Condensation in Buildings - Part 2 – How to reduce the risk!

There are a few very simple, but nevertheless very effective ways we can reduce the risk of condensation, just by simply being aware of some of the activities we would normally undertake without even thinking

Source: thevideo.biz

In order to understand how to reduce the risk of condensation it is important to first understand how it occurs. If you have not already done so I would recommend reading last week’s article (Link), ‘How condensation occurs’, before going any further. You will then understand that the ‘ingredients’ necessary for condensation to occur are moisture vapour and cold surfaces, which are exacerbated by poor heating and poor ventilation.  The cold surfaces could be present due to thermally inefficient walls and surfaces, particularly in older buildings.  In fact there are a whole host of reasons why the internal surface temperature of the internal fabric of a building may be cold (walls, windows, ceilings etc.,) including poor maintenance of external walls, rising damp, penetrating damp due to leaking rainwater guttering or downpipes, leaking roofs, single glazed windows, poor weather sealing around openings and cold bridges, which are areas of the building fabric which are less thermally efficient than the surrounding construction.

To reduce the risk of condensation occurring there are two things we should consider. Firstly, dealing with the cause of the condensation and secondly, looking at the way we use a building and trying to find ways of reducing the amount of moisture vapour we emit.

In order to rectify the problem, we first need to establish the cause. This is where you may need the advice of a Building Surveyor, who will be able to undertake a thorough inspection and establish which factors or combination of factors are contributing to the condensation. This is important because if you do not deal with ALL of the contributing factors, you may slow down the amount of condensation occurring, however you will not actually solve the problem. For example you may decide to improve the heating system, but if you do not deal with the thermally inefficient walls, then all of that increased heat will just disappear through the walls, and will have a limited effect. So depending on what is established as the cause, it may be necessary to increase the internal surface temperature of the walls by either insulating internally (dry lining) or externally (insulated render system), replacing windows, improving ventilation (possible a mechanical extractor fan) and upgrading the heating system. As you would imagine, this could become very expensive, which highlights why you may need the advice of a professional to ensure that the correct remedial measures are undertaken. All buildings are different and the way we use buildings will also be different, therefore we cannot assume that the cause of condensation and the remedial works required will be the same in every situation.

After dealing with the building we must also consider ways in which we can reduce the amount of moisture vapour we emit in buildings.   There are a few very simple, but nevertheless very effective ways we can achieve this, just by simply being aware of some of the activities we would normally undertake without even thinking.

Source: www.prokil.co.uk

Bathing, washing and cooking are activities that we cannot avoid however all produce large amounts of moisture vapour. We must undertake these activities on a day to day basis, however when showering/bathing, try to not leave the shower or bath taps running more than you need, switch them off as soon as you can.  If you have extractor fans, ensure that they are working, adequately sized and switched on when needed. Although it may be cold outside, when you are leaving the bathroom, open the window to let fresh air in, which will soon clear the moisture vapour and prevent it condensing on the walls and windows.

If you are using a tumble dryer ensure that it is vented to the outside.  I have undertaken a number of previous inspections where I have seen the flexible tumble dryer vents extracting into a room, rather than outside.  This was due to in both cases to lack of thought of the location of the tumble dryer and a general lack of understanding on the part of the occupiers. Also, when drying clothes try to avoid placing them on top of radiators.  This is usually done for convenience, however again produces large amounts of moisture vapour.  Whenever possible washing should be dried outside, or if weather conditions do not permit this then consider using an appropriately vented tumble dryer, or maybe a trip to the launderette.

When cooking use an extractor hood if you have one above your cooker and keep lids on saucepans as much as you can.  Avoid using bottled gas and paraffin heaters these produce large amounts of moisture vapour. 

Finally, but very importantly, try to ensure you have a regular flow of fresh air around your house/buildings.  This effectively dries out any moisture vapour and prevents it reaching concentration levels where condensation may become an issue.  Granted, nobody wants to release all of that lovely heat from a building in the depths of winter, however, opening windows for a short period of time may result in the internal environment becoming temporarily cooler, but it will also significantly help to reduce the risk of condensation.

