Top 3 Regulatory Shifts to Watch This Year
In the last six months, I’ve fielded more calls from contractors about regulatory confusion than I have in the past three years combined. And it’s not because people aren’t trained — it’s because the way existing rules are being interpreted and enforced is shifting faster than the guidance can keep up.
These trends reflect enforcement patterns we’re seeing across the Midwest and may vary by jurisdiction.
If you’re the one suiting up, cutting pipe, or documenting clearance air, you already know: every shift in how asbestos regulations are applied changes the way people work. It affects how you prep your job site, protect your team, and even how much time you have to get the job done. As we move into 2026, we’re seeing three significant enforcement and interpretation trends that are directly impacting environmental contractors, supervisors, safety officers, and building managers across the Midwest.
1. EPA's Aggressive Enforcement Around the 1% Asbestos Threshold
Here’s what’s actually happening: EPA and delegated state agencies (including Michigan’s EGLE) are cracking down on the widespread misunderstanding that materials containing less than 1% asbestos are “safe” or exempt from OSHA and NESHAP regulations.
The truth is, the 1% threshold was never intended as a safety limit. It’s a trigger point for enhanced work practice requirements under NESHAP — but OSHA’s asbestos standards apply to any measurable amount of asbestos in the air, regardless of bulk content. In a 2014 interpretation letter, OSHA made this crystal clear: “OSHA does not, nor has it ever, recognized a 1% content in bulk materials as a safe amount of asbestos.”
What this means for you in 2026:
Enforcement actions are increasingly focused on contractors who disturb materials with trace amounts of asbestos (below 1%) without proper exposure assessment or air monitoring. State inspectors are being trained to look beyond the bulk sample results and focus on actual airborne exposure potential.
The challenge is that work methods matter more than bulk content. Dry scraping, power tools, or inadequate ventilation can generate airborne concentrations that exceed the 0.1 f/cc PEL even when bulk samples show less than 1% asbestos. Jobs are being stopped mid-stream when inspectors identify exposure assessment failures or inadequate respiratory protection — regardless of what the lab report says about bulk content.
The lesson: Don’t assume “less than 1%” means you can skip the fundamentals. Exposure assessment, air monitoring, and proper work practices apply regardless of bulk content. If you’re disturbing building materials that could contain any amount of asbestos, treat it seriously.
2. Increased Scrutiny on NESHAP Notification Compliance and Pre-Demo Surveys
State enforcement agencies across the Midwest are tightening their oversight of NESHAP notification requirements and the quality of pre-demolition/renovation surveys. In Michigan, EGLE has ramped up both random inspections and complaint-driven enforcement, particularly around the adequacy of “thorough inspections” before demolition.
What’s changing:
Under NESHAP, owners and operators must conduct a “thorough inspection” to identify all asbestos-containing materials (ACM) before demolition or renovation. The regulations require this inspection to include all accessible and inaccessible areas. But for years, many projects got by with limited sampling — especially in residential and small commercial demolitions.
That’s changing. EGLE inspectors are now routinely challenging the adequacy of surveys, particularly when:
- Only “representative” samples were taken instead of comprehensive sampling
- Inaccessible areas (behind walls, above ceilings, under flooring) weren’t properly assessed
- Survey reports lack sufficient detail or documentation
- The 10-working-day notification wasn’t filed, or was filed with incomplete information
Projects are being shut down when inspectors question whether the survey met the “thorough inspection” standard. The result? Delays, supplemental sampling, revised notifications, and significant cost overruns.
What this means for you in 2026:
If you’re a property owner or developer planning demolition or major renovation, budget for comprehensive surveys — not bare-minimum compliance. If you’re a contractor, push back on incomplete survey reports before you bid or start work. The days of “we’ll deal with it if we find something” are over.
Document everything. Make sure your NESHAP notifications are complete, accurate, and submitted on time. If scope changes mid-project, file an updated notification. The 10-day rule isn’t a suggestion — it’s a hard stop that can cost you thousands in penalties and project delays if you get it wrong.
3. MIOSHA's Heightened Focus on Respiratory Protection and Competent Person Requirements
MIOSHA has always had the authority to enforce strict respiratory protection standards under Part 602 (the state’s asbestos construction standard), but in 2025 we saw a noticeable uptick in citations related to:
- Inadequate fit testing and recordkeeping
- Using respirators not appropriate for the class of work
- Failure to designate a qualified “competent person” on site
- Insufficient initial exposure assessments (or skipping them entirely)
What’s driving this:
Part of it is increased inspector training. Part of it is the recognition that respiratory protection is often the last line of defense when engineering controls and work practices fail. But the bigger issue is that many contractors are still operating with outdated assumptions about when respirators are required and what level of protection is needed.
