Written by Nick Garland on Thursday April 24th 2025
Leak testing is coming back on the Health and Safety Executive (HSE’s) agenda. That means if you’re a LARC, a consultant that manages projects, a client that commissions projects, or a principal contractor that controls sites with asbestos removal projects, it’s firmly back on your agenda too.
This is one of those tests that has always been a requirement. I recall running hundreds of leak tests in the early part of my career, but then we largely stopped. There was no regulatory change, no guidance to imply that we should stop; we just stopped. Well, mostly: they’re still done at some major sites such as nuclear, and in particularly well-managed NHS trusts, but elsewhere they’re vanishingly rare.
However, the rules are pretty clear.
Paragraph 316 of the approved code of practice (ACoP) states that, “where an enclosure is being used to comply with regulation 16 [the duty to prevent or reduce the spread of asbestos], employers should make sure that:
And then Paragraph 416 adds that, “air monitoring to reduce risks from spread of asbestos is required to:
There really is no wiggle room there. And it doesn’t just apply to internally vented NPUs; it means genuine leak tests adjacent to the enclosure.
Interestingly, paragraph 416 goes on to require that you “measure background fibre levels inside the enclosure when the asbestos work is complete, to ensure that it has been thoroughly cleaned and decontaminated before dismantling.”
This of course is the root of the four-stage clearance. The document goes on to talk about that type of test a lot more, but leak testing is given the same level of ‘mandatory-ness’ as the clearance air test – and yet, we just stopped doing it.
Why, you ask, is it coming back on the agenda now? Because there will be a new Asbestos Network (AN) guidance note on the subject. Thankfully this is going to continue in the new style, with clearer and more forceful language. There’ll also be a a genuine attempt to address the reasons why we stopped in the first place. The new approach isn’t so much ‘them’s the rules – get on with it’, but more ‘here’s why, and this is what you can do to address it’.
The guidance will also address some of the blockers, or rather the likely main blockers as to why we don’t do leak tests anymore:
As with other recent AN documents, there will be a box spelling out the Construction (Design and Management) (CDM) regulatory duties relevant for clients, principal contractors and designers. If the personal monitoring guidance is anything to go by, when considering leak testing – the language will be very firm.
In almost all circumstances, leak testing is required for asbestos enclosures. Testing must be daily if the vicinity is occupied, and ‘periodic’ if only the removal team are on site. We’ll get some guidance on what periodic actually means, but my understanding is it’s likely to be more than once per week. There’ll also be practical guidance, but short-term jobs (one-day) are not exempt, and neither are dusty demolition sites.
It’s potentially less clear-cut what constitutes vicinity. It’s a tricky subject, as it will always be site-specific, and must be considered as part of the project design. Examples will be given, but it is essentially connected areas. As such, enclosure walls, seals and negative-pressure exhausts are all obvious contenders.
Then we get to the less obvious and more challenging: connecting voids. Air conditioning could, for example, form a tunnel to lots of different areas. Removal of an asbestos insulating board in a bathroom riser on the second floor would be directly connected to the first and third-floor bathrooms.
In short, anything deemed as ‘vicinity’ must be tested.
I’m focusing on the leak testing guidance, but the document itself will be broader. It lines up the design of enclosure, air management, smoke test and leak test as part of the standard planning process.
In other words, we all design the enclosure layout and the air management of that enclosure. At the same time we must be planning how we are going to test the effectiveness of that by considering the smoke and subsequent leak testing. As a manager you will need to assess where smoke might leak from and into – and ensure that access is available to check those areas.
This means we’ll need to start asking questions like “Where does that riser go?”, and “How does the supervisor get access to check the second-floor bathroom for escaping smoke?” These will become your plan for the leak testing: the guidance will call for both of these to be documented in the risk assessment and method statement.
The very fact that the AN is producing a guidance note on the subject means that HSE inspectors will take notice, and enforcement will likely follow. This should also give the same responsible LARC some reassurance that it will be a level playing field.
Coincidentally, this completely lines up with the recent HSE summit on research priorities. One of the top contenders for HSE and industry-led studies was a comparison between fibre levels in buildings before, during, and after asbestos removal. It seems that if leak testing data – and the associated reassurance tests post-removal – were recorded in the right way, LARCs could contribute massively to this investigation.
There is time to plan. The guidance is still in draft, and you may very well already be compliant with the ACoP because you never did stop testing. But if this has fallen off your radar, now is the time to start looking at your policies and procedures so that you are ready to record the data and react appropriately to the results you get. This is especially the case with your site paperwork – can you even sensibly record the findings?
For those of you that use third-party software to record site paperwork, now is the time to ask the developer whether or not they will be ready to support you in this change that is not a change. As you may have guessed, Assure360 already has you covered, and our Paperless app is already fully compliant with the guidance.
Discover more about Assure360 Paperless – read about the app here, or get in touch for a free demo.
Written by Nick Garland on Thursday April 24th 2025
If you’ve been following our updates, you’ll already know that the eighth FAAM Conference is fast approaching. Having moved from its previous date slot late in the year, FAAM 2025 will take place on 14-15 May, at the Birmingham Conference & Events Centre.
So why should you go? Simply put, this two-day, in-person event is a standout opportunity for asbestos professionals to engage with the latest science, share best practices, and connect with others in the field.
The 2025 conference programme features a mix of seasoned experts and fresh voices, with must-see sessions including a keynote from Professor John Cherrie, and regulatory updates from Sam Lord of the HSE.
I’m particularly looking forward to a likely thought-provoking talk by Phoebe Smith, which will explore the psychology behind why workers do – and often don’t – follow procedures. Not only is this often the blocker to a project’s success, but it can be the cause of significant workplace accidents. Understanding why it happens is therefore crucial to improving safety.
I hope you’ll join us for this highlight of the asbestos events calendar. Visit the FAAM website for more details and booking links.
Written by Nick Garland on Thursday March 27th 2025
It’s important to us that every Assure360 user gets the best from our system and apps, so our account director, Rick Garland, is running quarterly support webinars. In these free sessions, Rick brings customers up to speed with recent developments in the system. Each session also features a Q&A, which includes time for users to suggest future development ideas.
I’m delighted to announce that the next session will be on Wednesday 14th May at 1:00pm. We’d love for as many customers as possible to join us, but the webinars are also open to anyone who’s interested in seeing how Assure360 could benefit their business. Just use the form below to sign up!
Written by Nick Garland on Thursday March 27th 2025
I’m a huge supporter of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), and its work is normally excellent. However I wanted to urgently flag a concern I have over its ‘new’ HAVS calculator, which you can download from the HSE website.
Instead of the space for the make and model number, It now has a drop-down selector for equipment, indicating a range of vibration for each. This range is based on extensive testing that the HSE has done on a wide range of tools and a wide range of activities. It has even calculated the typical vibration magnitude (the 75th percentile). The idea is that you can use this information to critically assess what the manufacturer tells you.
