Posted By Tony Birchall Although the HSE have an approved method for the "removal" of white asbestos sheets, I am totally amazed by this. The method involves totally wetting the floor area of a given structure and the asbestos sheets are knocked into the floor area then wetted again. Air monitoring takes place to ensure everything goes to plan. My worry is that if you are undertaking air monitoring around the area, it is extremely likely that control limits had already been exceeded before you can cease the work. The liberation of airborne fibres can be emense. When you consider that an average demolition contractor can destoy a warehouse roof in 40 minutes, it almost seems pointless doing any air monitoring at all. Also, depending upon the weather conditions on the day, it is likely that contaminated fibres can carry a distance, well beyond your sample points. Quite clearly, I don't trust this method!

Posted By Tony Birchall Some cement sheeting may contain Crocidolite too. Take one sample off the roof and just find white asbestos, but take another elsewhere and you may find blue. Trouble is, it is down to the knowledge of the surveyor. I really doubt the integrity of some Type 3 surveys Rob. Surveyors are heavily relied upon by their client.

Posted By Tony Birchall Ian, practical point about the falls from height scenario but it's the air sampling regime that needs to be increased. I arrived on site last week and the principal contractor asked me to put out one pump for 30 minutes! The warehouse was about 3,500 square feet in size. Needless to say, although not in a supervisory role I ignored this instruction.

Posted By Tony Birchall Out of site out of mind? When you see what some organisations are quoting for Type 3 pre demolition surveys, it's no wonder people jump at these.

Posted By Tony Birchall Steve, my main area of concern is the duty of care owed to local residents. The weather conditions on the day I refer to actually may have suppressed any airborne fibres nearby, but it was evident that with the wind speed the dust was carried a considerable distance. We have video evidence which shows the dust being carried into the air, well out of contact of all the pumps. Therefore, although there was no countable fibres on our slides, I would suspect that there would be some form of cotaminated fibre liberation at a distance from the demolition works.

Posted By Tony Birchall Bob Thanks for that, I'd like to get hold of a video that shows this technique to see the pro's and con's of this method. I'll e-mail later. Many thanks once again.

Posted By Andy Lightbody Slightly off the main thread, it is concerning the comments on performance of Consultants where type 3 surveys have been requested. Especially as these will become more prevalent in light of CAWR 2002. If they are acting as the so called 'expert', then they should be following a prescibed standard for surveying such as MDHS100. This will set out the terms of reference agreeing before survey on the areas to be covered, access, provisions where opening up and difficult access are required, number of samples to be taken and the collection of information to form the method statement for the survey and risks associated. The building owner, contract employer and consultant should liaise with each other at the outset before tendering to ensure that all are clear and agree on the extent of the survey. A Type 3 is usually for tendering purposes for removal of ACMs and therefore will record damaged areas, but not assess the asbestos condition unless specifically requested. So in future all I can suggest is that you be sure that you know what you want from the survey and convey this formally to the consultant

Posted By Tony Birchall Just to pick on the point of Andy Lightbody. It would not be wise to suggest that if you run a consultancy business, or work for one at least, that you act as an "expert". You may have a little knowledge in certain areas but you are by no means expert in your chosen interest.

Posted By Robert K Lewis Peter That is why a man-riding skip arrangment is used - to transport men and waste to the ground. The real point for me is the total lack of control over the potential outcomes when using a long reach pusher. If the ground is contaminated how is it going to be cleaned. Also how is this to be squared with a committment to the local community and other stakeholders. There are always the risks there but falling through fragile material is not one. I can provide acceptable control it seems to me, given the proper supervision expected in this work, the risks with a manrider. Bob