 |
 |
…and if anyone is unsure of the horrors that can go on and the potential pitfalls with respect to strains on the public purse for putting things right, these two articles regarding a recent case in NI might be of interest… http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-22540132 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-25983354 Kind regards, Steve Forster BSc, MSc, MIEnvSc, FGS, CEnv Director IEG Technologies UK Limited Chair – Joint Industry Working Group on Asbestos and C&D Materials (M) +44 (0)7855 957140 (E) <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] (W) <http://www.iegtechnologies.co.uk> www.iegtechnologies.co.uk From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Money, Lee Sent: 08 October 2014 10:24 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Asbestos Unfortunately I can confirm the issues around acm’s and demolition are still very much a problem. I currently have two sites, one a development by a major retailer and the other a large housing development, where I know the demolished buildings contained acms and planning conditions were impose accordingly. Despite informing my planning colleagues of my concerns that these conditions have been breached I still have not seen any documentation from the developers regarding these issues. Meanwhile the development proceeds and seems unlikely that any planning enforcement action will be taken….. lee Lee Money, Area Environmental Health Officer Only Weds,Thurs,Fri Web: <http://www.horsham.gov.uk> www.horsham.gov.uk <http://www.facebook.com/Horsham.District.Council> FaceBook <https://mobile.twitter.com/HorshamDC> Twitter <http://www.youtube.com/horshamdc> Youtube <http://www.linkedin.com/company/horsham-district-council?trk=hb_tab_compy_id_81907> Linkedin Email: <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] Tel / Mob: 01403 215410 | HDC Logo <http://satellite.horsham.gov.uk/images/email-sig/hdc-swoosh.gif> District News <http://satellite.horsham.gov.uk/images/email-sig/mental-health.gif> World Mental Health Day takes place this Friday 10 October. For more information and support please visit: <http://www.horshamdistrictwellbeing.org.uk> www.horshamdistrictwellbeing.org.uk. From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of CLIVE WILLIAMS Sent: 07 October 2014 16:03 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Asbestos Its almost always necessary to go back for more GI after demolition just to look under the floor slabs that used to be in the way. Clive Williams ----Original message---- From : [log in to unmask] Date : 07/10/2014 - 15:37 (GMTDT) To : [log in to unmask] Subject : Re: Asbestos From recent discussions, without being alarmist, it seems there may be some benefit in securing phase 2 site investigation after demolition has taken place. Dust control during the demolition phase is a different but overlapping work area for us. There may be alternative views? Ruth Ruth Willcox Environmental Protection Officer Public Protection Services Plymouth City Council Civic Centre Plymouth PL1 2AA T +441752304154 E <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] www.plymouth.gov.uk <http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/> From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ivens, Rob Sent: 07 October 2014 11:00 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Asbestos Hya chaps. Just to be clear I am not in any way having a dig at Asbestos removal contractors… my thought processes are entirely related to the process. All of us are constrained by what the client admits to and what he appoints people to do… And I know there are arguments about the level of ACM that is acceptable in the crush of a demolished building Cheers. Rob Ivens Scientific Officer 01306 879232 _____ From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Keiron Finney Sent: 04 October 2014 17:26 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Asbestos Steve It would appear from what you say there is a whole range of horrors still lurking. My one big issue is the misconception that a clearance test for re-occupation means all the asbestos is gone. What you describe is total utter negligence, criminal in fact. I think we are agreeing about lack of design, supervision and management, but there are differences in scale in what you have described..frightening! Regards Keiron Finney MSc, PGCHE, MCIWM, MRSC, CChem, CSci, CEnv, Chartered Waste Manager, Grad IOSH Director Exea Associates Limited Mobile: 07939625002 Home: 01902 742639 E-mail 1 : <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] Email 2 : <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] Web: <http://www.exeaassociateslimited.co.uk> www.exeaassociateslimited.co.uk From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steve Forster Sent: 04 October 2014 17:00 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Asbestos Keiron, We share much in the way of professional experience, historically, with regards to asbestos removal management. Analysts from a certain era share the same forebodings about bad asbestos removal practices in the past. It is clear in my mind, however, that even now, buildings are being dropped without ACMs properly and safely being removed, and I'm not talking about hidden residues that were inaccessible during a strip. Indeed, I know of one site recently where a boiler house was demolished, lagging intact. It all went into the crush. Bad practices have not gone away! Experienced surveyors can find most of the asbestos during a thorough pre-demo survey, if they are allowed to spend an appropriate amount of time looking for it, but that process must be both comprehensive and iterative, as unless you take a building down piecemeal you will not find everything. PM is paramount in the process. What concerns me is the lack of design, supervision and management that can occur if the right team has not been assembled to address the issue in the round. You come along to a site years after it has been levelled and you have no understanding of what was there, what was removed and how, and what controls were in place to reduce the likelihood of ACMs getting into the crush. Low and behold, asbestos is found, the client is shocked and big claims ensue. Filing of relevant documentation to the LPA would, in some part, help the process. This would require an integrated approach at the planning stage, by means of the imposition of certain conditions, to ensure that CAR 2012 is complied with in order to reduce the potential for the land to avoid being determinable under part 2a and/or ensuring that it is suitable for use. Time that a line is drawn in the sand...! Kind regards Steve Forster B.Sc., M.Sc., CEnv, FGS, MInstEnvSci Director IEG Technologies UK Ltd 07855 957140 Sent from my iPad On 4 Oct 2014, at 13:08, Keiron Finney <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Rob’s comment “I don’t doubt that the removal contractors do a good job in 95-98% of cases” is an interesting one in as much as the independent inspection and air testing carried out should always mean the removal area is acceptable for re-occupation. The big issue is always going to be the residues that the analyst cannot see or disturb. When I was contract supervisor and occupational hygienist 20 years ago, standards were a bit variable! To the point where I have seen analysts threatened, fibre generation being limited by flooding of ducts, pipework being covered in oil at air test, asbestos being stripped and then the walls being covered in polythene after removal to get air tests to pass….all of that sort of shenanigans ! The point is that quality of removal is probably related to when it was done. I have even seen asbestos waste