So far so excellent. But crucially, the spreadsheet picks this typical figure and slots it into the calculation for you. Unless you put your own figure in based on your own assessment of the actual tool you are using, the calculation will be done using the HSE’s ‘recommended’ value.
If your tool happens to be at the high end of the range, you could be massively exposing the worker.
The image I use is a worked example for a reciprocating saw. The typical value (18m/s2) was accepted – but the tool picked up (and the task undertaken) has a magnitude at the top end of the range (27m/s2). A ‘nice safe’ 32-minute trigger time was recorded ‘well away’ from the exposure limit value (ELV). The reality would be a breach by nearly double.
I don’t like to criticise the HSE which, as I say, is normally excellent. But it seems as though this spreadsheet has been broken by someone trying to be helpful, and I’d recommend using it with extreme caution for the time being.
Written by Nick Garland on Thursday March 27th 2025
I was talking to an industry professional recently. When asked “Why do we measure airflow?” his response was “Because the guidance tells us to”.
For me that said it all. We know it’s important, but not any of the fundamentals that underpin it. Airflow is really rather important, and for very sensible reasons. And the guidance tells us to test. But these are two very different things.
My approach to asbestos regulations, the Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) – and all guidance – is always to ask “Why are we doing this, and why is it important?”
Only when you understand this can you make the judgement calls that the real world forces on you, when reality doesn’t quite fit what someone wrote 12 years ago, hundreds of miles away.
Let’s start with the fundamentals.
Disturbing asbestos is very dangerous because inhaling fibres has a disease risk where there is no safe limit. Removal of asbestos inevitably liberates these fibres into the atmosphere where they can be breathed in.
We carefully design methods so that we minimise how many fibres are released. We build enclosures so that any fibres that are released are contained, and can only affect a small area. We apply negative pressure to the enclosure so that if there are leaks, then clean external air leaks in – rather than contaminated air leaking out. This is achieved by drawing air out of the enclosure using Negative Pressure Units (NPUs), and scrubbing it through HEPA filters.
So, we have created a hermetically sealed bubble that we are asking workers to enter to do the work, potentially exposing them to fibres. The methods should reduce the fibre release, and the workers have respiratory protective equipment (RPE). But as there is no safe limit, and respirators are the last line of defence, we have to do more.
Helpfully, those NPUs we were using to apply negative pressure have another very useful trait. They remove contaminated air, and replace it with clean air. If the enclosure is carefully designed there will be a constant flow of clean air to all areas, so asbestos fibres are drawn away from the worker and there are no stale air dead spots. The contaminated air is being constantly diluted.
So, airflow is critical, as it underpins all of the controls:
How do we ensure we get it right?
Paragraph 395 of the ACoP states:
Before starting work in the enclosure, a thorough visual inspection and smoke test must be conducted to check the enclosure’s integrity. The filtered air extraction equipment must be tested to ensure it is achieving negative pressure and the required air change rate.
There’s a need for some interpretation first. ‘Required air changes’ is a rough measure of the dilution I mentioned above. In the UK this is eight ACH – that means you need sufficient NPU power to replace all of the air, eight times every 60 minutes.
It doesn’t quite work that way – but that’s how it is sold. Think homeopathy and that’s how much it lines up with reality. The industry standard, though, is at least 10ACH, and often many more.
The smoke tests mentioned in the ACoP are fairly straightforward: fill the enclosure with smoke, and check outside to see if any of it leaks. If not, we have a sealed enclosure.
Now the last and most crucial bit: the NPU should be tested to ensure it is achieving negative pressure, and that it is achieving those air changes.
This word ‘tested’ has been taken to mean that we should actually measure how much the NPUs are ‘sucking’. Once we have established definitively that the NPUs are pulling at least eight times the enclosure volume, then all questions are answered.
Some HSE inspectors are even insisting that NPUs MUST be tested using an anemometer or an onboard airflow meter. An anemometer is a handheld device that is essentially a fan with an electronic read-out. Place the fan near the NPU head and it will tell you how fast the air is passing through it. Get several readings, take an average, and multiply by the area of the pre-filter and we have an answer.
Well not really, because:
And while it sounds easy, even measuring the area of the pre-filter is near impossible. The guidance says you should measure height by width, but the reality is that those pesky cross hatches will reduce it somewhat. If you look closer, you will see there are vertical veins – the matting actually increases the surface area dramatically. The veins also create turbulence, causing further uncertainty.
Image – Beacon International.
In any case, all NPUs are tested by trained professionals at the service company every six months, using equipment that is kept in lab conditions. Are we really saying that a supervisor on site with a one-year-old anemometer from the van is better than that?
I have seen data where two readings were taken on site by two different people on a single NPU (moments apart). One set differed by 14%, and a second pair differed by a whopping 30%. Even the guidance provided by the HSE says that handheld anemometers typically overestimate by 10%. If we’re measuring a critical value, overestimating is not something that we should be doing.
I’m not a fan, as you can probably tell.
Onboard flow meters are better, as they measure internally from a static position. But just like the hand versions, they are subject to being knocked and damaged by the rough and tumble of life on site.
Even without these concerns, does this testing guarantee we’re achieving what we want?
Not necessarily. You may have ample airflow from your NPUs, but if there is air getting in somewhere else (a leak in the enclosure, big or small) you won’t have adequate negative pressure. Similarly, while we may be drawing out and cleaning lots of air, a poorly-designed enclosure will leave pockets of still-air that’s not cleaned at all.
By testing a feature of good enclosure design, rather than the outcome we’re trying to ensure, we may have gone down an unnecessary rabbit hole. And a warren that is costly, time consuming and potentially very misleading.
Let’s look again at what we are trying to achieve:
Impose 5Pa of negative pressure
Good airflow is essential for negative pressure, but in isolation it tells us nothing about whether we have achieved it, so how can we test for it?
There is a ready reckoner for 5Pa of negative pressure. If you balance the enclosure (air in and air out is roughly equal), and the flap deflection on your main air lock is around 250mm, you will have achieved approximately 5pa. There are too many vague terms in this for my liking, but as it stems from an HSE research paper, it does have some authority.
You can however measure negative pressure easily, by using a magnehelic differential pressure gauge (often known by the company that makes a lot of them: a ‘Dwyer Gauge’). These are inexpensive, very simple devices, yet they accurately state what the pressure is. Simply tape one to the side of the enclosure and it will compare pressure inside and out. And what’s more this doesn’t leave you with a single reading taken at the time of the smoke test – it gives you constant monitoring.