Hopefully, now that you know how condensation occurs you can start to thing about ways in which you can help to reduce the risk.  In future articles I will discuss other forms of damp in buildings such as rising damp and penetrating damp.

Please feel free to share this article and other articles on this site with friends, family and colleagues who you think would be interested

Information/opinions posted on this site are the personal views of the author and should not be relied upon by any person or any third party without first seeking further professional advice. Also, please scroll down and read the copyright notice at the end of the blog.

CDM Regulations 2015 – Changes that will not please everyone!

….the proposed removal of the CDM Coordinator and replacement with that of a Principal Designer will result in plenty of debate.  Currently the CDM Coordinator is an independent role under the CDM Regulations, which will be lost, as a Principal Designer will undoubtedly have other additional roles/duties within a project. 

http://www.schlecht.com/safety

Consultation on proposed changes to the Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2007 (CDM) were completed on 6^th June 2014 by the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) with the aim of introducing Construction (Design & Management Regulations 2015 in April next year.  In its consultation document the HSE set out a number of policy objectives which explain why an update to the current CDM 2007 is required:

     ·  Maintain or improve worker protection;
·  Simplify the regulatory package;
·  Improve health and safety standards on small    construction sites;
·  Implement the Temporary or Mobile Construction  Sites Directive (TMCSD) in a proportionate way (this  is a European Directive);
·  Discourage bureaucracy; and
·  Meet better regulation principles. 

HSE also cite external research into CDM 2007 within its consultation document which concluded:

    ·  CDM 2007 was viewed more positively by dutyholders than the 1994 version; its broad structure was fit for purpose;
·  Problems generally arose through mis- and over-interpretation of the Regulations; significant concerns remained, however, in several areas:
·  The Regulations had not borne down on bureaucracy as hoped;
·  The Regulations had led to an industry approach to competence which was heavy-handed and in many cases burdensome, particularly on SMEs;
·  The co-ordination function in the pre-construction phase was not in many cases well-embedded. 

Source: http://www.constructionsafe.co.uk/

Interestingly a number of the research findings above were also reasons why it was felt that the original 1994 CDM Regulations needed to be updated and it appears that the 2007 CDM Regulations have not addressed these issues.  For example, ever since the introduction of CDM 1994 and I can remember this vividly, there have always been issues around bureaucracy. Initially, this was partially down to lack of understanding of the workings of the regulations and latterly it could be argued that this is a result of complacency.  I can remember numerous occasions whilst acting as Planning Supervisor (Now CDM Coordinator, although this title will no longer exist under the new proposals), where documentation such as Designer’s Risk Assessments, Pre-Tender Health & Safety Plans and even Construction Phase Health & Safety Plans had became so generic that often information was copy/pasted with the wrong project title, works information, site address etc. This situation became ridiculous and large volumes of paper were being produced because that is what some thought the Regulations required.  CDM 2007 does not appear to have solved this problem, as this remains an objective for CDM 2015.

CDM 2007 also introduced the need to ensure that duty holders were competent in their role.  This put additional responsibilities particularly on Clients to ensure that those they appointed in the various roles had the skills and competence to carry out their duties.  Competence checking is not a role exclusive to the Client under CDM 2007, however HSE cite this as a particularly bureaucratic process and propose the following within their consultation document:

We plan to retain a general requirement under the revision of CDM (new regulation 8) for those appointing others to carry out construction work to ensure that they have received appropriate information, instruction, training and supervision to allow them to work safely. This aligns with the general requirements under Sections 2 and 3 of HSWA.

HSE believes that the competence of construction industry professionals should be overseen by, and be the responsibility of, the relevant professional bodies and institutions 

It will be very interesting so see how this will work in practice, particularly when there are Health & Safety incidents which require investigations by HSE, and especially how those appointing duty holders can demonstrate that ‘duty holders have received appropriate information, instruction, training and supervision to allow them to work safely’

In summary, the proposed changes to the current 2007 CDM Regulations are:

     ·  Significant structural simplification of the Regulations;
·  The replacement of the ACoP with targeted guidance;
·  Replacement of the CDM-c role with a new role, that of the ‘principal designer’;
·  Removal of explicit competence requirements and replacing with a specific requirement for appropriate skills;
·  Addressing areas of TMCSD relating to domestic clients; and
·  The threshold for appointment of Coordinators. 

