If it is disturbed asbestos it has to be abated, yes.

Our seller agreed to handle the disturbed asbestos that was found during the home inspection , it's a safety concern. She payed for remediation, new HVAC pipes instead of the pipes that were cut, etc.

We weren't quiet though and ordered a separate inspection. Which found asbestos to be literally everywhere in the house. Since it wasn't disturbed, the seller didn't want to reduce the price even.

We still bought the house, and after long and painful consideration, abated everything ourselves. Which in our case meant gutting the house..:)

But yes, our place was built in the very end of sixties.

They didn't stop to use it immediately in the seventies, took some time. 2005 is very strange though.

^above poster is correct. Have it actually tested. If it is, needs abatement and properly. Would be very surprised as well if it were in a 2005 build.

I'm very cautious about potential asbestos, but I question that inspection finding. Often, inspectors cite every POTENTIAL thing they see so that they can't later be called on it. I had an inspector cite "possible insect infestation problems" because there were shrubs around the house...I bought the house and there were no such issues.

I spent years as an environmental regulator, specifically involving toxic substances and asbestos, and I am sceptical about the validity of the claim. While the presence of asbestos can only be confirmed via lab analysis (typically less than $100), the relatively recent age of construction of the house and the fact that the photo looks nothing like asbestos insulation I've seen makes me think that the inspector's claim is highly unlikely. If you are concerned, have a small piece of that material tested...it's probably standard blown-in cellulose insulation. I wouldn't pass on a house I liked based on a dubious inspection report like this.

P.S.: In looking more closely at that page of the inspection report you posted, it even notes that the insulation is cellulose. So where is this "suspected asbestos debris"? Inspection reports are typically just software that the inspector fills out and edits. I wonder if this is just some general, boilerplate statement that should have been left out, or some sloppiness on the inspector's part. When I refinanced my house five years ago, the inspection report that was done included a reference to a nonexistent basement...my house is on a slab :-)

I would seriously question the ability of this inspector if he is indicating this is asbestos. First, no inspector worth their fee would ever definitively declare something is asbestos. He would indicate that it "might" be asbestos and recommend testing. Second, asbestos insulation has not been produced since the 1970's or so--just as you thought.

https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos#notbanned

There are 2 possibilities here. The first, the inspector is clueless and you need a new inspector. The second is that he hit the wrong key when producing the report. It looks like a template document. My guess is that he answers a series of automated questions regarding comments to produce a generic statement. He accidentally hit the wrong key.

Have your realtor "call out" the inspector on this. Make the inspector justify his report.

Who hired the inspector, buyer or seller. Either he should get an award or be put out of business.

" He would indicate that it "might" be asbestos and recommend testing."-well,that's what the comment says, actually. It says "suspected" and "recommend to follow up with a specialist for future testing" or something.

At the same time, I agree the strangest mistakes can happen when documents are put together..for example I found in my own medical files I had a surgery on my left eye..well I didn't have one, not on my left eye, not on my right:) They clearly mixed me up with somebody..:) But still better than if they decided to operate on me, instead of somebody else, lol

Bottom line-get it tested

The question is, though: Have what tested? It sounds like the OP is concerned about the insulation, which the inspector has already identified as cellulose...

The insulation was what fell on the floor. I didn't see a statement that debris that are suspected to be asbestos are insulation.

Well, it's all a guess on our part. OP was there at the time of the inspection as far as I understood(?)-he should know what this inspector meant, what was actually said, does it differ from what was typed in the report, etc, etc.

You're right...we have speculated the heck out of this. Now it's time for the OP to get some answers from the inspector.

That looks exactly like our insulation, which was done around the same time period. No asbestos in ours. I can't imagine what he saw that even made him thing they are similar.

These "inspectors" are out of control. In my experience most don't know what they're doing and are scaring buyers away.

BarbSun Tondo--I think that depends on your location. In my state inspectors must be licensed by the state. To do so requires a course, practice in the field with a licensed inspector, and passing 2 different exams. They also must complete continuing education. Sellers frequently forget that the inspector is NOT working for them. The inspector is working for and representing the buyer. It is the job of the inspector to fully inform the buyer of existing problems that can be seen or tested. It's also their job to inform buyers of items that will require maintenance or that can be improved.

Far from being out of control, every inspector I encountered when I worked as an agent was very competent and professional. Most had many years in a variety of construction/building type jobs. I didn't always like the reports buyers received when I represented sellers, but it's better to know of problems than not.

Put yourself in the position of being a first time home buyer. Would you want the picky inspector or the one that didn't write reports that might irritate the seller?

rrah-

I agree with most of what you wrote. However, there is a difference between the ideal of competency and the reality. I've found some inspectors to be very sharp, and some overlooked things that I noticed and had to bring to their attention or question them about. I view the inspection report as something helpful, but I don't depend on it to be complete or fully accurate.

These "inspectors" are out of control. In my experience most don't know what they're doing and are scaring buyers away.

Most are competent, but some need to justify their jobs. The inspector who came to our condo for the buyer, decided we had used the wrong screws on our electrical panel box. So he decided to do us a "favor" and remove the screws and replace with the correct ones. Only problem? He then put the cover of the box on backwards so the door that went over the cover didn't close completely. Being it was the buyer's inspector, we left it as is.

My opinion is based on my experience in selling my home. Unfortunately I encountered some inspectors that were not very honest, nor sharp. Inspectors use words such as: evidence of, suspected, usually, etc. If they're so competent, how about they use the words: There is a leak, or there is asbestos. If there is a problem, as a buyer I want to know it. Not all these "wishy washy" words.

Inspectors are absolutely working for the buyers, as they should be since buyers hire and pay for them. Unfortunately, just because an inspector is licensed doesn't mean they are honest business people. Let the buyer beware.

Osman's inspector used the words "suspected asbestos debris is APPARENT". He also say items marked comments "usually" need attention. Usually? Really? If there is an item that is a problem, then just say it is a problem and why. If I was a buyer and got a report that mentioned asbestos it would be a deal breaker for me. I find that very unfair to the seller and the buyer.

If the home was built in 2005 then I guarantee it ISN'T asbestos. Obviously this was a mistake or the inspector didn't realize the age of the house.

The more the person is competent, the more possibility he'll know his own limitations, and the wording will be vague, or he'll refrain from remarks at all.

Think about how somebody's writing he's sick, on the public forum, and everybody starts giving advises. Except for the doctors:) They don't answer unless they're been asked. Because they know the responsibility that comes with any answer.

That's my general observation.

Now, there is also wording that's usual for such and such type of such and such documents. So that's the wording that they use.

Much like any other profession out there.

The reports etc all have their lingo.

That's at least comprehensible one, lol. Comparing to some law document..:)

And yes, all asbestos is different too. There might be different percentage of asbestos in a material. There are different kinds of fibers. The danger posed is of different degree. Even if he sees for sure it's asbestos, and recommends to abate it professionally -he'll still recommend future testing in environmental lab and follow up with a specialist whose field of knowledge is asbestos and its remediation.

It's extremely weird to find it in 2005 house, as I've already written. But I don't know. What if owners bought something old on Craigslist? LOL. Put it in the attic. It disintegrated..

Maybe it's just something smallish that needs to be disposed of, and it's not even of the house. It's debris of something that was brought into this attic at certain point.

Or it is an extreme cautiousness on the side of the inspector. Which is fine-it's his job.

Or it is an honest mistake.

Or it is a typing mistake:)

Would be interesting to hear from the OP himself..we're speculating over it, he was there( I presume). And probably decided what to do with this info by now.

PS we had a very sharp inspector. Am I extremely grateful to him for finding the asbestos in the first place? No, I'm not:) I'm already at two years of paying two mortgages, because of this asbestos havoc that followed. But the inspector did his job.