No dead spots
Remember we need to ensure there are no dead-spots, and therefore no highly contaminated pockets of air. Simply measuring how impressive the airflow is at the NPU tells us nothing about how successfully we are cleaning and diluting the air. On the other hand, a smoke test, done well, tells us quite a bit about this. You can actively see the smoke moving and can redesign the enclosure to make sure there are no dead spaces.
Eight air changes per hour
We must also achieve eight ACH. Dilution is a complex mathematical problem; just having eight times the enclosure volume in NPU power in no way predicts that we’ll reach the necessary figure. It also doesn’t mean we’ll be refreshing the enclosure air once every 7.5 minutes – dilution just doesn’t work like that.
Eight ACH means removing 13.33% of the air and replacing it with clean air every minute. If we assume that there is perfect mixing within the enclosure (very difficult to achieve), some of that air will be dirty and some will be clean. Very roughly, with some rounding, we get a ratio of dirty to clean air pattern that looks like this:
| Elapsed time (minutes) | ‘Dirty’ air (%) | ‘Clean’ air (%) |
| 1 | 86.7 | 13.3 |
| 2 | 75.1 | 24.9 |
| 3 | 65.1 | 34.9 |
| 7.5 | 34.3 | 65.7 |
These figures show that after 7.5 minutes, the first of your supposed ‘air changes’, you are only down to about a third of the original ‘dirty’ air. In fact, only after about 30 minutes – or four ‘air changes’ – are you anywhere close to getting rid of it.
So let’s go back to the smoke test. When you can no longer see any smoke, you’re getting an indication that you’re heading towards a complete change of the air. But again, you’ll never actually get there, because that’s not how dilution works.
Nearly all contractors use a minimum of 10 ACH, and often quite a bit more. Is it tremendously important that you are achieving 8.2, 9.7, 10.4 or 15.1 ACH per hour? I would argue that it’s not, really. In fact my position is firmly that nominal ACH is not a useful test of the effectiveness of our controls at all.
Having NPUs that are capable of drawing air to the tune of about 10x the total enclosure volume is the means by which we achieve all that we want. But the only way to test we’ve actually met the requirements in a balanced enclosure is:
Why am I going over this? Well, it’s all too easy once we have guidance, to focus on meeting the letter of that guidance. But as I said at the start, it’s important to ask why we’re doing the tests we do, and what we’re actually trying to achieve.
I’m hoping to stir up a discussion about the fundamentals of enclosure airflow. You might agree or disagree, but please get in touch to tell me why, so we can all learn and get better at what we do.
Written by Nick Garland on Monday February 17th 2025
Two connected events have caught my attention over the past few weeks. The first one I wanted to talk about is the continuing series of excellent FAAM webinars following the broad theme of the EU’s reduced Occupational Exposure Limit (OEL).
As a reminder, the OEL is the equivalent of our Control Limit. It’s reducing from 0.1 to 0.01 fibres per millilitre of air, and in a few years it’ll reduce further to 0.002. The most recent FAAM webinar addressed respiratory protective equipment (RPE), and asked whether it can cope with the ambitious new target.
That’s a key question if we in the UK are going to adopt the reduced limits – something the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is actively considering. Garry Burdet, previously of the HSE and now a pivotal member of FAAM, joined Nick Baxter, the HSE technical lead on RPE and the Vice President International Society for Respiratory Protection (ISRP). Together they addressed why RPE performance is based on a complex web of international agreement (or the lack thereof).
It’s worth taking a step back to look at the basics. All masks come with an Assigned Protection Factor (APF), which is the assumed amount of protection that the mask can achieve. This is how APF is supposed to work: contaminants outside the mask will be reduced inside the mask by a factor of the APF. This HSE example (diagram) shows an environment where the exposure is 20, and the APF 10, thus the wearer’s exposure is reduced by a factor of 10, to 2.
In the UK, half-masks are assigned an APF of 20, while full-face powered masks (the ones we use in an asbestos enclosure) are 40. The air-fed masks we typically refer to as RAS masks have a whopping 2,000.
However, how well the mask delivers its APF is based on a number of factors:
Bearing this in mind, a full face mask can achieve an APF of 40, but if you don’t look after it, don’t keep it clean, or it doesn’t fit you perfectly, it won’t be anywhere near that.
Many of us on the crusty end of the industry will remember where we were when the APF for the standard issue full-face powered mask was lowered from around 1,000 to the 40 we accept today. For me it was a night job, where they were blasting sprayed insulation firebreaks.
This horrific wake-up call was prompted by the 1996 Howie research for the HSE, but Howie’s wasn’t the only team looking at this issue in the 1990s. All of the studies were ‘as found’ – essentially workplace observations on actual workers in the field. Around the world, individual teams designed their own approaches, leading to variations in sampling methods, training in mask use, exercises the subjects were asked to do, and different methods of testing the fit.
This led to a huge range of APFs assigned to given mask types around the world. As I mentioned above, in the UK the standard powered full-face mask for enclosure work has an APF of 40. The exact same mask in Scandinavia has an APF of 1,000.
Astonishingly, not every country requires face-fit testing for individuals. Therefore we have a situation where there is no international agreement on how effective RPE is, and some countries don’t even mandate a well-fitting mask.
The Howie research led to the UK’s comparatively pessimistic assessment of full-face APF, but also indirectly to most of the wet-stripping innovations that we now take for granted. In fact, the UK’s cautious approach to APF possibly explains why we have driven innovations on how to minimise exposure at source. It also might explain why European colleagues are less concerned about how the new OEL will impact their removal projects.
In other European countries, everything (including cement window sills and floor tiles) is typically removed inside an enclosure, but dry-stripping is the norm. Essentially, it doesn’t matter what the operative does, he’s protected by equipment which is assumed to have a higher APF than we give it in the UK. This raises important questions about the poor folk outside the enclosure – I’ll come back to that in a minute.
In the UK, what do we see when we test asbestos removal activities inside the enclosure? Assure360, as you may know, is the best mass data resource on this subject, with approaching 20,000 personal monitoring results. In the last year, 95% of results were, when calculated with an APF of 40, below the new EU OEL.
This is clearly very positive news. If the operative follows the method perfectly, and the mask fits, and it’s looked after, UK removal methods are probably adequate to deal with any reduction in the limit. But – and it is quite a big but – all personal monitoring is observed behaviour, and therefore conducted when the operative is working perfectly to the method: slowly and methodically.
If all our assumptions on the efficacy of the mask in the UK were correct, what would we see if the method wasn’t being followed precisely? For example, what if asbestos insulation board (AIB) was being removed dry, as it is in many parts of Europe? Exposure would be much higher, and the existing OEL would be breached – never mind the new one! You would have to have a VERY good mask to deal with that.
There is a second ‘but’: if the mask doesn’t fit well, or if the assumptions made in the EU that the mask in peak condition provides an APF of 1,000 are wrong, or if the mask hasn’t been looked after perfectly, the poor operative is going to be repeatedly exposed. In the EU, that coud be to extremely high levels.
