Rank: Forum user 
|
Hi All,
Asbestos press release apart, has anyone info. on the real reason why the village HIGH school at Cwmcarn S.Wales was closed?
i.e. Was it due to an asbestos fugitive release? or was it the discovery of some new & dangerous form?
The reason I ask is because this school is in the village I went to school in the 1950's (circa 1950 to 1957) & must have been built after my time in the 1960s, when asbestos, the magic mineral(sic) must have been used quite extensively.Hence not a secret.
Regards Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I know this school well and used to drive past it daily on the way to work.
The NASUWT official Rex Philips gave an interview this evening on Radio Wales confirming they have closed the school due to "high levels" of airborne asbestos. He said that contractors brought in to work in the boiler house carried out tests throughout the school.
He said that the level should be less than 0.01 fibres/ml over 4 hours and that the contractors had measured 0.005 fibres/ml over 4 hours, across 2/3rds of the school, which is half that amount. The concern was with debris in the roof voids which had not been sealed and the contractors are recommending a lower limit because of this.
The governors and head have acted on the contractors report. The school and local council are not commenting at present. The council have said that they will make an announcement in the morning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
At first glance which is often dangerous! ....
Unless the "contractors" are using SEM then they are very very clever to produce fibre concentration results of that concentration. 0.01f/ml is used because it is the limit of detectability using pcm microscopes ie the normal method.
There are of course other angles -
1 is the fact that young children are at more risk of meso because of the life table effect ie they are more likely to live long enough to develop disease
2 we have the interesting fact that with the Wilmore Case - ( Knowlsey EA) and the judgement at appeal at Supreme Court there is the civil case law that very low exposure may cause risk. This does not sit well with the criminal levels set out in HSE's guidance and CAR2012 and basically means that it is possible to query any asbestos removal work carried out
3 There is of course the other angle that someone may be looking for a large clean up contract ......... but call me cynical asbestos that never happens?
Once the building has been cleaned - the air monitoring will be carried out to 0.01f/ml so that also makes for an interesting question?
Kind regards
Bruce
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
And another angle - "lets use what excuses we can to close the school as its costing money to keep it open and get the children to attend another school as it would be cheaper"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
There seems to be a rash of 'asbestos discovered during renovation' stories at the moment, which suggests an awful lot of people have both poor or non-existent management surveys, along with a total absence of R/D surveys. Big surprise.
Don't get me wrong, there's always scope for ACMs that cannot be found except by demolition, but rarely anything that would require Friday afternoon evacuations....
If it has been based solely on those air test readings, then someone's being mis-advised. Air tests have their place, but it's the physical condition, accessibility and exposed population that are the main considerations.
Bottom covering or job creation? Probably a bit of both....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Chris99
Good to read someone as cynical as me!!
I rather think that any contractor claiming to be using a scanning electron microscope to do clearance/general air testing is either a good sales person and getting clients to pay the money or a total con artist.
We could also thus ask questions about the advice given to governers etc.
It is a great scare story though and I have to admire the cast for such a performance.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I chose to keep my original post #3 above clear of any cynical comments as I knew they would follow.
Cwmcarn school has a very good reputation locally with good academic results and is usually parents first choice.
However it is well known locally that it does not have a good relationship wiih the Caerphilly County Bourough Council. This goes goes back to the days when it became one of the first Grant Maintained Schools in the UK, which the council owere not happy about at the time.
Its now a Foundation School, but its reported locally that the relationship with the Council is still not a good one.
There may well be a genuine health risk and the contractors right to raise the issue, but on the other hand, is the contractors report either being used by the council to score some political points against the school by blaming them for poorly prioritising their budget or the contractors simply touting for extra work ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Next month is my 21st anniversary of working with asbestos. Never dreamed of that particular career when I was a child.....
Cynicism is but another word for experience, but neither I, nor I think Bob, is casting blame at a particular party yet.... but on the available facts, it seems obvious that someone has messed up.