I am sure that the removal of the CDM Coordinator and replacement with that of a Principal Designer will result in plenty of debate.  Currently the CDM Coordinator is an independent role under the CDM Regulations, which will be lost, as a Principal Designer will undoubtedly have other additional roles/duties within a project.  A Client will effective lose an independent advisor who can provide them with a fresh perspective of Health & Safety issues and responsibilities under the Regulations, outside of other individuals within the project team.

Also, HSE estimate savings of £30 million each year as a result of efficiencies gained under the proposed new CDM Regulations.  Although, there ‘could’ be savings made due to reduced bureaucracy, as previously discussed (although this is questionable) it is difficult to see how the removal of the CDM Coordinator will produce any savings.  The title may be changing to a Principal Designer however the role and responsibilities remain.  All that will happen is that the fee currently charged by CDM Coordinators will now be charged by Principal Designers. 

What about those companies and organizations who provide CDM Coordinator services, some of which are exclusive to the role?  Surely they must be extremely concerned by this proposed change.  The role of a Principal Designer has very wide connotations and will prevent many CDM Coordinators from simply re-labeling themselves.  Whereas CDM Coordinators may have expertise in health & safety related matters, in order to be a Principal Designer they would need a much wider skill set due to the implied skills of being a 'Designer'.  No doubt some will be able to make this transition, however there will undoubtedly be others who fall by the wayside.

Another implication of the proposed replacement of the CDM Coordinator will be the requirement to update numerous pieces of documentation as well as re-drafting of Construction Contracts.  This will also have a cost implication and will reduce cost savings at least in the short to medium term.

The new proposal for CDM 2015 also propose changes to the notification threshold for a construction project as well as introducing duties for domestic Clients for the first time, however ‘create the default position whereby duties that would fall on a domestic client instead fall to the contractor’. This in itself generates a number of concerns however the HSE state that they expect the new regulations to be discharged in a sensible and proportionate manner.  It will also be very interesting to see how this works out in practice.

You can find more information about the proposed changes to CDM Regulations from the HSE by following this link (Link).

Please feel free to share this article and other articles on this site with friends, family and colleagues who you think would be interested

Information/opinions posted on this site are the personal views of the author and should not be relied upon by any person or any third party without first seeking further professional advice. Also, please scroll down and read the copyright notice at the end of the blog.

More Shocking Health & Safety Poor Practice Pictures! – Part 2

Despite the introduction of a raft of construction related health & safety legislation over the last 30 years, there still remains an unacceptable amount of fatalities, serious injuries and avoidable accidents and injuries within the UK construction industry

Source: http://www.worldofstock.com/

Just before Christmas I published an article which proved incredibly popular (Link) that highlighted the huge risk some are prepared to take when undertaking construction/maintenance works, with little to no consideration of their own health & safety. The article identified that the UK construction industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the World and although statistics show that improvements have been made in recent years, it is clear from the latest Health & Safety Statistics (HSE) statistics that there remains room for significant improvements:

‘There have been significant reductions in the number and rate of injury over the last 20 years or more. Nevertheless, construction remains a high risk industry. Although it accounts for only about 5% of the employees in Britain it accounts for 27% of fatal injuries to employees and 10% of reported major injuries.

Despite the introduction of a raft of construction related health & safety legislation, there still remains an unacceptable amount of fatalities, serious injuries and avoidable accidents and injuries within the UK construction industry. The previous article made reference to the ‘human factor’ which seems to be a inbuilt self destruct mechanism whereby we as human beings think we can expose ourselves to whatever risk we want because we are invincible! Sadly, this is not the case as statistics prove otherwise.

Below I offer some further images, which are widely available on-line, and provide some shocking examples of how little some people value their lives and how they are prepared to accept high levels of risk, by cutting corners.  The images are taken from all over the World, not just the UK.  Just like the first article, when you look at the images below I am sure you will ask yourself, ‘what was going on in that person’s head at the time’, a question that these people obviously failed to ask themselves:

http://professormungleton.blogspot.co.uk/

Source:http://www.outsource-safety.co.uk

Source http://www.building.co.uk/

Source: http://www.hireup.co.nz/

Source: http://www.hireup.co.nz/

Source: http://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/

Please feel free to share this article and other articles on this site with friends, family and colleagues who you think would be interested

Information/opinions posted on this site are the personal views of the author and should not be relied upon by any person or any third party without first seeking further professional advice. Also, please scroll down and read the copyright notice at the end of the blog.

