friable	Significantly Damaged	300

Based on the results of standard PLM bulk testing, 300 square feet of drywall would have needed to be removed by a professional abatement company under containment to prevent asbestos spill. However, we requested the lab to perform additional composite analysis on the joint compound, and our client agreed to point-count three drywall samples at an additional cost of $185. The results of the two new procedures applied to the asbestos-hot samples were extremely satisfactory. Refer to Table 2 for the results of these additional testing procedures.

Table 2.

Sample			Asbestos Content					(Suspect) Asbestos Containing Material
Number	Location	Homogeneous Material	Layer	Description	PLM Bulk	Point Count	Composite Analysis	Friability	Condition	Quantity (sq. ft.)
1-11-21-3	Bathroom, Wall B Bathroom, Ceiling Bathroom, Wall D	SM- Orange Peel Texture	1	Paint / Texture	2%  Chrysotile	0.25%	–	Friable	Significantly Damaged	300
			1	Paint / Texture	<1% Chrysotile	0.75%	–	Friable	Significantly Damaged	300
			1	Paint / Texture	2%  Chrysotile	0.75%	–	Friable	Significantly Damaged	300
			2	Drywall	ND	–	–	Friable	Significantly Damaged	300
2-12-2	Bathroom, Ceiling Bathroom, Wall D	MISC- Drywall with Joint Compound	1	Paint / Joint Compound	2% Chrysotile	–	<1%	Friable	Significantly Damaged	300
			2	Drywall Tape	ND	–	–	Friable	Significantly Damaged	300
			3	Joint Compound	3% Chrysotile	–	<1%	Friable	Significantly Damaged	300
			4	Drywall	ND	–	–	Friable	Significantly Damaged	300

The composite analysis of the joint compound and the PLM point-count analysis of the drywall revealed that the asbestos content was below the regulatory limit of 1%. As a result, the abatement of any ACM was no longer required for this project. The estimated cost savings from this outcome were approximately $5,000.