Jump to content

robster

Members
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About robster

  • Rank
    Starting Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    Canada
  • Occupation
    Inventor
  1. 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 likel
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Maybe more than that. The lab described it as a fibrous material. Now that I've had another look, it's actually a more fibrous insulation material covered by a thin coat of a plaster like substance. So from the outside it just looks like cement, but that is just the covering. In some places where the coating is thin, if you press on it it will give. How much exactly is hard to tell, at the time they probably did a good job and stuffed it really well:)
  5. Update: The cement-like material where the flue (vent) joins to the cement chimney tested out at 75-90% chrysotile asbestos. In fact it is more of a fibrous-plaster type 'crumbly' mix just below the painted surface and it seems to be more on the friable side, imho ( ie: when you touch it it falls apart). I don't think that this should be touched unless proper precautions are taken. What exactly would those precautions be? When the adjacent furnace was removed last week it was a mess. The furnace itself was demolished and the large steel plates were dragged out the door. It appea
  6. as far as the furnace that you inspected the other day, the bright side, if one may say that, is that you don't have to wonder too much if it may contain asbestos!
  7. ok thanks. I am asking because the boiler is to be removed and replaced with a gas unit, and I want to find out if this poses any risk
  8. Does anyone recognize the cement patching on this old boiler. It must be at least 40 years old and I am wondering if it may contain asbestos cement? One picture shows patching around a hinge and where the motor meets the boiler. The other is where the flue meets up with the chimney. Click to View 50.86 KB Click to View 11.55 KB
×
×
  • Create New...