Nick Baxter helped put all this in focus by reminding us that all RPE fails to danger. That’s why regulation and guidance prevent us from using RPE as anything other than the last line of defence, and why it rightly sits at the bottom of the hierarchy of control:
Considering the differing APF figures for the same items, and all the variables regarding how it’s used and maintained, the UK approach has to be the right one: assume that the APF is quite small, and therefore do as much as possible to minimise exposure.
That brings me neatly to what’s going on outside the enclosure, and a heads up that the Asbestos Network (AN) Technical Working Group (TWG) is taking another look at leak monitoring. Around the time that I was getting the RPE-related shock of my life, leak testing was considered part of most or all jobs. But now it’s a rarity: the preserve of nuclear sites and some NHS trusts, it seems. But the regulations haven’t changed: it was mandatory on a virtually daily basis in 1996, and it remains mandatory now.
The next AN appendix to the minutes will be clarifying this: really laying out when you need to do leak testing outside an enclosure. Fundamentally, it’s nearly all jobs, irrespective of duration. That ‘one-day’ domestic job falls under the umbrella, just like the demolition site.
Thankfully the AN approach is now much more practical than it was even a few years ago, as the group increasingly tries to analyse the blockers to a policy and address those. It’s asking questions such as how you do leak testing on a dirty site like a demolition, the practicalities of leaks on a short job, and even where you consider the vicinity of the enclosure to be, given that air can move through risers, ducts and the like.
As we all know, clients can be one of the biggest blockers if they don’t pay for the tests. Again this is recognised by the AN, and there will be extremely clear instructions to those in charge of projects regarding their Construction (Design and Management) duties on the subject.
The new guidance is probably a few months away – I’m predicting early summer – so there’s plenty of time for you to start thinking about it. Of course, Assure360 is already working on the subject, and our solution is taking shape for a release in the spring. As with everything we do, it will be done in the right way. That means keeping things easy for the supervisor and not adding to their day. Instead, everything will be collected as data, so you get the maximum benefit in the office.
Written by Nick Garland on Thursday January 23rd 2025
With the start of the year on us, I thought I would return to my favourite subject: exposure monitoring. Specifically, how we can understand it better, and get better value out of the effort we put into it. In this article I’m going to discuss strategies for exposure monitoring, and provide some tips that will – hopefully – make it easier.
Exposure monitoring was one of the areas that was dramatically changed by the Asbestos Network’s guidance on the subject, released over a year ago now. Let’s remind ourselves of what it said.
There are four different types of personal sampling that you can deploy:
But rather than just picking at random, you should be considering what your goal is: what are you trying to capture? The goals for all monitoring are derived from the regulatory requirements. These state that you must:
Helpfully the guidance states that one or more requirements can often be met from a single sampling exercise – i.e. you can use one test to cover off several goals.
One simple trick
So, here’s the first tip – when requesting personal monitoring, try to ensure that the test parameters do not disqualify it from one of the other categories.
The tightest rules are around four-hour Control Limit testing (the 4-Hr TWA). This requires a minimum of 240 litres of air, and a flow rate of between one and two litres per minute. Therefore a two-hour test at two litres per minute qualifies, even though it is not actually four hours long.
The key question is: ‘Do you know what was happening outside of this test?’ Was there no activity (for example, a lunch break), or more of the same (for example, you tested for two hours, but the work lasted for four)? Either way, we are allowed to make assumptions.
This simple trick will allow you to use that single result for the first, second and fourth test type, and all the goals outlined above. In fact the only scenario it doesn’t cover is a method where short-term exposure might be very high, even if when measured over a full shift it will be more moderate. For these less common situations you will have to resort to a short air test.
The maths remains a little tricky for completing the 4hr TWA calculations – but not for Assure360 users. We analyse the data you put in, compare it to the rules, and provide all the four-hour Control Limit results for you.
Using a risk-based strategy
Now it starts to get a little trickier. The age old ‘rule’ where you test 40% of all asbestos insulating board (AIB) jobs, 60% of all pipe insulation work, and 100% of sprayed insulation jobs is out, replaced by a risk-based strategy.
You might say that the old way was broadly risk-based – AIB is, after all, less risky than sprayed insulation. True, but now we need to go much much further.
While AIB may generally present less of a risk, there are wide variations within AIB jobs. Nailed AIB is riskier than screwed, for example, as the chance of breakage is much greater. Further, it’s more challenging to remove nailed AIB from a crawl way than when your operatives are standing firmly on the floor. In recognition of these variations, the guidance now says we need to treat all of these (and more) differently, and have a strategy to measure each.
The bad news is that this is very challenging if you’re having to record and calculate everything in Excel – it’s possible, but it takes skill and time. However, the great news is that it’s easily achievable if you’re an Assure360 user.
In the admin-free Assure360 approach, the supervisor records all exposure information in the right way, first time round. We know how many times Tom, Dick or Harry has been exposed to the removal of nailed AIB in a duct, or screwed AIB in a bathroom, or anything else. We also know exactly how many times a personal test has been recorded against that activity. It’s therefore a matter of moments to do the calculation, giving you a live assessment of current performance against your strategy.
Cover all activities
Back to the guidance, which states that all activities should ultimately be covered. That’s not just the situations we’ve covered above, it’s also waste runs, enclosure construction and deconstruction, visual inspections, fine cleaning, and everything else. These all need their own strategy that you must measure.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) recognises that this is a big departure from what we were doing before. The regulator has indicated that you should focus on asbestos removal activities first and get good data, before broadening out to all the other lower-risk activities.
Which leaves new activities – or as the HSE puts it, ‘novel removal techniques’. These are new-to-you methods where you don’t have much or any data. Again, these need special attention. More protective RPE should be selected, and then you need to test, test, test.
Again, this is very simple when you approach the exercise activity by activity. And Assure360 makes it even easier – our users have access to unique benchmarking data, where you get to see the results of nearly 20,000 personals. Even the brand-new GelCut technique for wrap and cut features in our data, with an average exposure of 0.03 fibres per millilitre.
The final element of your strategy is that it should take account of people, because people have the biggest impact on your carefully designed methods. An inexperienced operative – whether they are directly employed or a short-term worker (STW) – should be viewed with suspicion. I jest, sort of, but the point is that everyone new to you – or inexperienced with your procedures – must be targeted with additional personal monitoring.
With Excel this would involve an employee log, some with flags against their name, so you can drag in a ‘number of personals’ figure from other spreadsheets. But as you might imagine, Assure360 makes this easy. All new employees (including STWs) are automatically tagged as needing increased supervision. This (again automatically) plays out with the strategy reports, measuring your performance with up to the minute, live data from your sites.
Simple – like all the best solutions should be.
Don’t miss out on a system that simplifies personals and so much more. Get in touch now to arrange your free demo!