The problem for us, as with all these stories, is that we don't have full facts at our disposal. Generally speaking though, there are too many of these stories cropping up at the moment and I have no doubt that innocent parties across the country are receiving lungfuls as I type. Waltham Forest council are back in the news today, who will be tomorrow?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks All,
Some useful responses & like some of you I feel a bit cynical about this, as from recent reports the 'discovery' was in the boiler house !!!
Also according to my daughter who has two children there, the area has been threatened by the local Council that one of three schools is facing closure !! Hence are we seeing real science or convenience !!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If the LA have an ulterior motive here, I'm sure they would have chosen something less alarmist. "Structural Defects" would have been accepted essentially without challenge. Spread of asbestos fibres is likely to attract attention from parents, media and the enforcing agency.
Poorly maintained or disturbed friable ACMs are always liable to spread fibre release by natural air current and convection. Pipework from boilers is likely to feed the whole building via ducts and risers. Any wholesale disturbance of that ductwork would result in significant fibre release.
Only a matter of time before HSE pick this one up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Last nights news said the HSE were investigating.
Perhaps there is good reason, but I can't help wonder why this work that included a survey was not carried out during the summer, when the children would not be there. Surly if you carry out a survey you have to expect you may find what you are looking for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The whole circumstances with this worry me and as Chris says the holiday periods are the best times to do surveys as there is time to deal with sudden issues. If boiler house ACM was an problem it should have been dealt with under the Management plan long before we came to this position. Thus the HSE is right to investigate the management issues.
Let us not forget that the legal limit for air clearance still equates to 10 fibres in a litre of air! Below this the HSE regards the information as irrelevant. Yes one can make all sorts of calculations but they are not worthy of note. To claim that it is half the legal figure means nothing and any well advised managers should know this. I have no doubt that the LA will find this useful if they wish to justify closure, just as the NHS does with hospital closures or service reductions.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I see this story is hitting the news again (see link). If the fibre counts were found to be 0.003 and 0.008 fibres per mililitre of air as stated in the report and these are considered by the 'experts' to be dangerous levels how come the clearance indicator of 0.010 fibres per mililitre of air is considered to be suitable (dare I say 'safe') for permitting the reoccupation of an area once it has been cleared of asbestos?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20131119
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi All,
Does anyone know if these results are obtained via SEM? As such low results indicate?
or by std microscopy, hence count ALL fibres?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
It is possible to change the method and increase the accuracy using PCM - but at a BOHS meeting at HSE Cardiff last night the feeling was it was probably SEM. This was based on the comment that the fibre was amosite and therefore differentiation and physical identity was possible.
If anyone has any proper information about what happened - ie what was the problem -what testing was done - disturbed air testing - swabs etc please do share it
Kind regards
Bruce
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
chas wrote:I see this story is hitting the news again (see link). If the fibre counts were found to be 0.003 and 0.008 fibres per mililitre of air as stated in the report and these are considered by the 'experts' to be dangerous levels how come the clearance indicator of 0.010 fibres per mililitre of air is considered to be suitable (dare I say 'safe') for permitting the reoccupation of an area once it has been cleared of asbestos?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20131119
Slightly OT I guess, but there is no known safe level, there is a need for a standard to which organisations need to comply, to ensure the required controls are exercised, but I'd be reluctant to say that this is a "safe level".
The longer the duration of exposure and the higher the concentration of fibres inhaled will increase the risk of asbestosis etc. but the disease could potentially be caused by a single fibre.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Jake that is the whole point - we have standards - in this situation persons currently unkown are advising that there is such a high level risk at an exposure below this that the building needs to be closed and demolished and so far as I know "we" dont know on what evidence they formed this conclusion
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Jake
Bruce is absolutely right - there are standards and it seems that there is a body at work here attempting to subvert the standards and work to their own agenda. Your raising of the one fibre statement is concerning. There has been NO reported case where a sufferer can be PROVED to have inhaled only a single fibre. Asbestos has been widely present in the atmosphere for a number of generations so in fact ALL people are likely to have inhaled some fibres over their lifetime. Like all cancers the likelihood of development is stochastic and depends on a wide range of factors. There are in fact some people who have received high exposures to crocidolite fibres over their lifetime without any ill effects.
