EHJ May 2002, Pages 132-135 Each year, thousands of people die from asbestos-related illness in the UK alone - each one preventable. Bill Sanderson comments on the Health and Safety Executive's proposals to strengthen controls on asbestos in the workplace

With 4,000 people dying each year in the UK from asbestos-related diseases - a figure predicted to get much worse before it improves - there is an urgent need to stop a bad situation worsening. Every one of these deaths is preventable, therefore, most of us with an involvement with asbestos will be relieved that things are finally moving on the plans to introduce legislation on the management of asbestos in buildings.

Four years after the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) first decided there was a need to raise the profile of the importance of the management of asbestos in the workplace, an end to the consultation processes that necessarily precede such major changes is in sight.

DUTY TO MANAGE

The HSE consultation document CD1761 was initially required to clarify the definition of the duty holder in Regulation 4 of the draft Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations, since in many buildings there may be different parties responsible for maintenance of the building fabric.

CD176 was also needed to review the situation on domestic premises, since the response to the earlier consultation document CD1592, which closed consultation on 20 October 2000, indicated that tenanted domestic premises (particularly local authority housing) should be placed within the scope of the new Regulation 4. In the end, however, the legal problems could not be resolved and this will not be required. The HSE has reserved its position on this topic.

Consultation on CD176 closed on 19 February 2002, so the HSE can now progress with reviewing the responses and finalising the regulations to be placed before Parliament. After the statutory three-month introductory period it is likely to become law - perhaps as early as January next year.

Even though most local authorities (and EHOs in particular) are au fait with the bulk of the proposed legislation, the HSE expects to allow a further 18-month lead-in period for the implementation of the new Regulation 4 (duty to manage asbestos in the workplace). This is a generous allowance, especially since the end result was clear from the HSE's original intentions declared in April 1998. However, some organisations will still require all the time allowed in order to be able to comply with this regulation as they have done little, if any, preparation.

It remains to see how well the duty holders will implement Regulation 4. There is concern that many will feel that once a survey, condition risk assessment and a register are completed, no further action is required. The HSE will disabuse them of this opinion very quickly. It is intended that the new regulations will force the development of a management plan which keeps asbestos materials in safe condition and that materials are inspected under a periodic review. It is also intended that systems should be developed which provide information for those who need to know about the asbestos present (ie tenants, staff and visiting contractors).

If it is to be done properly, ensuring that asbestos is not accidentally or deliberately damaged with the risk of unnecessary exposure to asbestos for occupants, maintenance staff and others, this is far more demanding of time and resources.

CD176 includes a new draft Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) on the proposed new Regulation 4. The HSE is also about to issue further guidance on the management plan, including the prioritisation assessment removed from the first drafts of the technical guidance document MDHS1003. This should ensure that when inspection time comes, whether visits are made by HSE inspectors or EHOs everybody will be singing from the same hymn sheet.

ACCREDITATION REQUIREMENT

There are two other new areas where the HSE is also seeking strengthened controls. First, at the suggestion of the HSE's Committee on Fibre Measurement (CFM), CD176 has introduced a new requirement for laboratories undertaking asbestos identification to be accredited by an appropriate body (ie the United Kingdom Accreditation Scheme) to ISO 17025. The draft regulation places the responsibility on the user of the service, not necessarily on the laboratory - this is exactly the same as the current requirement for laboratories carrying out air sampling and fibre counting for asbestos.

While it would be preferable for the bulk sampling to be made subject to accreditation as well as the testing, it is the HSE's view that it would be unreasonable to require a removal contractor, for example, finding unexpected asbestos material to have to wait for an accredited laboratory to arrive to take a single sample.

Some laboratories feel unhappy at analysing samples delivered to them by unknown sources as there is a serious risk that the sample provided is not representative of the material at the site. Pipe insulation in particular, is notoriously heterogeneous (non-uniform) because of patches, repairs and extensions, or simply because of its original installation. Nevertheless, this is a normal commercial arrangement which will certainly continue, so UKAS-accredited laboratories always issue strict disclaimers regarding the sampling when a certificate of analysis is issued.

The HSE, however, has a clear commitment to accreditation for sampling and testing activities where possible and it is probable that this will eventually be extended to asbestos surveyors. The survey accreditation (to EN 45004) is now in place and some 30 organisations are already accredited, but this is a small number compared with what HSE expects to need in order to complete the survey requirements of the draft regulation.

It is still perhaps too new to allow it to be included definitively in the regulations. The proposed individual surveyor certification schemes are much further behind in development and will not be ready until later this year.