Written by Nick Garland on Sunday January 19th 2025
Conferences, events, meetings and other get-togethers are the lifeblood of specialist sectors like construction, health and safety, and asbestos. Every one is a chance to make contacts, learn from the experts, and share your own insight and experience. Here’s our list of all the essential meetings, briefings and other dates for your diary.
14-15 May 2025
Birmingham Conference & Events Centre (BCEC), Birmingham B5 4EW
This year sees the eighth FAAM Asbestos conference, organised in conjunction with BOHS and the Faculty of Asbestos Assessment and Management. In 2025 the FAAM conference moves to new May dates, but it’s sure to remain one of the highlights of the asbestos calendar. The event brings together researchers, academics, practitioners and regulators, through talks and technical sessions, dealing with scientific topics covering key areas regarding the assessment, control and management of asbestos.
04 June 2025
The Coventry Building Society Arena, Coventry
HSM Live is a new, free-to-attend health and safety conference promising networking and CPD-accredited seminars, among other features. It’s split across dates in Scotland and Coventry, with the inaugural event having taken place last November in Edinburgh.
12 June 2025
The Welcombe Hotel, Stratford Upon Avon
Make sure you save the date for one of the summer’s leading social events! The TICA ACAD Summer Social will be a day of networking, fun and relaxation in the beautiful surroundings of the historic Welcombe Hotel. The day will feature golf on the 18-hole course, and a barbecue – we’ll have more details to follow soon!
More details soon
17-19 June 2025
Hilton Newcastle Gateshead
For OH2025, the British Occupational Health Society is promising a bigger and more innovative conference than ever. Taking place over three days – with additional professional development courses on 16 June – OH2025 promises talks, workshops and themed sessions, alongside all the networking and social opportunities you’d expect. This year’s themes include building competence, capacity and capability in managing workplace risks, and how workplace health professionals can help deliver the green revolution without workplace health casualties.
18-19 June 2025
Olympia, London
Safety, Health and Wellbeing Live is split into two events in the North and South of England. Both follow a similar format, so workplace safety and occupational health professionals can expect sessions delivered by industry and regulatory experts, panel debates, and multiple opportunities to network. This year the southern event has moved to Olympia from its previous home at Farnborough airport, but it still promises more than 200 exhibitors and 100 speakers.
17-18 September 2025
NEC Birmingham
The once Hazardous Materials Expo has been through a few iterations in recent years. It’s now part of the ESS Expo, a large umbrella event gathering experts and workers in fields from energy and air quality, through recycling and contamination. Now the Contamination and Land Remediation Expo, it promises opportunities to network, collaborate, and learn through discussions, workshops and expert panels.
13-14 November 2025
Bergen, Norway
It’s early days yet, and full details aren’t available for this year’s European Asbestos Forum conference. We do know that it’ll be in Norway, however, and that you can expect the usual mix of incredible speakers and thought-provoking content. We’ll share more details as we have them, but it’s safe to say that EAF will again be unmissable in 2025.
25-27 November 2025
Excel London
The Safety & Health Expo has become part of Anticipate London, which comprises linked conferences covering facilities, safety, fire and information security. This year IOSH is sponsoring the SHP Operational Excellence Stage, which will cover a range of health and safety topics including industry standards, risk management, innovation, and best practices.
If you’re hosting, postponing or cancelling an event you’d like us to list here, please get in touch.
Written by Nick Garland on Thursday December 19th 2024
I often describe the European Asbestos Forum (EAF) as the finale of the conference season, and this year’s event certainly finished off 2024 in style. This was something of a special edition, as it was ten years since the very first one in 2014 – it seems amazing that I have been going for a decade!
The anniversary event in Brussels was worthy of its billing. Dr Yvonne Waterman always puts on a special conference – all the way through to the gala dinner on the last day, where this year we were entertained by the players from Covent Garden – amazing. The whole event was decorated by stunning photos by Tony Rich (Asbestorama) and Carlos Duane Salinas of Eurofins.
The photo you see above is one of Tony’s, showing glue with crocidolite. Tony is a dedicated analyst and surveyor, but with a camera in his hand he’s an artist. I wanted to highlight his work before I dig into the conference itself, as beyond the terrifying beauty Tony’s art has huge practical uses. I often find it helps me visualise asbestos in a different way; this one is a (very) sharp pencil with tremolite fibre bundles. Astonishing.
Certainly, if you need to smarten up your training material, don’t hesitate to get in touch with Tony.
By the time of the EAF gala dinner, we had experienced two days of a fascinating conference, delivered in Yvonne’s classy style. Day one as always started with an excursion, this time to Ghent’s industrial museum. Here they have several working cotton machines, which doesn’t sound very asbestos, until you realise that the exact same machines were used for weaving chrysotile into textiles. This shot, taken by Wayne Bagnal, is of their ‘cotton’ carding machine. The exposure must have been horrific.
The afternoon was hosted by BOHS, with a series of speakers from both ends of the world discussing asbestos training, followed by an open forum conversation with the delegates from all four corners. My main takeaway from this part of the conference was: beware of merely regulating.
We learned that US lawmakers decreed that asbestos measurement would be conducted via Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM). This quickly created a burgeoning industry of TEM analysis, but speaker Sean Fitzgerald raised big questions over the level of competency. Surely the international collaboration between BOHS and FAMANZ is a better way. Here, what ‘good’ looks like is agreed, and then the regulators adopt that. The discussions in this space could, I hope, be the birth of international training standards for asbestos analysts and surveyors.
EAF’s format means that day two is actually the day of the conference ‘proper’. There were seven amazing speakers in the morning session. From the opening Speech by Jose Blanco, secretary general of the European Decontamination Institute, to the keynote by Olha Bohdanova of Ukraine’s European Society of Occupational Safety and Health, this year’s theme of The Legacy of Asbestos was cemented. Ms. Bohdanova’s challenge is immense: all of the difficulties that we encounter in managing asbestos, but in a war zone. You cannot imagine.
I’m guilty, along with most, of dismissing or ignoring the dangers of ingesting asbestos. Professor Arthur Frank, from Drexel University, disabused me of that utterly. His talk on asbestos cement water pipes was an eye-opener.
There are somewhere in the region of 620,000 miles of water pipes made from asbestos cement in the US. When testing a selection of supplies, Professor Frank found approximately seven million asbestos fibres per litre of drinking water. In one community where the slightly acidic water strips the minerals from the pipe, this was measured at 1.3 billion fibres. Inevitably the UK will have similar levels.
When you consider that asbestos fibres can pass the pleural layer, can pass through the bowel wall, even pass through the placenta into an unborn child, consuming this vast quantity of asbestos cannot be good. Now think about additional exposure through showers and baths – and when the water dries. Professor Frank doesn’t suggest that ingestion represents a similar risk to inhalation, but it certainly can no longer be ignored.
Still, it was the talk by Mesothelioma UK CEO Liz Darlison on asbestos in schools that stayed with me. Liz announced the release of the charity’s Mesothelioma and Education Workers Study (MEWS). MEWS reveals the shocking under-representation of identified sufferers within the education sector, and identifies some of the reasons for this.
The Office of National Statistics (ONS) views education as a low-risk sector for asbestos, and when you look at the methodology behind the stats, it is not surprising. The official statistics only identify teachers, rather than education workers as a whole. Mesothelioma UK’s study found that rather than the official 23 meso deaths per year in the sector, the truer figure is nearer to 70 – nearly 1.5 per week.
This is compounded when it comes to treatment, as when a mesothelioma sufferer from the sector presents at the GP for the first time, an asbestos disease is not usually suspected. The report finds that this leads to delays in diagnosis, and poorer access to compensation.
Liz ended her talk with a tribute to her friend Helen Bone. Helen was a mesothelioma nurse, and also a victim of that horrendous disease. She died on 25 November this year, aged just 42. Heartbreaking.
The conference splits into two for the afternoon, and you have to choose between technical and policy – although there was some blurring of the two. Previously I’ve had the pleasure of chairing one of these sessions, but this year I was speaking in Session B, with my colleagues from BCL Invent, to share the good news story of the Easy Gel pipe removal technique.
Speaking with Alexandre Chasteloux, we took the delegates from the solution to a French problem presented two years ago at EAF, through the industry research headed up by FAAM, to the incredible results that we got. You can read more about what we found in our initial research, and in a follow up study in Guernsey, but it’s not often you can say that a new technique is safer, quicker, easier, and cheaper!
I can’t really do the remainder of the session justice, as there were nine speakers just in our half of proceedings. Sara Mason of ABP and FAAM was our host, and she kept us all to time with calm assurance.
Highlights were a discussion of Fibrebinder, a temporary, but effective spray that is used in Denmark, often in roof replacement projects. The challenge of residual fibres stuck in the natural nooks and crannies of the timber rafters can result in health risks and large project delays. We in the UK have a firm rule that prevents the use of surfactant and glue before the air test, but could Fibrebinder provide an added level of protection after the air test and before the fourth stage?
Next up was a double-act between Wayne Bagnall, and Martin Hönig. They highlighted the huge, hidden problem of asbestos cement spacers in reinforced concrete. These pesky items cause no end of trouble during the demolition of some buildings, leaving contractors with the challenge of thousands of tons of concrete, concealing small but measurable amounts of asbestos cement. This is an emerging problem and they would appeal to any that have come across the situation to contact them so that a practical solution can be developed.
Chris Bishop of Asbestos Training & Consultancy delivered a very sobering presentation on the 2020 Beirut disaster. If you missed the enormity and impact of this explosion at the time, know that it was triggered by a fire in a warehouse holding 2,750 tonnes of ammonium nitrate, and is considered among the most powerful non-nuclear explosions of all time.
The explosion killed more than 200 people, and rendered more than a third of a million homeless in an instant. Within the five kilometre blast radius, 400,000 buildings were made uninhabitable or completely destroyed. Most of the buildings contained asbestos. All this happened in August 2020, at the height of the Covid pandemic, when the world was unable or unwilling to help – and simultaneously using all of the PPE and RPE (personal, and respiratory protective equipment). Only in 40 years will we know the death toll.
I’ll only touch on two more talks. The first was by RPA Europe CEO Marco Camboni, on the European Commission’s Report on Asbestos Waste Treatment Technologies. This was a fascinating journey through the pros and cons of the various technologies available to permanently denature asbestos waste. A leader among these is Asbester’s miraculous solution of using the natural alkaline nature of cement to dissolve the asbestos fibres. Indeed, Inez Postema of Asbester revealed to me that the business is preparing to build its first commercial plant. Finally we seem to be on the way to getting a permanent solution to this huge problem.
The last talk that has stuck with me was by Federica Paglietti, of Italy’s INAIL. This was titled Reducing worker exposure to asbestos: new challenges with advanced technologies, a subject very close to my own heart. Frederica took us through a series of fascinating new technologies with the aim of reducing exposure to removal operatives. One that is about a year from production is a brand new approach to respirators. The new design incorporates full head protection – improving the seal, and solving the problem of how to wear a hard hat and RPE together.
Before the celebration that is the end of conference dinner, there were some special announcements. The best of these was that, in recognition of the reach that the EAF now has, it is to be renamed the Global Asbestos Forum. There’ll be a glossy magazine to support it – fittingly decorated by Tony Rich’s photos.
It’s no more success than Yvonne deserves. EAF really was always a fabulous conference, and I look forward to its continued growth as the GAF. Save the dates for next year – they’re likely to be the end of November, or near the beginning of December.
Written by Nick Garland on Thursday November 21st 2024
We’re delighted to announce that our continuing development drive has delivered three really important changes to the system. You’ll find them both in the Paperless app, and the Compliance desktop.
The first update is that we’ve revamped data entry for Personal Monitoring. This covers the New Personal Monitoring Test, where we’ve added some additional fields. We now ask for the Limit of Quantification (LoQ) as well as the calculated result. This means we can work out for you what the reported value should be. Similar changes have been introduced for the Supervisor, with the goal of eliminating some of the most common mistakes.
Talking of that, we’ve also added mouseover tips to help you avoid errors. The Mouseover buttons in the Compliance section look like a question mark. Point your mouse at them to get a tip, or further information that helps you input the right data.
We’ve also added a brand new way of calculating four-hour time-weighted averages (4Hr TWAs). This is for those times where you need to tell the story of a shift in which you did several short air tests for different activities. Now we have a new report called 4hrTWA Combination – find it in the Exposure drop down. Add the personals to the system in the normal way (ideally this is done by the supervisor in Paperless), then find the report and hit Generate.
The report presents all the compliant air tests – but crucially it sorts them into People, Sites and Dates. Select the ones you want to combine – for example all the tests on Bob that day – confirm that any leftover time was nil exposure (for example, because of lunch etc), and press Go. All the complex maths is done for you. It’s simple, like all the best solutions.
Finally phase one of our RPE (respiratory protective equipment) Competent Person (CP) solution is complete. Find the RPE reports in the People drop down. The main one to look for is the Overview report. This lists all of the operatives and supervisors on your books, tells you when the last CP inspection was completed, and allows you to record another. Phase two of the CP solution will be in the Paperless app, where we’ll create the path for a qualified Supervisor to do this for you.
As with all our updates, we hope that these ones add useful functionality to the Assure360 system, while keeping the ease-of-use we’re renowned for. If you have ideas for how we can make Assure360 even better, keep an eye out for our next quarterly support webinar in early 2025!
