Old boiler with potential asbestos cement

[robster]

I will update those that don t get bored of this post. I do appreciate the comments and feedback received. When a landlord proceeds with removing this type of installation after having been requested by his tenant to check it out first with a simple test and then proceed accordingly, then he has to act in a responsible manner. It's not necessarily for him or his plumber to decide or 'choose' to assume the relative risk though not to say that in some circumstances a plumber may be qualified to handle it. Especially when the plumber suggests that it's 400% not asbestos and goes ahead without due precautions. If the landlord wants to mess around in his own his house, good for him. My landlord made an assumption, I hired a qualified lab to make an empirical determination. I believe there's a difference and that many professionals would agree.

[robster]

My family has been in real estate for 25 years. I have been to numerous home inspections. I can only imagine that many of those home buyers would not be impressed if they encountered a similar situation. Homeowners, and tenants such as myself, are not experts in this field and naturally would want to know that the situation will be handled appropriately. When I asked the guy how he planned to remove the material, he said no problem I will just remove it. And it will be messy, because when we removed the other pipe from the chimney there was alot of black crap in the chimney. Is that the asnwer you would want to hear if it was your home and your basement was filled with storage and a home office? If it turns out that any dick or harry or joe the plumber can do the job, great, I will be the first to let you know and I will tell my landlord that he may proceed but very carefully.

[Chad Fabry]

I will update those that don t get bored of this post. I do appreciate the comments and feedback received. When a landlord proceeds with removing this type of installation after having been requested by his tenant to check it out first with a simple test and then proceed accordingly, then he has to act in a responsible manner. It's not necessarily for him or his plumber to decide or 'choose' to assume the relative risk though not to say that in some circumstances a plumber may be qualified to handle it. Especially when the plumber suggests that it's 400% not asbestos and goes ahead without due precautions. If the landlord wants to mess around in his own his house, good for him. My landlord made an assumption, I hired a qualified lab to make an empirical determination. I believe there's a difference and that many professionals would agree.

Where I live if a landlord abated an occupied property, he'd be heavily fined or do jail time. I normally don't get all excited about asbestos but I sure would if my landlord starting removing it from a property where I lived.

[Jim Katen]

My family has been in real estate for 25 years. I have been to numerous home inspections. I can only imagine that many of those home buyers would not be impressed if they encountered a similar situation. Homeowners, and tenants such as myself, are not experts in this field and naturally would want to know that the situation will be handled appropriately. When I asked the guy how he planned to remove the material, he said no problem I will just remove it. And it will be messy, because when we removed the other pipe from the chimney there was alot of black crap in the chimney. Is that the asnwer you would want to hear if it was your home and your basement was filled with storage and a home office? If it turns out that any dick or harry or joe the plumber can do the job, great, I will be the first to let you know and I will tell my landlord that he may proceed but very carefully.

I'd tell him that I want the asbestos dealt with properly, according to whatever laws apply in Montreal. If I didn't know what laws applied, I'd call whatever government body is responsible for asbestos abatement and I'd ask them.

- Jim Katen, Oregon

[robster]

Update: the basement is to be professionally cleaned and after that the work to be completed by a professional abatement company followed by a 4 hour air test and supervised by an environmental specialist. However, so far there is no order to test the current environment before proceeding. The reasoning here seems to be that as there was not a large volume of material, and it has not been determined 100% that there was contamination to begin with and or the exact nature of the material that was involved in the removal of the first furnace, that if there had been any release then it would likely have settled after a day or two. Thus the cleaning should remove it if there is any.

So either we follow this reasoning, or ask for a surface test to make this determination before proceeding to make certain that there was no release.

[SonOfSwamp]

I have paid to have numerous tests done. In fact I bought two 13,000 sq buildings one loaded with asbestos hard board. The only way to release it, is to cut it. Just wet it and remove it. If you want to be absolutely certain. That aside the product we are looking at in the pic is so small it is fine for the homeowner to remove. The rules, I'm familiar with them. Heres one.

ASBESTOS-CEMENT PRODUCTS

Asbestos-cement products (such as transite) are commonly used for duct insulation, pipes, and siding. Being a Category II nonfriable ACM, asbestos-cement products need to be removed prior to demolition if they have a high probability of becoming crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder during demolition activities. EPA believes that most demolition activities will subject such Category II nonfriable ACM to the regulation.

Whether asbestos-cement products are subject to the asbestos NESHAP should be determined by the owner or operator on a case-by-case basis based on the demolition techniques to be used. In general, if contractors carefully remove asbestos-cement materials using tools that do not cause significant damage, the materials are not considered RACM and can be disposed of with other construction debris.

However, if demolition is accomplished through the use of cranes (equipped with wrecking balls, clamshells or buckets), hydraulic excavators, or implosion/explosion techniques, asbestos-cement products will be crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder, and are subject to the provisions of the asbestos NESHAP.

Some demolition contractors do not treat significantly damaged asbestos-cement products as RACM; they mix it with other demolition debris and dispose of it in direct violation of the waste-disposal provisions of the asbestos NESHAP

Just curious: Who wrote the above?

WJ

[Kyle Kubs]

Somebody from my neck of the woods. Literally right down the road, according to his profile. From the sound of it he's an HVAC contractor & it would probably take me no more than three guesses to figure out which of the top three worst outfits in the area he works for.

Here in NJ ignorance is rampant, especially where anything concerning health or environment is concerned. Sometimes it's so thick you can walk on it.

[SonOfSwamp]

Somebody from my neck of the woods. Literally right down the road, according to his profile. From the sound of it he's an HVAC contractor & it would probably take me no more than three guesses to figure out which of the top three worst outfits in the area he works for.

Here in NJ ignorance is rampant, especially where anything concerning health or environment is concerned. Sometimes it's so thick you can walk on it.

Thanks for the info. I've picked up a vibe that things are a little, uh, different in your neck of the woods.

There is a common thread with HIs in my neck of the woods: for the most part, the HIs just can't write --or say -- anything that makes sense. It's possible to find knowledgeable HVAC guys here, but it's not easy...

This profession would improve tomorrow if we could get the states to license only HIs who have a fresh GED, not a 30- 40-year-old HS diploma.

WJ