Health & Safety Poor Practice – Shocking Pictures! – Part 1

When regulation is introduced or updated there is an expectation that everyone will follow it because it becomes mandatory to follow.  Human nature however seems to take a different view in that no matter how much regulation is introduced or how much (or little) training is given, there will always be those who decide to ignore it and prefer to cut corners and take risks with their lives

Source: http://www.personallicence.com/

Health & Safety in all of it’s different forms is something that everyone should be aware of, particularly for those who work within the construction industry who’s poor safety record has been well publicised for many years.  The UK construction industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the World and although statistics show that improvements have been made in recent years, it is clear from the latest Health & Safety Statistics (HSE) statistics below that there remains room for significant improvements:

‘There have been significant reductions in the number and rate of injury over the last 20 years or more. Nevertheless, construction remains a high risk industry. Although it accounts for only about 5% of the employees in Britain it accounts for 27% of fatal injuries to employees and 10% of reported major injuries.

The latest results in construction show:

- 39 fatal injuries to workers. 12 of these fatalities were to the self-employed. This compares with an average of 53 over the previous five years – including an average of 18 to the self-employed (RIDDOR);

- about 3 700 occupational cancer cases are estimated to arise each year as a result of past exposures in the construction sector (CAN04);

- there were an estimated 74 thousand total cases and 31 thousand new cases of work-related ill health (LFS, 2012);

- an estimated 1.4 million working days were lost in 2011/12, 818 thousand due to ill health and 584 thousand due to workplace injury, making a total of 0.7 days lost per worker (LFS, 2012).’

These statistics are even more worrying when we appreciate that the UK construction industry over the last few years, has suffered with low output due to the global economic downturn, therefore resulting in a significant reduction in personnel within the industry.  It would be fair to expect a natural reduction in fatalities and accidents due to less people working within the industry, rather than being able to relate this to the impact of regulation. Regulation is important, in fact essential, however its effectiveness will relate to the manner in which it is understood, implemented and enforced. 

When regulation is introduced or updated there is an expectation that everyone will follow it because it becomes mandatory to follow.  Human nature however seems to take a different view in that no matter how much regulation is introduced or how much (or little) training is given, there will always be those who decide to ignore it and prefer to cut corners and take risks with their lives.  Legislation assumes that people will understand and follow it however, what is not accounted for is the 'human factor'.  I have worked on many construction sites as a Labourer, a Bricklayer and visited sites as a Consultant.  During my early years on site I witnessed some serious health & safety breaches, where operatives for some unknown reason would pay little regard to their own wellbeing or to the wellbeing of others, and would often take short cuts just to 'get the job done'. The attitude to health & safety of most of the operative on site at the time was that health & safety was a hindrance that got in the way of them doing their jobs.  Although, I have seen a marked improvement is health & safety procedures on construction sites over recent years there still remains an 'ignorance' to health & safety by many, particularly the more experienced operatives who have been on site for many years. Take a look at the extraordinary clip below, which provides an example of how little value we can often place on our safety:

The images below, which are widely available on-line and you may have seen then before, however they provide some quite shocking examples of how little some people value their lives and how they are prepared to accept high levels of risk, by cutting corners.  The images are taken from all over the World, not just the UK.  When you look at the images I am sure you will ask yourself, ‘what was going on in that person’s head at the time’, a question that these people obviously failed to ask themselves. Part 2 will be published in the New Year with more examples similar to those below:

Source: http://tradesman4u.wordpress.com/

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/

Source: http://shelf3d.com/

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/

Please feel free to share this article and other articles on this site with friends, family and colleagues who you think would be interested

Information/opinions posted on this site are the personal views of the author and should not be relied upon by any person or any third party without first seeking further professional advice. Also, please scroll down and read the copyright notice at the end of the blog.