Written by Nick Garland on Thursday November 21st 2024
EAF comes hard and fast on the tail of the FAAM conference – and with only a couple of weeks to go it really is very close. As usual, the event’s organiser Dr Yvonne Waterman has packed out the conference with an incredible line-up of speakers – she really does seem to know everyone!
As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve stepped back from being a session host this year, with my FAAM committee colleague Sara Mason taking my duties. But this has given me a bit of a problem: deciding which of the compelling presentations to attend!
As usual the conference takes place over two days. This year it’s in Brussels, and the first day brings an excursion to Ghent’s industrial museum. We then return to the hotel for a series of workshops and discussions. Day one of EAF sets the scene for the whole event, and by the time we get to day two you’re already in the collegiate groove.
The second day looks utterly fascinating. This year Yvonne has chosen the theme Legacy, and we can see that running through the whole day. Legacy… what kind of mess are we in, and are we leaving it to the next generation?
The first talk that catches my eye is The Legacy of Asbestos in Buildings and Infrastructure, by Jose Blanco. This is where we could expect the biggest legacy issue to lie, but how asbestos was used in buildings differs massively from country to country – I’m keen to hear Jose’s insight.
Next, professor Arthur Frank will be discussing the impact of asbestos cement water pipes – a problem that’s being utterly ignored in the UK. Liz Darlison (of Mesothelioma UK) will be giving an update on asbestos in schools, and how the legacy of old buildings, inadequate maintenance, and poor management may be a ticking time bomb.
The keynote speech bringing the morning session to an end will be given by a prominent politician from Ukraine. They’re there to explain how war damage is leading to asbestos escaping into the environment, adding complexity and long-term harm to everything that country is going through.
Now comes the difficult part for me, as the conference splits into two parallel sessions. On one side, amongst other talks, we have professor Roger Willey on creating asbestos expertise in Chile, professor Tim Driscoll with Epidemiology: raising awareness on risks and control measures, or Helping the Ukrainian asbestos sector, by Ian Harper – surely the sharpest of sharp ends.
On the other side, Tobias Hans has a project case study, in which he looks at taking a contaminated industrial setting and not only removing the asbestos, but completely repurposing the site for other uses. Chris Bishop will also be discussing the Beirut catastrophe, and explaining why it may be another 9/11.
The final session to get my attention belongs to Federica Paglietti (of INAIL). Last year she teased us with some research into a new kind of respirator for asbestos workers. This year her presentation is Reducing worker exposure to asbestos: new challenges with advanced technologies. Definitely my kind of talk.
As is so often the case with EAF, all of the sessions promise to be fascinating, and I’m in something of a quandary. The only talk I know I will be attending is my own – a good news story that had its birth at EAF and came to maturity at the FAAM conference. The EasyGel story is right at the core of what Yvonne has created EAF to do – share ideas, so that others can learn.
EasyGel solved a problem in France. When I looked at it, I thought it might solve a different problem in the UK. It does, but you’ll have to wait for the conference to find out what and by how much! I hope to see you there – and if you’re yet to book, please mention my name when doing so for 10% off your ticket.
Register now for your place at EAF 2024! Mention my name when booking to claim your 10% discount.
Written by Nick Garland on Friday October 4th 2024
We’re absolutely delighted to announce that Assure360 and ARCA are partnering to deliver better exposure monitoring for licensed asbestos removal contractors (LARCs).
This year’s ARCA AGM was concluded by chief executive Steve Sadley announcing our exclusive offer to help all of the association’s LARCs. In short – all ARCA members will now get free access to the Assure360 system to record personal monitoring results using a simple-to-use module on our compliance website.
As with all of our solutions, our personal monitoring module comes with the confidence of absolute expertise in the science behind it. Assure360 has long been at the bleeding edge of best practice for exposure monitoring, four-hour time-weighted average (4hr TWA), and exposure strategies. In fact, we were compliant with the latest guidance four years before it was written!
We understand that if software isn’t easy to use, it won’t work for our users, and we build that understanding into everything that we do. Assure360 is simple, not simplistic. Not only is the system intuitive, it does all of the 4hr TWA calculations for you – and it even gives you handy tips if you get confused with the numbers.
Once you’ve added the data, we provide insight in the shape of powerful reports – such as the duty of care report covering your workers. This helps you understand how much your staff have been exposed: all you do is pick an operative and click go. You’ll get the results in under a second.
We’re committed to our relationship with ARCA and its members, so the 100% free ARCA/Assure360 exposure system will continue for as long as you want it to. If you are a member of ARCA, in the next few days expect an email from Steve explaining the deal, what you can expect from us, and introducing our team so that we can help you with configuration and training.
While all of this is great, there is one extra part to the relationship: Satish Patel and his team of trainers will also benefit from access to the unique benchmarking report, built from all the exposure data in the system. And when we say all, it really is a lot! Assure360 is used by around 20% of all LARCs, and consequently has the best personal monitoring database in the UK. With approaching 20,000 personals and well over a million routine exposures on record, it provides the kind of insight that will help ARCA training be the best it can be.
We look forward to helping you get started soon. But in the meantime, please don’t hesitate to contact us to find out more about the partnership, or our other products like Assure360 Paperless – the original, the best, and the most popular solution for LARCs.
Written by Nick Garland on Friday October 4th 2024
The tech team were very busy over the summer: our Assure360 wizards never sleep! The latest releases are now live and working on the site and app stores. Here’s a quick roundup of the highlights.
First of all there is an updated Paperless app – with some tools to make the supervisor’s life a lot easier. We have completely re-worked the way you can report asbestos projects. Now when you click ‘Prepare Report’ you get four options. The first two are what you are used to: Search View and Full Report. Both are different ways of sharing the full project detail – either as a searchable table, or printable PDF.
The next two are new. Short Report is targeted at simple non-licensed jobs and includes a cover sheet, a site diary entry (Work Completion) and the certificate of cleanliness. Finally, we have Customised Report – this is the same as the Full Report, but you get to include/exclude any sections you want.
We’ve tidied up the People (detail) page – the first step on the route to making it available on site.
And finally, one I am particularly keen on: a brand-new report that allows you to analyse the data we are getting from Paperless on the pass/fail rate of enclosures. Data is split by supervisor, and gives you a competency score for each. Based on the average ratio of visuals to completed four-stage clearance, the scoring is on a scale of -75 to lots. Find it in the project dropdown menu.
As ever, make sure your team are on the latest version of the apps to get these features. For more information on any of these enhancements, please contact us – we’d love to hear your questions or suggestions, too!
Written by Nick Garland on Wednesday July 31st 2024
On Tuesday 16th of July, Rick hosted our first client forum – a new webinar series to help build even closer bonds with our community. It was a resounding success, and will become a quarterly event to put in your calendar – the next instalment will come in the autumn.
