Thieves get more than they bargained for with 20 tonnes of deadly asbestos.

A trailer carrying 20 tonnes of asbestos has been stolen from a Willshee’s Waste Management, in Glensyl Way, Burton. Now an alert has gone out urging anyone who spots it to call in expert disposal teams.

A spokesman for Burton police said: “We are advising people that if they do see a large quantity of material dumped anywhere not to go near it, but to contact the Environment Agency as a matter of urgency.”
The raid happened when thieves drove up to the firm’s depot in a white Scania lorry tractor and hooked up the distinctive green trailer laden with its toxic cargo.

Dean Willshee, director of Willshee’s skip hire, said: “It was loaded with asbestos from numerous sites, ready to be disposed of. “It’s not just a few sheets – it’s a colossal amount. If drilled the dust from it can be dangerous. I think they nicked it not knowing what was in the back of the trailer. I think they are going to have a bit of a shock when they come to dispose of it.”

Mr Willshee said the thieves were captured on CCTV trying to steal the trailer and had spent about 30 minutes carrying out the raid.

Read more here.

Video footage charts progress of works to pave way for London’s Crossrail project.

We were there the night the final curtain came down at London’s famous Astoria music venue and now, 18 months later, we can bring you a high-speed, time-lapse video showing the demolition of the Astoria and the neighbouring 157-167 Charing Cross Road.

The video below, which comes courtesy of London Underground, was shot by the Centre Point cam.

The demolition work both here and at the Goslett Yard site, undertaken by McGee Group, is now complete. Now that the ground has been cleared, construction of a temporary EDF substation is underway on the Astoria site.

Read more here.

Presence of stray cats delays demolition works.

Neighbours of an abandoned Florida condo building said the Wednesday demolition was postponed due to cats living inside the facility.

Danielle Crocker, who led the effort to delay the demolition of the South Beach building, said she and other volunteers contacted the building’s owner, TD Bank, and contractor ASC Inc., but they did not make any headway until Miami-Dade County got involved in the situation, WPLG-TV, Miami, reported Wednesday.

“The property is supposed to contact us if there are living animals inside. They never did,” said officer Levare Baker of Miami-Dade Animal Services.

Read the full story here.

Mounting refurbishment costs force developer to consider explosive options.

Implosion is on the table for what’s left of the Evansville Executive Inn. The city is talking with a couple of different demolition companies about bringing down the building if that’s the way the new hotel project heads.

Browning Investments was supposed to refurbish the remaining half of the old Executive Inn and turn it into a new hotel. But the company found fixing it up was too expensive and is giving the hotel back to the city.
Browning is recommending the old building be demolished and a new hotel altogether built.

Arena project manager John Kish said the city is looking at multiple options for bringing the Exec down.
“Just as when we demolished the first half of the Exec there is an idea of using a collapsing method – implosion – as well as traditional swinging the ball and knocking it over,” he said. The first half came down this winter using that traditional method. The major difference between now and then – the skeleton of the arena is now largely in place.

“When they took down the original tower, they had a 100-foot safety radius around it,” Kish said. “It was ten stories tall. This is eight stories tall, and the arena is about 90 feet away. So, we do think there’s any extraordinary risk involved.”

Read more and watch a video report here.

US contractor Champions our cause.

For more than a quarter of a century I have been engaged as a business-to-business journalist on a variety of national and international construction and demolition magazines. And there were times in that 25 year period when I got the very distinct impression that I was talking to myself. Each month, we would send out our printed magazines to tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of people who each greeted the publication over which I had sweated blood and tears with a simple “meh!”.

Which is just one of the many reasons that we chose to put DemolitionNews.com onto the Internet. No publication is complete without an engagement and interaction with its readership, and we have been delighted with the level (and quality) of the comments we have received both here and on our Forum sister site.

But occasionally, just occasionally, we receive notice of an even greater engagement with our audience; and it is these occasions that make this job worth getting out of bed for.

Monitoring our site traffic, as we do with an almost religious fervour, we noticed a spike in traffic emanating from the blog of Terrence O’Rourke at US contractor Champion Environmental Services, Inc. Now Terry is a good friend to us here at DemolitionNews.com and has provided us with some very useful insights over the past few years. But we were intrigued why we were suddenly receiving so many hits directly from his site. So we checked it out, and this is a taster of what we found:

“…Mark Anthony of “Demolition News” has become an invaluable resource concerning an exhaustive number of issues related to the demolition and environmental industry. His insights span the European landscape then pierce across the Atlantic with empirical precession.

