Asbestos Cement Transite Pipe left in ground 5

[GrandadB]

I have a situation where a sanitary asbestos cement 'transite' sewer laid adjacent to a river back in the early '70's has now been exposed in the banks and river bed by erosion and scour. A new sewer will be laid located outside the influence of the river however because of its location and the possible environmental disturbance of cutting or breaking and removing the transite pipe in the river, it is proposed to grout the existing pipe and leave it in place.

Does anyone know of any research showing the long term effects of moving water on transite pipe in a situation similar to this one.

 

[ishvaaag]

There were guidelines for removal of asbestos items. Following them there shouldn't be problems to removal as of now... worse would be that the left pipe is again disturbed by scour and ends doing damage who knows where. Just as a sample readily found in the web...

http://www.workershealth.com.au/facts001.html

http://www.google.es/search?hl=es&s...ta=&rlz=1W1MEDA_es&cts=1265301496767&aq=f&oq=

 

[cvg]

in general, the asbestos in transite pipe is "stabilized" and not a health threat. However, when cutting the pipe - fibers can be released to the air. Water is usually used to reduce airborne fibers. Given that the pipe is in the water, arguably no airborne fibers would be released. The problem I see is that any waterborne fibers will travel through the river and be deposited somewhere else where they could eventually become airborne. Not a high risk in my opinion, but others (including attorneys) might disagree. Many miles of transite have been abandoned either grouted or not. But most of those are protected by backfill and pavement, not exposed. I would either remove it or cover it so it is not exposed to reduce your potential liability.

 

[Ron]

agree with cvg...low risk, but a risk that others could inflate. If it is a small volume of pipe, you might get by with grouting and leaving alone as the erosion of CA pipe is a slow process...no worse than the gritty stormwater or sewage that once went through it, carrying it to wherever.

 

[bimr]

Transite is a non-friable asbestos consisting of any material with greater than 1% asbestos that when dry cannot be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure. Examples include: cementitious asbestos board, Transite siding, asbestos putties, asbestos sealants and adhesives.

All asbestos waste is generally disposed of in a permitted, lined, mixed municipal solid waste landfill or industrial landfill permitted to accept asbestos. Demolition debris landfills usually do not accept asbestos containing materials.

US DOT does not regulate non-friable asbestos as a hazardous material, so a hazardous material shipping paper is not required for asbestos contained in natural or artificial binding material.

You should remove the exposed material and dispose of it in a landfill. Plug both ends of the remaining buried sewer segments. If the sewer is installed within a levee, it may cause the levee to fail.

Be sure to review your solution with the authority having jusrisdiction.

 

[cvg]

As BIMR said, only certain landfills accept transite pipe. We have to ship ours across state lines. See attached best practices

 

[rconner]

You have received some good advice. I have recently noticed there is an interesting history of asbestos compiled at the site

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/asbestoshistory2004.html.

Per this site concern for health hazards of this material reportedly escalated rapidly/incidentally the same decade subject pipeline was installed. However, this site reports that some problems associated with the material (that had some degree of arguable utility for many applications) were apparently known by some LONG before that time.

This thread inquiry perhaps exemplifies/foretells an eventual increase in examination or impact of such issues as “end of life” of this and other materials, in this and other applications, and in many regards.

I also noticed incidentally that a document at

http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/publications/waste/pvc/pubs/pvc-final-report.pdf

references some apparent research with regard specifically to pipe in Europe that reportedly indicates 71% of e.g. of pvc pipe at its end-of-life is/will be? left “in-situ” (or “left in ground”?). This article says the remainder (“29%”) “will enter the post-consumer waste stream.” Another word used in this report is that amount, it would appear nearly a third, will be “available” (for the waste stream etc.) While this is positive spin, and recycling is at least now bandied about elsewhere, multiple references indicate that at the present time the only arguable/at least quasi-practical alternative appears to be landfilling, or maybe arguably even worse burning of this particular waste. They say in this paper it is now land filled in Australia.

With hundred of thousands of tons of material etc. now or eventually involved, it would appear the waste stream could arguably/eventually represent significant societal issues (if it does not now). I suspect that as development proceeds and population inevitably grows (barring some like Mayan-inferred cataclysm in more short order!), utility systems, some of which are pretty congested now, will become even moreso. It may no longer be possible, when they are no longer useful, for pipelines to be “left in ground”. All three-dimensional real estate and easements may become quite valuable, and the 71% figure (or whatever it is now/here) will likely shrink. A potentially quite large waste stream will become even larger.

Who knows, at some point such issues and considerations might even be valued in some initial/original design, specification, governmental, and/or pipeline procurement thinking.

 

[CPENG78]

GrandadB,
My post is a little late but maybe my input will help. I would say be aware of any and all agencies having jurisdiction over this situation. In the middle of last year I got involved in a project where an existing bank site was to be demolished to make way for a future restaurant. The plans on file with the city along with survey of existing cleanouts, showed that an exisitng sewer lateral served the existing bank along with two other businesses. No information was available as to the pipe material for this lateral. When the contractor when to dig the trench and attempt to connect, the pipe crumbled into pieces. Further inspection showed this was asbestos cement pipe (ACP). Further inspection (TV) showed the pipe was broken along the way, so who knows how long this pipe had been damaged.

Upon verification the pipe was composed of asbestos, the city was notified and interestingly enough, even though the city understood that something had to be done, nothing showed on municipal code or regulations with instructions on how to handle such a situation. In this case, the project was located in the San Francisco Bay Area and such a situation fell under Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) jurisdiction. This entity provided instructions and regulations on how to handle such a situation. If we had been able to remove the material intact it would be removed as a non-friable material. In our case, the collapse and crumbling of such a pipe made it a friable material and it became a California Hazardous Waste and it had to be removed accordingly. Removal of either labeled material has to be conducted by a licensed hazardous waste hauler and the landfills in the area had to be contacted to determine which site was the closest that accepted such material. By the way, there were not that many that accepted such waste.

If I remembered correctly, BAAQMD did have a stipulation that if the material was deemed non-friable you had the option to leave it and abandoned it in place. However, the extent of the asbestos pipe would have to be mapped and its mapped location added to the tittle report of the property. As you can imagine, not only would this task be expensive, but reporting the existence of such material on a property would greatly reduce the resale value of the property. These are issues that need to be explained to the client so that they make the best educated decision.

By the way, removal of ACP did not only include the pipe itself but also the width x height of the approximate existing trench the pipe laid in. Pretty good size volume along the entire length of the pipe. The removal included the entire service from the other two businesses been served up to the manhole in the busy street it was located. So that called for a traffic control plan.

Hope this helps.