pushed down boiler house drainage systems to save on disposal costs. I would hope that none of that nonsense happens today, but just be minded that removal standards have changed over the years and that demolition might uncover some the results of unscrupulous practice. Even good practice has the potential to have residual fibre. Management systems are imperative and very close scrutiny of demolition materials and a recognition of how and where to segregate potential ACM in demolition materials. Crushing everything and moving it around a site will almost certainly lead to asbestos contamination throughout a greater proportion of material and the potential for residue on the site for development…and unsatisfactory material going off-site to contaminate elsewhere. Keiron From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ivens, Rob Sent: 03 October 2014 18:04 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Asbestos Not much of a response to what I also think is a really overlooked issue! My experience with asbestos on larger development sites has been pretty grim and it has sucked up large quantities of time. Simultaneously we have had to deal with PD of old buildings. I think there is massive complacency and fear- and to be quite frank the whole thing is a bit of a mess.. because soil consultants understandably are not keen to adopt the risk of a process they are not in control of. So to answer the question no I don’t think its duplication- as the HSE hardly ever could give a damn in the context of a large demolition site… it seems unfair and it mat well be unreasonable but some colleagues of mine had real fun and games trying to chase down a crusher that had crushed a load of ACM. I really think prevention is beeter than cure. I think the industry largely doesn’t want to know and the whole thing reminds me of the difficulty of managing gas membranes. I don’t doubt that the removal contractors do a good job in 95-98% of cases … but what gets messy is all the flapping when some fibres turn up… and we flap with good reason but wouldn’t it be great to have an integrated approach eg… · The source was here- the mass/volume was this much, · It went here- · We took care in this zone here as there was a risk of contamination · What a surpise we found a bit of fibre… · BUT we are confidant the rest of the site is not impacted and here are some results to prove it… So yes I think its an interesting issue and yes I think it absolutely deserves a different condition and a different process- and this is partly based on speccing our own investigations and realising no you cant do it all in one go!!! cheres Rob Ivens So much to read so little time. 01306 879232 _____ From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Willcox, Ruth Sent: 03 October 2014 10:45 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Asbestos Dear all Since the introduction of combined planning applications for demolition and construction (no separate app for demolition) prior to CIRIA asbestos guidance release we started looking toward securing sufficient information to reassure ourselves that ACM identification and removal had taken place prior to building demolition. Initially this approach was informal but then we started using planning condition to secure this. The general reasoning behind this was that as the information was probably already available, it was not too onerous an imposition and would offer reassurance on the contaminated land and dust control front. Are any other local authorities taking a similar approach? If yes is this supported by respective planning departments. Is this approach reasonable? Is it justified? Bearing in mind the limitations of the HSC remit, is it duplicating any existing planning control? Your views appreciated. Kind regards Ruth Ruth Willcox Environmental Protection Officer Public Protection Services Plymouth City Council Civic Centre Plymouth PL1 2AA T +441752304154 E <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] www.plymouth.gov.uk <http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/> _____ IMPORTANT: This e-mail (including any attachments to it) is strictly confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged, confidential or sensitive information. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy or distribute it to any other person or take any action in reliance. If you have received it in error, please notify your system manager and the sender as soon as possible and then delete it from your system. <https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote> Your Vote Matters Have you tried www.molevalley.gov.uk <http://www.molevalley.gov.uk/> ? Our easy to use, accessible website allows you to access our services at any time. You can look at planning applications, pay bills online or find out more about where you live using the Mole Valley and Me feature. Please note that calls to the Council may be recorded and monitored for training purposes. The computer system may also be monitored and recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes. This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, the E-mail and any files have been transmitted to you in error and any copying, distribution or other use of the information contained in them is strictly prohibited. <https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote> Your Vote Matters Have you tried www.molevalley.gov.uk <http://www.molevalley.gov.uk/> ? Our easy to use, accessible website allows you to access our services at any time. You can look at planning applications, pay bills online or find out more about where you live using the Mole Valley and Me feature. Please note that calls to the Council may be recorded and monitored for training purposes. The computer system may also be monitored and recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes. This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, the E-mail and any files have been transmitted to you in error and any copying, distribution or other use of the information contained in them is strictly prohibited. _____ IMPORTANT: This e-mail (including any attachments to it) is strictly confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged, confidential or sensitive information. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy or distribute it to any other person or take any action in reliance. If you have received it in error, please notify your system manager and the sender as soon as possible and then delete it from your system. IMPORTANT NOTICE This e-mail might contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete the e-mail immediately; you may not use or pass it to anyone else. Whilst every care has been taken to check this outgoing e-mail for viruses, it is your responsibility to carry out checks upon receipt. Horsham District Council does not accept liability for any damage caused. E-mail transmission cannot guarantee to be secure or error free. This e-mail does not create any legal relations, contractual or otherwise. Any views or opinions expressed are personal to the author and do not necessarily represent those of Horsham District Council. This Council does not accept liability for any unauthorised/unlawful statement made by an employee. Information in this e mail may be subject to public disclosure in accordance with the law. Horsham District Council cannot guarantee that it will not provide this e mail to a third party. The Council reserves the right to monitor e-mails in accordance with the law. If this e-mail message or any attachments are incomplete or unreadable, please telephone 01403 215100 or e-mail [log in to unmask] Any reference to "e-mail" in this disclaimer includes any attachments.