# Thinset after asbestos removal



## angus242 (Oct 20, 2007)

LMAO!

Tyler is my local rep out of the West Chicago plant. Guy really knows his stuff. After a horrid issue with Bostik, I no longer talk to any tech support folks. I have always had MUCH better luck with reps.

And look, he emailed tech support Wed or Thurs. I had the official answer within 5 mins. You can't beat that kind of service.


----------



## MIKE ANTONETTI (Jul 17, 2012)

Yeah, they don't do nights,weekends,holidays.

Nice to have a good contact, we all understand sales is part of their job, but they hear about failures long before(hopefully) us.


----------



## Metro M & L (Jun 3, 2009)

angus242 said:


> Maybe I'm too trusting but I can't imagine a company hired to do remediation of a cancer-causing agent would risk the liability of not removing that material completely.
> 
> I've seen remediation done with the insulation around HVAC and they had to pass air purity tests before they could leave the site.
> 
> After they're gone, I'd be more worried about the silica dust than asbestos.


Yes, the air is clean, but the floor will still have asbestos on/in it.


----------



## angus242 (Oct 20, 2007)

Metro M & L said:


> Yes, the air is clean, but the floor will still have asbestos on/in it.


That seems ridiculous to me. How call you call it remediation if it doesn't remove it?


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

angus242 said:


> That seems ridiculous to me. How call you call it remediation if it doesn't remove it?


If they actually removed it then it would be called removal not remediation.


----------



## angus242 (Oct 20, 2007)

So the _remedy_ for a caner-causing adhesive is to mostly remove it?:blink:


----------



## Tinstaafl (Jan 6, 2008)

angus242 said:


> That seems ridiculous to me. How call you call it remediation if it doesn't remove it?


For the same reason the FDA allows a certain percentage of rodent feces in hot dogs. It's "good enough".


----------



## MIKE ANTONETTI (Jul 17, 2012)

Well this is what happens when you delve deep. Who knows whether fibers are still in slab? If it is just staining the concrete and is rinsed multiple times, do they bring the light spectrometer in to test?

I know Ardex does not recommend their products to go over asbestos products(encapsulating)


----------



## angus242 (Oct 20, 2007)

Tinstaafl said:


> For the same reason the FDA allows a certain percentage of rodent feces in hot dogs. It's "good enough".


I get the point but rat feces and asbestos aren't in the same category.

If it were cutback adhesive removal that didn't contain asbestos, it makes sense.


----------



## angus242 (Oct 20, 2007)

MIKE ANTONETTI said:


> Well this is what happens when you delve deep. Who knows whether fibers are still in slab? If it is just staining the concrete and is rinsed multiple times, do they bring the light spectrometer in to test?
> 
> I know Ardex does not recommend their products to go over asbestos products(encapsulating)


Well it's becoming more and more obvious that in this scenario if the original material is adhered well, think about going right over it instead of going down to virgin concrete. 

Mapei doesn't recommend their tiling materials to encapsulate asbestos either.


----------



## Metro M & L (Jun 3, 2009)

http://www.mapei.com/public/US/products/UltraplanEasy_TDS_EA.pdf

It says don't apply it over asbestos, but the pic on the manual shows the guy pouring it over cutback. Found some other forums where they advocate using Mapei Ultraplaneasy. 

No easy answers really. I know I read a bag of mapei that said you could use it over cutback, no mention of asbestos tho.

My guess is mapei doesn't want the liability of telling people they can use it over asbestos, they grind it to prep, then hold mapei accountable for telling them they could use their product. Just a lot of liability for no extra money.


----------



## angus242 (Oct 20, 2007)

Ultraplan Easy can be used over ceramic tile, VCT,
cement terrazzo and *small amounts of old cutback
adhesive residue*. Surfaces must be properly prepared,
bonded, free of dirt and dust, and primed


----------



## Tinstaafl (Jan 6, 2008)

angus242 said:


> I get the point but rat feces and asbestos aren't in the same category.


Quite true; ingesting rat feces is probably more hazardous than walking on a trace of asbestos embedded in a concrete substrate. :whistling

Neither of which has anything to do with the viability of installing tile over such a surface.


----------



## angus242 (Oct 20, 2007)

Tinstaafl said:


> Quite true; ingesting rat feces is probably more hazardous than walking on a trace of asbestos embedded in a concrete substrate. :whistling
> 
> Neither of which has anything to do with the viability of installing tile over such a surface.


I'm confused. No one was worried about _walking_ on concrete. The issue was having to scarify the chemically cleaned concrete with possible traces of asbestos remaining within. 

And when did I stray from the topic? It seems to be the norm that manu's won't stand behind their bonding products if the chemically treated, remediated concrete isn't scarified.

:confused1:


----------



## Tinstaafl (Jan 6, 2008)

angus242 said:


> So the _remedy_ for a caner-causing adhesive is to mostly remove it?:blink:





angus242 said:


> I'm confused. No one was worried about _walking_ on concrete. The issue was having to scarify the chemically cleaned concrete with possible traces of asbestos remaining within.


Hey, you started it. :laughing:

I admit that's a tad off the intent of the thread. How about this: What's the practical difference between leaving a bit of goo on the slab and the use of a decoupling membrane? Seriously.


----------



## angus242 (Oct 20, 2007)

Tinstaafl said:


> What's the practical difference between leaving a bit of goo on the slab and the use of a decoupling membrane? Seriously.


The ability to bond to said material. A "decoupling membrane" is exactly what Schluter calls Ditra. If Ditra doesn't bond to the substrate, you are looking for a failure. 

I guess I still am not sure on what you're questioning. I am guessing the manufacturer's recommendation to not use over asbestos containing materials?

Perhaps that's the biggest questions because there are quite a few products that are allowed to go directly over minimal cutback adhesive. 

I admit, the more I read about this, the less convinced I am about chemically removing the cutback. If it can be shot blasted initially, then tiling doesn't seem to be an issue. 

I guess I'll go all gumshoe and find out why you can't encapsulate asbestos materials.


----------



## Tinstaafl (Jan 6, 2008)

Okay, I admit I was all out in left field with the asbestos bit. Just had to make use of the rodent feces trivia. :laughing:



angus242 said:


> The ability to bond to said material.


Thing is though, _any_ decoupling membrane, by definition, is going to be (in the final analysis) a bit jelly-like, allowing both horizontal and vertical movement. Granted that the latter should be significantly less than the former, it's still going to be there. No matter how fierce the bond between the membrane surfaces and the thinset.

So ultimately, wouldn't any decoupling at all, whether by membrane or goo, have the same result? Seems like it's really more a question of how soon the installation will fail, rather than _whether_ it will.


----------



## MIKE ANTONETTI (Jul 17, 2012)

I don't think any manufacturer says anything about the capability of vertical movement.

And the the "decoupling" if you will occurs in the waffle section of the mat.


----------



## charimon (Nov 24, 2008)

Inner10 said:


> If they actually removed it then it would be called removal not remediation.


It is actually called Abatement which is removal or encapsulation.


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

charimon said:


> It is actually called Abatement which is removal or encapsulation.


In a general sense it means reduction.


----------

