Yes, that can certainly be the case in this situation, I just can't find a concrete paragraph stating that private individuals are allowed to handle asbestos that I can refer to. I only find the Swedish Work Environment Authority (Arbetsmiljöverket), which was linked earlier in the thread, which the municipality strangely enough also refers to on its website regarding asbestos...
Maybe it's enough to refer to that!
THE SWEDISH WORK ENVIRONMENT AUTHORITY has nothing to do with private individuals fixing their houses.
I had a KA who thought I should have a work environment plan according to the Swedish Work Environment Authority's regulations for my self-managed construction.
I checked the Swedish Work Environment Authority's website and also called them, they have no regulations for individuals working on their own houses.
But if you're standing outside and not pressing your nose into the breach, a crowbar works just fine.
Staffans
Yes, the asbestos cement panels themselves are not a directly dust-producing material. Neither demolition nor handling poses a significant risk.
I encountered the same thing when I was building 10 years ago. On the plot, there was a dilapidated cabin with a foundation clad with asbestos cement panels. The municipality noted this when they were there to inspect, and I was informed that a company should be hired for asbestos removal. When I protested, I was told that it required a lot of administration in control plans and documentation, and special deposition, etc. I think I wrote three lines that basically stated that I would remove the asbestos before the rest of the cabin, the right protective equipment would be used, the asbestos would be packed in double plastic bags, and disposed of for free at the municipal recycling center. The documentation consisted of a photo of me dumping the bags in the correct container. Heavy and difficult administration, bloody nonsense.
I believe they are not necessarily wrong legally. The municipality is set to monitor you so that you don't do anything foolish. They have a lot of freedom in this governmental supervision.
Your job is to submit a proposal for a control plan, but it is the municipality that decides whether to give you a start permit based on this control plan. The control plan for demolition measures should, according to Boverket, specify:
[image]
If it is the municipality's opinion that specially certified personnel are required to handle the eternit, they can deny you a start permit if this is not included in the control plan.
Read here:
[link]
And here:
[link]
So, you should remove the asbestos panels and replace them with some cheap construction board that will last until demolition. Then, you apply for a demolition permit. In most municipalities, private individuals can dispose of asbestos material in separate containers without any questions or paperwork.
What! Why? What could happen without this receipt?
Staffans
It's easy to show that you haven't buried the tiles. Or as suggested in the thread, take photos when you dispose of them. Easier to have proof than not to have it.
It's easy to show that you haven't buried the tiles. Or as suggested in the thread, take a photo when you throw them. Easier to have proof than not to have it
But why should you prove something that doesn't need to be proven?
So you should remove the asbestos boards and replace them with some cheap building board that will last until it is demolished. Then you apply for a demolition permit. In most municipalities, private individuals can leave asbestos material in separate containers without any questions or paperwork.
It is a legal way forward if you encounter an obstinate building permit department.
But TS fortunately managed to turn a firm "To remove asbestos boards you must hire a certified company to do this" into no requirement at all with a simple call.
It was probably just an uninformed building inspector having a bad day at work and missed the processing agent's rule 1A: check the legal framework and the municipality's policy before you write anything to the applicant. Asbestos probably seemed dangerous to this individual.
But the legal framework is vague. TS submits a proposal for a control plan no later than the technical consultation, and then the municipality only has two choices: to give or not give a start notice. If they give a start notice, they determine the control plan. If a certain municipality has been affected by widespread asbestos phobia, they can probably enforce requirements for handling the material by certified persons, or at least experts.
Regarding the ambiguous legal framework, the actual legal text in PBL does not mention the handling of demolition waste. Instead, it focuses on controls, identification of demolition waste, and the possibility for sorting and recycling:
It seems that the legislator did not want to regulate by whom and how the demolition work is carried out but only that it is done according to a plan and under supervision.
Despite this, Boverket writes on its website (completely without reference to law, preparatory work, or court decision) that information should be provided about the handling of hazardous waste:
It thus seems that there is a tradition of requesting information on handling from municipalities despite the lack of legal provision. It would be interesting to test this in court.
Speaking of the vague legal framework, the actual text of the PBL does not mention the handling of demolition waste. Instead, it focuses on controls, the identification of demolition waste, and the possibility of sorting and recycling:
[image]
It seems that the legislator did not want to regulate by whom and how the demolition work is carried out, but only that it is done according to a plan and under supervision.
Despite this, Boverket writes on its website (without any reference to law, preparatory work, or court ruling) that information should be provided on the handling of hazardous waste:
[image]
[link]
It thus seems that there is a tradition for municipalities to request information on handling despite the absence of legal grounds. It would be interesting to test in court.
The law is only meant to ensure that demolition waste is managed, then to which municipality you transport the demolition material does not matter. Here is an example of how demolition material is transported from Umeå to Östersund (360 km one way). If I understand correctly, it is Umeå municipality itself that owned the old notorious orphanage that was demolished, subcontracting the demolition via an entrepreneur. https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/vasterbotten/rivningsvirke-kors-fran-umea-till-ostersund
It wasn't an argument, it was a question. That question remains unanswered.
Staffans
one could see it this way.... the municipality requires (right or wrong) that it be documented. Instead of spending time calling some uptight asshole at the city building office who for the past 10 years has had the tie tied so tightly that it has resulted in oxygen deprivation to the brain and permanent brain damage, you instead take a selfie with your phone when you deposit the stuff.
and if you want to have the last word (and you do...) you communicate internationally with the middle finger in the selfie.
one can look at it like this.... the municipality requires (right or wrong) that it should be documented. Instead of spending time calling some uptight jerk at the city planning office who for the last 10 years has had his tie so tightly knotted that it has resulted in oxygen deprivation in the brain and permanent brain damage, you instead take a selfie with your phone when you deposit the stuff.
and if you want to have the last word (and you do, of course...) then you communicate internationally with your middle finger in the selfie.
But the question is, what could the municipality do without a deposit receipt? If the slabs are gone, they're gone. Can you be punished for something that doesn't exist?
But the question is, what could the municipality do without disposal certificates? If the tiles are gone, they are gone. Can one be penalized for something that does not exist?
Staffan
The municipality then has two measures available for supervision:
If they notice that the control plan is not being followed, they can prohibit further demolition (PBL 11 chap 30, 31 §§). They can also enforce actions via injunctions (PBL 11 chap 19, 37 §§).
But the question is, what could the municipality do without a deposition receipt? If the tiles are gone, they are gone. Can you be punished for something that doesn't exist?
Staffan
Probably not, but the talent reserve has a knack for getting their forearm quite far up one's backside anyway. They could, for example, fuss about a completion certificate simply because that document is missing. You must not forget that they are a bunch of paper-pushers whose only fetish is to make taxpayers stand in the "shame square", hop on one leg and whistle. It's easier to play along.
Vi vill skicka notiser för ämnen du bevakar och händelser som berör dig.
Staffans2000 said:
Claes Sörmland said:
