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 : 28 January 2003 08:31:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

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!
Admin  
#2 Posted : 28 January 2003 09:17:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis It is also why people like me are so concerned that we have sight of the type 3 survey when demolition has been undertaken particularly by others. We have to work in the resultant pile!!!! Bob
Admin  
#3 Posted : 28 January 2003 09:29:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

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.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 28 January 2003 09:38:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By ian mcnally Most of us in Construction safety frequently come across this issue and are only too aware of the dangers of falling through the stuff but I have to say that I’m with you guys on this. I suspect that whilst HS(G) 189/2 suggests this is an acceptable method, it does seem to ignore the massive airborne contamination issue, no doubt somebody will be able to explain the cost outweighing the benefits but it still seems a little strange. As for the fibre count game, most of those I have spoken to who carry out this will confirm that its all a bit of a lottery under O.5f/ml. I would appreciate if someone could confirm where the levels are derived from as I once heard an acceptable mortality rate was agreed and it was worked back from there, does anybody know if this is true?
Admin  
#5 Posted : 28 January 2003 09:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

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.
Admin  
#6 Posted : 28 January 2003 10:37:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis I'm with you on type 3s - We recently requested a type 3 from a recognised consultancy and got a report which had so many provisos etc that it was effectively a type 2. I've heard comments that it is "not our job to take things apart - we advise that it might be there" Not much good when you are trying to formulate a strategy for safe construction also. Clients are really going to have to face this one as I personally believe "It is information that can be reasonably obtained" under CDM. But it doesn't help if consultants see it in a "Not my job" light. Bob
Admin  
#7 Posted : 28 January 2003 10:44:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

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.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 28 January 2003 16:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Steve Tony, I fully agree with what you are saying about remote demolition and the possible in-acurracy of any air monitoring. However I have just had to undertake such an exercise of remote demolition of a large asbestos containing cement sheet roof. The roof in question was in a poor state of repair, some 20 meters above ground level. Due to the the fact that the building structure was also in a'fragile' condition, the convential removal method was risk assessed, and was deemed to be to dangerous to allow persons on the roof or structure. A decision was made to use remote demolition methods following the wetting down procedure and segregation of the material for proper removal from site. In these situations I would not hesitate to use remote demolition again. Our local HSE inspector was informed of our method and was also approached for his opinion, he agreed it was the most practicable and safest way to takle the problem. Steve
Admin  
#9 Posted : 29 January 2003 09:29:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

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.
Admin  
#10 Posted : 30 January 2003 09:53:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis I still cannot see an argument for remote arms even when the structure is fragile. I know that at least one of the major demolition contractors uses Manriding techniques to hand strip and lower a/c sheeting to the ground. I know there is minor spillage but this can be readily cleaned up providing the floor/ground is cleaned or covered with impervious sheeting before removal starts. If you e-mail me personally I can provide a name. What price the HSE suggestion - probably a lot cheaper than the safer option.!!!!!!!!!!! ps I don't work for them!! Bob
Admin  
#11 Posted : 30 January 2003 10:06:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

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.
Admin  
#12 Posted : 31 January 2003 14:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dave Wilson OOPs may open my mouth here. Safer this way than falling through it, HSE probably recognise the risks invovled and deem this is the best practical way. From a busines point of view HSE have agreed so no problem there, from a moral point of view may affect locals etc. High Risk activity or Chance of inhaling fibres???
Admin  
#13 Posted : 31 January 2003 15:06:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

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
Admin  
#14 Posted : 03 February 2003 08:51:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis Type 3 being for all demolition and major refurbishment it is therefore an essential in a significant number of projects. Mind you I would be grateful if "major" could be defined. - Cutting a whole through a wall is not major in some ways - but it actually is essential to have a type 3 to properly assess the work and methods. My concern is that MDHS 100 has been operating for over a year but consultancies are still placing so many provisos that it is difficult to assess the value of the report. I am still trying to understand, by the way, why people think that falls through fragile material are a risk when using man-riding work equipment! Bob
Admin  
#15 Posted : 04 February 2003 08:49:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

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.
Admin  
#16 Posted : 05 February 2003 17:44:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By peter gotch In addition to the risks of falling from height, those chatting about this thread have (like HSE in 189) omitted to consider the manual handling risks, ie those associated with the single largest number of reportable accidents. Have you tried lowering the sheet down "carefully"! Peter
Admin  
#17 Posted : 06 February 2003 06:38:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

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
Admin  
#18 Posted : 06 February 2003 08:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Steve Robert, I would be grateful if you could furnish me with details on your 'skip/man ridding method for the safe lowering of cement sheet from a fragile structure. In the last instance that I used remote demolition the structure was in such a poor state of repair it had already started to collapse in on its self (not a nice place to have persons in around or above). Following the removal and demolition work the 'slab' was excavated out to a depht of up to 5 metres. Areas of the spoil were sampled for hazardous content and disposed of in a manner fitting the results. I am always interested in tackling problems from different angles and therefor would be very grateful for any information or fresh ideas. Regards Steve
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.