CLEARANCE TESTING UNDER SCRUTINY

Second, and very much more radical, the HSE is looking at the role and function of laboratories carrying out clearance testing after asbestos removal. Current practice dictates that a laboratory will be called in by the asbestos removal contractor to carry out independent clearance tests at the completion of the asbestos removal.

The HSE, however, has for some while been less than pleased with the standards of this clearance testing by the laboratories. A few years ago, the Bristol region of the HSE surveyed some enclosures in its area that had been cleared and the enclosures removed. Almost 50 per cent were not satisfactory - visible debris was still present.

To confirm this, the Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) at Sheffield last year carried out a survey of around 16 projects, observing laboratories undertaking clearance inspection and air tests. Worryingly, even though the laboratories were aware of the attentions of the executive, they continued to operate at unsatisfactory levels. While the HSL felt that only two out of 16 projects should have passed, the laboratories failed only one enclosure - an unacceptable situation.

As a result, the ACoP L28 (Work with asbestos insulation, asbestos coatings and asbestos insulating board) will make some radical changes on the clearance process. These changes will be the biggest advance since the introduction of disturbed air tests in the early 1980s and are likely to send shockwaves through the industry.

At present, the contractor usually will employ the laboratory to do the clearance inspection and air test at the end of the contract. This naturally puts the laboratory in the wrong commercial situation since it is beholden to the contractor and not to the client whose interests they should be protecting. L28 will, therefore, make a much stronger requirement for the laboratory to be responsible directly to the client and not to the contractor.

FOUR STAGE PROCESS

More importantly, the clearance procedure will now be a four-stage process:

• Stage 1 - a site inspection to ensure the enclosure is sound, the negative pressure unit running, the decontamination unit connected to services and in good order, no asbestos debris outside the enclosure or on the routes from the airlock to the skip. This is a new requirement although some laboratories do this as a routine already.
• Stage 2 - a visual inspection inside the enclosure as before, but the HSL wants to see better means of inspecting for the presence of surface dust and debris, including some form of "wipe tests" or the use of a torch held at low angle to detect dust.
• Stage 3 - a clearance air test as before, but with more efficient dust-raising techniques. Brushing surfaces with disposable brushes will be recommended. Flapping plastic bags, waving clipboards and PVA spraying of the enclosure surfaces will not be permitted.
• Stage 4 - a new requirement for a post-enclosure removal inspection for debris that may have become trapped within the folds of the enclosure or underneath the floor sheeting. The enclosure area cannot be handed back to the client until this inspection has taken place and a certificate for reoccupation presented. This must be done by a competent person who is independent of the contractor.

All of this will have some significant repercussions. There will clearly be much greater responsibility on the clearance analyst. This should enhance their professional status and will probably result in demands for better salaries to reflect their responsibilities. The HSE is already talking to UKAS about the implications of this on laboratory accreditation, and it is possible that this would require an extension to the inspection body accreditation already in place under EN 45004. This will have a significant financial impact which will have to be passed on to the clients.

The HSE may even look to proceed to a system where only a certified analyst can undertake clearances. The level of training and qualification will undoubtedly be raised significantly.

The amount of time involvement by the analysts will increase substantially, to include the two new stages - site inspection (stage 1) and the post clearance site inspection (stage 4). The cost of a clearance test will therefore increase dramatically - a cost that will also inevitably be passed on to the client. However, beneficially, the job should be done right first time and public health will be protected much better than before. The dangers of asbestos have been known in the UK for more than 100 years (life insurance premiums in the very early 1900s were loaded for anybody working within an asbestos factory) and it is only recently that we have been giving the subject the attention it demands.

Bill Sanderson works in business development, asbestos and occupational hygiene in the training division of the Casella Group. Mr Sanderson is a leading provider of asbestos technical training courses and is a member of the HSE's Committee on Fibre Measurement (CFM) and two of its working groups. He has close contact with the HSE and its current thinking on asbestos.

References

1. CD176: Revised proposals for amendments to the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations and a new supporting Approved Code of Practice. Available on the web: www.hse.gov.uk/condocs/closed/cd176.htm
2. CD159: Proposals for amendments to the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987 and a new Approved Code of Practice, and a minor amendment to the Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1998. Available on the web: www.hse.gov.uk/condocs/closed/cd159.htm
3. MDHS100: Surveying, sampling and assessment of asbestos-containing materials. Available to order from the web: www.hsebooks.co.uk (ISBN 0 7176 2076X price £18).