This farago of truth and half truth to me seems political and not based on health risks.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi All,
1/ Have new asbestos standards for schools been set?(i.e. below the clearance level?)
2/ What caused this NEW 'dangerous' level, was it?:
a/ A fugitive release? (recent boiler works) or
b/ Always been there? So health checks are needed for occupants (staff / pupils) since at least the 1980s !!!
or 3/ An overreaction to get the school closed & start a process of retrospective SEM on all schools containing ACMs?
Glad,I am retired.
Regards,Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Paul
1) No
2) no one is telling
3) who knows - the welsh assemebly voted to spend £1.5 mill on the decant to another shcool so it will be interesting to see what is behind it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
boblewis wrote:Let us not forget that the legal limit for air clearance still equates to 10 fibres in a litre of air!
Bob, that statement is incorrect and misleading. A wee read of page 13 of the analyst guide is required for insight into the analytical methodology behind these figures. You cannot 'factor-up' in that manner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Its being reported on BBC Wales TV and radio tonight that :-
"The survey into Cwmcarn revealed it poses potential serious risk to health and
should be demolished,as recommended by a previous inspection."
The report I listened to on the way home claimed that "levels were over 10 times accepted levels."
The report carried out by Santia will be considered at a meeting of Full Council on Tuesday 20th November and has also been posted on the councils website today.
http://www.caerphilly.go...7ln2cj/ACC8CoDhZV9nRoA==
I have only had a quick look at it. The report mentions that the highest level of fibres measured was 0.07fibres/cm3 and that the control limit is 0.1fibres/cm3. So not sure why media are reporting the "over 10 times level".
I'm sure that others will be far more qualified than me to comment on the report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The "10 times" figures relate to the measurements referenced within:
http://www.caerphilly.go...inal_Report_30.11.12.pdf
(one of numerous attachments at the ling you provided. This quotes the target figure of 0.0005f/ml in the "Asbestos in Schools" document. Quite how you reliably measure such low concentrations is beyond me - hence my well-intended comment above (which I have a sneaking suspicion I also posted somewhere else on the wrong thread - oops!).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ron,
The document indicates that you can multiply up, so even a layman's maths might see target figure of 0.0005f/ml equates to 0.5f/litre or 5 fibres in 10 litres, or 500 fibres in a cubic metre.
That doesn't look such a low concentration now, eh?
JohnW
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
No argument there John. My point being that these very low 'target' figures are (as far as I'm aware)beyond any reliable means of analytical measurement, and we should therefore be wary of the context we apply to factoring them. This is often a very emotive issue where we have to be realistic in our dealings with those concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
JFW
Thanks for posting that. It is a very interesting read.
Kind regards
Bruce
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
For me at least, it seems the HSE have brought a sense of proportionality to the issue!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks All,
What a turn around; when the obvious is obvious, the scare story was disgraceful.
If Cwmcarn is one of the 1400 CLASP / system built schools (1945- 1980) then what was true for Cwmcarn is true for the others.
A HSE guidance note to dutyholders in 2007 noted that these schools should at least be visualy inspected, priority to Mark 4 and 4b ??
Quote: 'excess or waste ACMs may have been left hidden inside columns or panels and ceiling voids. Consequently asbestos may be found in some unexpected locations'
The levels at Cwmcarn HS seem low , when you consider movement in a school. Forget drawing pins, what about closing & opening doors / windows causing disturbance & potential fibre release?
I do not feel that the HSE (Wales) have CLASPed the significance as they failed to attend the meeting at the welsh Assembley last night.
It was of course well attended by Barristers & politicians.
An opportunity for science lost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
pdurkin (#31) The HSL Report (available via the bbc link above) includes results from the school library with all the windows open in windy conditions. It would seem the analytical regime as applied by HSL involved "gold standard" methodology. Much is made of the previous commercial report using lesser standard (although HSG248 compliant) analysis which counts ALL fibres and doesn't discriminate asbestos from talc, chalk etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.