How to Reduce Asbestos Removal Cost with Point Count and Composite Analysis Techniques

Asbestos abatement is the process of removing asbestos-containing materials from renovated or demolished properties. This process is time-consuming, complex, and notably expensive. The costs include:

  • State permits and fees,
  • Charges for specialized contractors who remove the hazardous materials under containment,
  • Fees for disposing of these materials at designated dump sites, and
  • Fees for a post-abatement air test to confirm no contamination occurred during asbestos removal.

Overall, the cost of asbestos removal can be estimated at $40 per square foot. For example, removing hazardous materials from a 150-square-foot kitchen would cost approximately $6,000, plus multiple visits and emails to your local Department of Public Health and Environment—and a lot of time and stress on top of it.

There are no ways to avoid these dollar costs if the materials needing removal contain asbestos. But wait a moment: how do we know that these materials are “hot” and need abatement? And more importantly, how can we be sure that the information about the asbestos content is completely accurate?

In other words, are there ways of reducing the abatement costs by reducing the number of materials that need to be removed? Or even better, could we avoid abatement altogether?

The answer to these questions lies in how the presence of asbestos in building materials is detected and how the results are interpreted. There are two different testing techniques, and a special method of combining test results, used to get the most accurate readings of asbestos contents in any building material. Let’s look at each of them in turn.

Any renovation project begins with collecting samples from materials that will be disturbed during the work to test for asbestos at a certified lab. Even small renovation projects may require numerous samples.

For example, in a kitchen remodel involving the removal of tiles, flooring, drywall, and a ceiling, an inspector might typically collect 13 samples—three from the tiles, two from the vinyl flooring, five from the drywall, and three from the popcorn ceiling. For a medium-sized renovation project, it’s quite common to collect 20 to 30 samples. Larger projects, involving partial demolition, may require 50 to 70 samples.

Since lab analysis can be costly, the industry typically opts for the most cost-effective method, known as Polarized Light Microscopy Bulk Analysis (PLM Bulk). This technique allows for the observation of asbestos fibers under magnification, enabling an assessment of their quantity.

To do so, an analyst compares the microscope image of a tested sample to a set of reference images that have known asbestos levels to find a match. However, image comparison is not a very precise method, as it relies on human judgment. Therefore, any report based on PLM Bulk analysis that indicates asbestos content other than 0% should be approached with skepticism.

This fact has two significant implications:

  1. State permitting authorities may require a more precise analysis of samples to verify that the asbestos content is below the regulatory threshold of 1%.
  2. Results indicating asbestos levels above 1% might be proven to be less using a more accurate method.

A more accurate analytical method is called Polarized Light Microscopy Point Count 400 (PLM Point Count). Here, a lab technician analyzes the sample under a polarized light microscope to differentiate asbestos fibers from other particles, similar to PLM Bulk analysis.

However, the similarity ends there. In the PLM Point Count method:

  • A minimum of 400 different particles making up the sample must be identified as either asbestos or non-asbestos.
  • The ratio of asbestos fibers to non-asbestos particles, multiplied by 100, gives the percentage of asbestos in the sample.

While PLM Point Count is more accurate, it is also more expensive—typically around $70 per sample. This cost can significantly impact the original testing budget. However, increasing the budget by 25% to 30% is a sensible investment when considering the thousands of dollars that could be saved by reducing or eliminating abatement.

It’s important to use the Point Count method selectively:

  • Avoid testing samples with more than 2% asbestos under PLM Bulk analysis, as they have almost no chance of falling below the 1% threshold.
  • Focus on samples with readings close to 1% to maximize the likelihood of reducing their asbestos levels below the regulatory limit.
  • Test only one sample from a “hot set” (e.g., three samples for each material) and proceed with the others only if the initial sample falls below 1%.

Using PLM Point Count is not the only way to reassess asbestos content. Specifically for joint compounds, another technique called Composite Analysis can be applied.

This strictly mathematical method combines asbestos readings from the joint compound and the drywall base to which it was attached. Most laboratories will offer composite analysis for joint compound at no cost, provided the samples were collected correctly—meaning the samples must not include textured materials or any other type of surfacing material.

If materials containing asbestos will be disturbed during renovations, they must be abated in accordance with federal and state laws. Asbestos abatement is a complex and costly process that can delay renovations by 3 to 6 weeks, depending on the scope of the work and the amount of material needing removal.

However, the costs and disruptions of abatement can be minimized by:

  • Retesting materials using the PLM Point Count method, and
  • Running Composite Analysis on joint compounds and the drywall they adhere to.

These techniques may reveal that some materials contain less than 1% asbestos, potentially eliminating the need for their abatement altogether.