Under MIOSHA Part 602 (which mirrors federal OSHA 1926.1101), a competent person must be on site for all Class I, II, and III asbestos work. This person needs to be trained in asbestos hazards, work practices, and the employer’s safety procedures. They’re responsible for conducting exposure assessments, implementing controls, and ensuring compliance.
Yet many contractors either don’t designate a competent person, designate someone who isn’t properly trained, or assume the project manager can just “handle it” without the required qualifications.
What this means for you in 2026:
Get serious about respiratory protection programs. That means:
- Annual fit testing for every worker (not just when they’re first hired)
- Proper respirator selection based on the class of work and expected exposure levels
- Documentation that shows you’ve assessed exposure and selected appropriate PPE
- A trained, designated competent person on every job site
If MIOSHA shows up and your crew can’t produce current fit test records, or your competent person can’t answer basic questions about the work classification or control methods, you’re getting cited. And those citations come with steep penalties — not to mention the project shutdown while you fix the violations.
Compliance documentation needs to be accessible at the job site, and your competent person needs to be present and engaged. This isn’t administrative paperwork — it’s the foundation of worker protection.
This Isn't Just Policy. It's People.
Regulatory shifts — whether they’re new rules or stricter enforcement of existing ones — tend to land hardest on the people doing the work. The truth is, the rules matter — not just because of fines, but because they define the real-world conditions of your work. They decide:
- Who gets to touch the material
- What kind of PPE your crew wears
- How long the project takes
- Whether your insurance kicks in after a fiber release
- Whether your client trusts you to do it again
That’s why our team at ETC keeps our finger on the pulse. Not just so we can advise our clients, but so we can protect the people doing the work — from the air sample tech to the supervisor pulling ceiling tile at 2 a.m. because the building has to reopen Monday morning.
Let's Build the Playbook Together
This year, I want to flip the script and hear from the field. If you’ve been in this industry more than a year, you’ve got a story about enforcement that either caught you off guard or helped you avoid a major compliance headache.
Here’s what I want to know:
- What’s one enforcement issue or regulatory interpretation that surprised you in the past year?
- Have you been on a job where stricter oversight created real challenges?
- What’s the question you wish someone had answered before you learned it the hard way?
Your story could help another contractor, building owner, or safety manager stay ahead of what’s coming in 2026. Comment below, message us privately, or call me directly if you’d rather talk it through. No names, no judgment. Just real stories from real professionals navigating the same shifting ground.
Because staying compliant isn’t just about knowing the rules — it’s about sharing what we’ve learned along the way. And if enforcement is going to keep getting stricter, we’d better make sure the people doing the work aren’t the last ones to know.
References & Further Reading
OSHA Asbestos Standards & Guidance:
- U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (1994). Occupational Exposure to Asbestos: Final Rule. 29 CFR 1926.1101. Available at: https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1926/1926.1101
- U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2014). Standard Interpretation: Bulk Asbestos Analysis and Worker Air Exposures to Less Than 1% Asbestos. Letter to F. Stephen Masek, November 5, 2014. Available at: https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2014-11-05-1
- U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Asbestos Fact Sheet. OSHA Publication 3507. Available at: https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3507.pdf
EPA NESHAP Regulations:
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/asbestos-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air-pollutants
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Overview of the Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/overview-asbestos-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air-pollutants-neshap
Michigan Regulations:
- Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE). (2021). Understanding the Asbestos NESHAP Fact Sheet. Available at: https://www.michigan.gov/-/media/Project/Websites/egle/Documents/Programs/AQD/asbestos/asbestos-neshap-fact-sheet.pdf
- Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA). (2021). Construction Safety Standard Part 602: Asbestos. Available at: https://www.michigan.gov/leo/-/media/Project/Websites/leo/Documents/MIOSHA/Standards/Construction/CS_602/CS_602__03-30-2021.pdf
Health & Safety Resources:
- Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Asbestos Toxicity: What Are U.S. Standards and Regulations for Asbestos Levels? Available at: https://archive.cdc.gov/www_atsdr_cdc_gov/csem/asbestos/standards_and_regulations.html
- National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Supplementary Exposure Limits – Asbestos. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/nengapdxc.html
- U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (1994). Occupational Exposure to Asbestos: Final Rule. 29 CFR 1926.1101. Available at: https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1926/1926.1101
Jeremy Westcott
Jeremy Westcott is Managing Director at Environmental Testing & Consulting, Inc., and a trusted advisor to contractors and facility managers on environmental compliance and enforcement.