Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 01 July 2005 11:07:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Debbie Spowart At my daughter and sons infant school they are in the process of having ACM's removed from the boiler house. This is situated by the front door of the school. To some extent the approved removal people have got it right - they have a nice van parked up with an in and out exit - the problem is they are walking up the path of the school, which mums with children in pushchairs are walking along. No-one was advised that this was going to happen, and I'm not sure why it couldn't have been done during the sumer hols which are two weeks away. Am I being an over protective mum with a health & safety mind, (dad is also H&S aswell) or should I ask the school for a copy of their risk assessment as I think we should have been informed.
Admin  
#2 Posted : 01 July 2005 11:44:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dennis Bray From the limited information you have given the location of the ACM being removed suggests it could be asbestos lagging or similar materials. Therfore that whole area should be enclosed in order to prevent escape of asbestos fibres. Attached to this enclosure should be the decontamination unit. The removal procedure should also have been submitted and approved by the HSE depending on the risks involved. I would suggest further enquiries of the school and/or LEA and/or HSE.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 01 July 2005 12:54:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Frank Hallett Hi Debbie, I'm with Dennis on this - on the assumption [from your info] that the decon unit isn't physically an integral part of the removal enclosure there should be no public access or exposure to potential contamination by the materials being removed nor to the removal operatives until they have gone through the decon process. It is an unfortunately regularly occurring situation that generally indicates that the actual controller of the premises has failed [usually totally] to exercise any control over the contractor by abrogating their duties to the contractor who should also know better and exercise effective control. I can see lots of successful Civil claims and possibly enforcement notices gathering like a flock of vultures. Any "no win, no fee" solicitors read this Forum? Frank Hallett
Admin  
#4 Posted : 01 July 2005 13:28:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter I'll offer a differing opinion. Particularly where the work enclosure opens into the open air, there is no need to have the hygiene facilities physically 'attached' to the enclosure. The test of reasonable practicability applies. What Debbie describes is permitted by the Regs - see para 135 of ACoP L28. Without seeing the site, we cannot judge or test sfarp. There may be overrriding issues such as fire/emergency evacuation. The real issues here are (a) a probable failure to plan work effectively (i.e. outwith term time), and (b)failure to properly inform parents. Proper initial and rigorous decontamination on leaving the work enclosure will result in negligible risk to the public.
Admin  
#5 Posted : 01 July 2005 17:07:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mal Shiels Hi Debbie, most of the views expressed so far have raised good points. The de contamination unit does not need to be connected to the enclosure area and as a genral rule is not. There are two main issues here. Firstly, the timing of the work, ideally it seems it would have been sensible to carry out the work in the school holidays, therefore the first question you should ask is why this was not so, it may be there is a sound reason why, but it would be nice for you to know. Secondy, the transit procedures could potentially called into question. In the method statement for the work they have to state how they will manage transit between enclosure and de contamination unit. The method statement must be on site at all times, there semmes no reason why you should not be able to see it. If you want to discuss this further please e-mail me direct malcolm.shiels@hallandpartners.co.uk
Admin  
#6 Posted : 01 July 2005 17:10:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jack - - and, of course, you have the right to see it under Freedom of Information. Just ask.
Admin  
#7 Posted : 01 July 2005 18:09:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By James M Debbie I am working for a main contractor on building and demolition of schools at the moment. Included in this is the removal of asbestos. I can only speak for the sites I am on that all is very well controlled and members of the public are segregated from the site. I doesn't seem to be a good practice that is taking place from the information that you have provided. However I would not make any comments as to whether this is reasonable as there is insufficient evidence to conclude my opinion. One comment I would say in reply to any earlier post is that work on schools is best done when the kids are at school. In the hoilidays they tend to be there anyway but they don't have teachers or parents to supervise them which can be dangerous and stall progress. Jim
Admin  
#8 Posted : 03 July 2005 08:52:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dave Wilson AARRGHH!!!!!!!! Debbie, I work as the HS&E Manager for an asbestos removal company and I hope I can put your mind at rest here. The first issue with working during term time, this is always and I mean always at the request of the client / contractor to fit in with their project time scales. We have to notify the removal works 14 days in advance to the HSE before we are allowed to even set foot on the site to set up, the client / contractor cannot do any work in the area until the asbestos has been removed, so 2 week notification, 6 day job - contractor cannot start for at least 3 weeks, so get Asi guys in 3 weeks before school closes and then we have the whole of the summer term to do our work! From what I can make of your brief observations ASI contractor is doing nothing wrong, the cleint / Contracrtor / School should have been more forthcoming with what is happening however if they tell the parents the response is normally, "NO Bloody Chance whilst my kids are at school" but has to be done sometime etc so then the main work cannot be done in time for end of term. NO win for all concerned, WE get this every year during this time, Visits from the HSE /EHO etc etc because of parents and whistleblowers etc, it is a hard, dangerous job, which is very well controlled, with trained and competent staff, I just wish the Planning Supervisors, Clients, Contracts Managers, heads got better informed about this subject and dealt with it in a more professional manner it would stop all the scare mongering. Email if you want a further chat.
Admin  
#9 Posted : 04 July 2005 09:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter Good to see a perspective on this from the Asbestos Contractor p.o.v. Working for a large LA, with attendant inefficiencies and less than perfect communications etc, I understand and sympathise with the views Dave expresses.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.