Paul, forgive me…
This latest posting illustrates that even though Australia, with its heightened sensitivity to all things asbestos, passed an outright ban on the importation and use of asbestos containing materials in 2003, its continued importation and use after that period cannot perhaps be ruled out.
As this prohibition date is often used as a primary (yes/no) assumptive in the decision to conduct further surveys and risk assessment, this latest discovery will certainly have an OHS relevance – and I draw your attention to the potential for secondary and tertiary exposures (including in this particular case), the WA State Govt commitment to make further enquiries of other similar projects.
As these buildings come to the end of their lives, the demolition wastes arising from such sites might, based on this primary assumption, then enter the waste stream and/or be reused as fill material, without further checks, this could represent a bonafide contamination issue. The Australian contaminated sites guidance (NEPM) makes specific reference to the prohibition date as a factor to consider when determining the requirement for further asbestos in soils investigations, for managing asbestos at fire scenes and in public health guidance for trades and DIYers. Like the Australian’s, one starts to wonder now, how many other post-ban buildings, assumed to be asbestos free, are actually out there?
For interest, Yuanda is a global company supplying construction products across the world from their manufacturing facilities in China. They have a subsidiary in Europe and their web pages illustrate their latest projects, including in UK.
I hope that helps to explain the relevance of my latest posting.
Best wishes, David
|