While I have yet to meet Mark Anthony in person, our evolving friendship echoes an epistolary tradition visa via the advantages of technology, namely, the Internet….”

For the sake of modesty, you can read the rest of what the ever-eloquent Terry has to say by clicking here.

But, in closing, many thanks for your kind words Terry; and to everyone else, please keep those comments – both negative and positive – coming.

Are unforeseen extras just that, or are they a reaction to the economic climate.

It’s strange how the demolition industry is subject to its own fashions and trends. A few trendsetters buy themselves a high reach excavator, and before you know it, they’re the industry’s must-have accessory.

The fashion trend for the past year or more has been one of low bid prices. With demolition contractors across the US and Europe struggling to keep men and machines gainfully employed, bid prices have got lower and lower to the point that, in many areas, they now need to look up to see a snake’s belly. Indeed, during the past 18 months or so, we have typed the term “low bid” so many times that our PCs have now taken to filling in the blanks as soon as we type the letters L and O in quick succession.

But, like all fashions, low bids’ place in the spotlight has been relatively fleeting. And while large swathes of the industry are still wearing last season’s cut-price colours, there are those among us who appear determined to set a new trend – Demolition Extras.

For the uninitiated, this is not some kind of designer accessory; nor is it an offshoot of the Ricky Gervais comedy TV series.

These demolition extras are those unforeseen yet oddly predictable bills that land on a client’s desk during or just after a demolition project. The reasons for these extras are numerous – almost too numerous to mention – but can range from the obvious undisclosed asbestos to the slightly more esoteric contaminated corn. But, whatever the reason, these extras seem to surprise everyone except the demolition contractor issuing the invoice.

So, in an age when clients are expected (and, in some areas, legally obliged) to disclose precisely what the unsuspecting demolition contractor is letting himself in for, are these a legitimate additional cost? Do they highlight the ignorance of clients and their project managers? Or are they a sign of something a little more sinister? Are demolition contractors attempting to offset the demand for low bids by bidding cheap to win the work and then ramping up the extras to achieve something approaching a profit?

Certainly, demolition contractors are constantly required to make changes to their plans; clients are often ignorant of the techniques and processes that will be employed which can cause confusion further down the construction chain; and asbestos (and bats, shrews, lizards and a multitude of other protected species) does have a nasty habit of hiding itself away only to leap out when it’s least expected. But when these extras can raise the cost of demolition from an agreed $7.366 million to $15.3 million, something’s not quite right.

Have Your Say: We’d love to get your take on the subject of unforeseen extras so please hop over to our Forum area and let us have your thoughts.

Contaminated corn just one of a number of issues

Demolishing the former Sinclair meatpacking plant now is expected to cost $15.3 million, a sum that the Federal Emergency Management Agency is slated to pay in its entirety.

This week, the City Council is amending the demolition contract between the city and local demolition contractor D.W. Zinser Co. of Walford, increasing the existing contract of $7.366 million to the $15.3-million figure. The initial part of contract was for the initial phase of the demolition.

FEMA agreed to pay for the demolition after it concluded that the city-owned plant, parts of which the city had been leasing out to small businesses at the time of the June 2008 flood, posed an “imminent threat” to public health and safety because of flood damage and two post-flood fires.

In recent days, Greg Eyerly, the city’s flood-recovery director, noted that moldy corn that had been stored at the former packinghouse was going to add a bit to the demolition expense, an addition on Monday that he estimated would be $150,000.

Read more here.

Founder invites donations to help create industry-specific job board

As many of you are aware, DemolitionNews.com (together with the National Federation of Demolition Contractors) was one of the originators and co-founders of the demolition-jobs.co.uk website. Developed to help demolition professionals through the recession, that website was designed to allow unemployed demolition workers to advertise their availability for work. The site was and remains free to use for both demolition workers and the prospective employers using the site.

However, with the UK demolition industry emerging from the gloom of recession, there is a new need. As workloads pick up and as non-industry recruitment companies begin once again to leech off our industry, we are increasingly being asked if we can also advertise demolition jobs on the site.

Now of course we are only too happy to help. The original website was designed primarily to give something back to an industry from which we all earn our living. But that site development is going to come at a not inconsiderable cost which leaves us with a problem and which, also, hopefully is where the subscribers to and readers of DemolitionNews.com come in.

To cut a long story short, the cost of this upgrade will be just short of £1,000. DemolitionNews.com is pledging £500 but we need to raise £500 to put that job board in place. And we are actively seeking donations to help us towards that figure.

If you’re happy for us to do so, we will gladly announce your contributions here on DemolitionNews.com. If, however, you are a little publicity shy, then we will happily offer your company a free, anonymous and permanent advertisement here on DemolitionNews.com by way of a thank you.

We realise that times are hard and that very few of us have a monkey (that’s £500 to those of you unfortunate enough to not come from London) to throw about the place. But every little helps. We don’t care if you can donate five pounds or the full £500. Either way, we want to hear from you.

So please, if you’re willing and able to help, please just drop us a line via email (manthony@markanthonypublicity.co.uk) saying how much you’re like to donate and we’ll do the rest.

Thanks in advance for your help.

City officials forced to explain $63,800 bill for having contractor on standby.

AIM Environmental Group has found itself in the midst of a row over additional costs associated with a contract at Colborne Street. Delays and extra work at the site led to an additional $220,500 in costs for the city.

This week, a special meeting of city council was informed that contractor AIM Environmental Group had done $157,700 worth of necessary extra work. AIM also presented the city with a bill for almost $63,800 to cover the cost of being on call and waiting for the start-work order.

Engineering general manager Sandra Lawson was asked to explain the bills. “The $157,000 is for the asbestos abatement,” she said, adding that these costs and others were “not anticipated but it’s extras that were legitimate.”

The other bill, she said, had to do with the need to keep a supervisor on site, plus a trailer and power, so AIM could be ready to begin the teardown as soon as word came down from the city.

Coun. Dan McCreary, an opponent of the demolition in the months leading up to the final vote, asked Lawson to be specific about who ordered AIM to remain at the ready.

“Who gave the direction to AIM to remain on the site and be prepared… at a moment’s notice?” he wanted to know.

Lawson replied indirectly, saying that AIM was working by the terms of a tendered contract from March 3 to July 31. “It was the city that asked them not to commence with the demolition.”

McCreary pressed for more specifics. “Which individual from the City of Brantford directed them to remain on site?” he asked. “Most of us believed the contract had been held in abeyance.”

Lawson replied that the AIM team remained on site in part because the asbestos removal was needed. “They were able to do that,” she said. “They just weren’t able to do the demolition.”

McCreary then took issue with what he saw as a high expense for simply waiting to go to work. A member of the city’s legal team replied that the factor of $6,380 a week was made known to the city during the tendering process.

McCreary then asked Lawson again who gave the order to remain on site. “That would be me,” she replied.

Read more here.

Safety expert rails against derision towards health & safety sector.

With all the potential careers available in our modern, fast-paced and constantly changing world, what possesses someone to eschew careers as astronauts, brain surgeons or underwear application engineer to Angelina Jolie to become a health and safety inspector? Is it, as they would have us believe, a desire to make the world a safer place or is it, at it often seems, merely a cover for preventing others having fun.

Now don’t get us wrong, we have enormous respect for health and safety inspectors and the part they have played in reducing the number of incidents and accidents in the demolition industry. But their insistence that tree-climbing, bicycle-riding, skateboarding and a multitude of other activities we all enjoyed without harm during our formative years should now be considered “hazardous” has escalated their like to the very top of most people’s “person I would least like to be stuck in an elevator with” lists.

Case in point? Meet Karen Baxter, managing director of Sypol, the leading global provider of workplace and eco risk management services. Baxter apparently “has more than 15 years’ experience of occupational hygiene, is a Chartered Member of the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and has been advising customers with regard to management of occupational health and well-being for nearly 20 years.” Sounds like an absolute life-and-soul-of-the-party hoot, doesn’t she?

Well, Ms Baxter has hit out at those who pour scorn on her industry and like to refer to it as ‘Elf and Safety’, despite the fact that 180 people a year die in workplace accidents and more than 246,000 are injured.

In an article published this month, Baxter says people who make jokes about safety at work wouldn’t take the same attitude towards an air accident. “If a plane crashed and killed 180 people, we wouldn’t be having a good laugh and call it ‘Sky Pixie Syndrome’,” she says. “Health and Safety has become the acceptable butt of everyone’s humour, partly because the media loves silly stories and partly because we’ve allowed ourselves to drown in acronyms and paperwork instead of addressing the real issues. As a result, small businesses in particular have been discouraged from adopting sensible practices.”

There is no question that she makes a valid point and that everyone needs to be more safety conscious. But we can’t help wondering if it’s the weight of paperwork and the use of acronyms that prevent small businesses taking safety issues seriously, or the holier-than-thou, do-gooder attitude of Ms Baxter and her ilk.