On his first outing, Rick went through some of the key improvements and enhancements that we’ve released in recent months. This was a great chance to show customers our elegant hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS) solution, but we also went through our innovative approach to Minor Works. This feature is built to simplify small, non-licensed projects, so that they’re easy to set up – and most importantly easy for the supervisor to run.
Next came the people module, which has been totally revamped into a bonafide skills-tracking matrix. Finally, Rick covered the Site Diary auto text feature, where the team can determine which text appears on the app to help them record the detail that they need.
In the forum I was struck by a common thread, running through all of these new features and improvements. In each case we’ve built powerful solutions, but kept them simple to use. Powerful and simple: like all the best ideas.
Rick went on to introduce one of the most important sections of the forum format, and one we hope will become increasingly crucial: ‘Where do we go next?’.
We see the client forum as an opportunity for clients to help guide our future development. For us, it’s a chance to hear from our customers about the issues they face, the features they’d like, and the ways we can improve our system to help them get the most from it. It’s great to hear first-hand about the challenges our clients face, because understanding what these are allows us to create simple solutions.
I say simple, but they’ll definitely never be simplistic. Our approach is always to find a straightforward, elegant solution that makes the supervisor’s life easier, but which provides crucial data for the office. We’re proud of our track record on that score, which was summed up some time ago by the words of an HSE inspector after they encountered our solution:
“What is particularly impressive about [Assure360] is the fact that it doesn’t just collect numbers. It presents information that allows you to make sensible decisions about the business”.
Again, we make data gathering simple, then use the data to create powerful solutions that deliver real, quantifiable return on investment for our customers.
Written by Nick Garland on Wednesday July 31st 2024
It may only be the start of the summer holidays, but I’m already looking ahead to two of the most important conferences in the calendar: FAAM, at the Mercure St Paul’s Hotel in Sheffield, and EAF at the Hotel Marriott Grand Place, Brussels. Both are brilliant two-day events, representing the finalé of the conference season, and its peak, for very different reasons.
For those of you who haven’t been, the European Asbestos Forum (EAF) is run by Dr Yvonne Waterman, who always puts on a wonderful event. It’s focused on policy and new technology, and has an international outlook while remaining relevant locally. This year’s event takes place on 12-13 December – it’s always over two days. While the conference itself is on the second, the first day is crucial as this builds the collegiate atmosphere that makes the main event so successful. It usually involves a visit to an organisation doing something innovative or interesting in the field of asbestos management – sort of a school trip for adults, which is always tremendously interesting and great fun.
It’s become a hallmark of EAF conferences that everything is delivered in a classy style, and EAF 24 looks no different, with a fabulous schedule. At this relatively early stage not everything has been revealed, so the programme as it stands teases us with hints for some sessions. EAF and FAAM often have links, and that’s very much evident from EAF’s first day. After the yet to be announced ‘day out’, BOHS CEO Kevin Brampton is hosting a series of round table debates with UKATA’s Chris Bishop, and Sean Fitzgerald (FACTS).
Day two will start with the introduction of the two session hosts. Adam Harding (ADM Training) is returning, and new this year is DSK Environmental’s Kirsty Budenbender. The structure is a plenary session in the morning with a sweeping range of relevant talks from around the world. Last year we started with Zuhal Demir, the charismatic Dutch minister that was responsible for the Flemish asbestos ban. The keynote was no less than Gordana Materljan, the EU Commissioner responsible for the new EU asbestos directive. Yvonne really does know everyone – so I’m sure this year will be just as groundbreaking.
In the afternoon the conference splits into two. The first session is normally driven by policy, law and health advances. The second is more focused on new technology. For the last few years I’ve hosted the latter, but I’m taking a break this year so I can enjoy the whole conference.
Among the highlights in session A this year, we have Dr Elham Beheshti on novel approaches for mesothelioma diagnosis and treatment. There’s also a look at the impact of asbestos in South Africa, a discussion of asbestos in UK schools, and a talk on achieving global justice for the victims of this horrendous material.
Session B – my old stomping ground – looks fascinating. It kicks off with Tobias Hans from the Ferraro Group presenting a case study in the decommissioning of a thoroughly contaminated power station, and its replacement with a brand new and beautiful living environment. There are other talks on developments in Japan, the impact of asbestos in the military, and asbestos removal in a war zone. Asbestos removal is complex enough without having to think about unexploded, and incoming ordinance.
Representatives from 26 countries registered to attend EAF last year. It is a truly international conference, possibly better named the World Asbestos Forum.
But before I see you in Brussels, I hope to see you at the 2024 Faculty of Asbestos Assessment and Management (FAAM) conference, on the 8-9 October. Devotees of the FAAM conference will know that the first couple of events would best be described as on the academic end of the spectrum. Where the EAF focuses on policy and new tech, FAAM would focus on the science that makes all of that possible.
However, the last two years have seen a broadening out of that approach, with FAAM and BOHS-sponsored research projects coming to the fore. These have been very practical looks at particular challenges within the industry, and I had the privilege of being involved in two of them: a look at gel cutting, and a workshop exploring the working dynamics between supervisors and analysts. I’m immensely proud that the latter has directly led to new guidance for the industry, and that the former represents the first new removal technique in the UK for 20 years.
FAAM sees itself as the scientific arm of the asbestos industry, with a remit to bring academic rigour to the investigation of new techniques and technologies. This is always ongoing. Even before the conference, FAAM is continuing a series of webinars. The next one, When do we really need to measure air concentration during asbestos removal, is from 11:00-12:00 on 17 September. This is hot off the press, so there are no booking details yet, but it will be a discussion on reimagining asbestos removal techniques. The webinar will examine whether there are better ways to monitor exposure than air tests and fibre counting, and how to ensure that methods known to work are actually followed on site.
But back to the conference itself. FAAM registrar Jonathan Grant opens day one, cueing up keynote speaker and titan of the UK analytical establishment, Julian Peto. For those who are not so familiar with his work, the Royal Society sums him up as “an epidemiologist whose dose-response models for asbestos-related cancers contributed directly to reducing industrial exposure levels and subsequently to the European asbestos ban, and are still the accepted basis for environmental risk assessment.
It goes on to say that “he predicted the scale of the mesothelioma epidemic [and] his recent work predicts its end.” Clearly that would be enormously good news, but I wonder if it’s a little over-optimistic. While deaths from mesothelioma have fallen off slightly in the past two years, certainly there are questions about whether the COVID epidemic may have skewed the numbers. We may get answers to them, as Professor Daniel Murphy from Glasgow University comes next. He is followed immediately by Professor Angela Tod and Claire Gardiner. Between them they will be sharing their expertise in the horrendous disease and ultimately asking the question “why are people getting mesothelioma?”.
The first day is set to end with two talks from the other side of the world. Australian Simone Stevenson will take us through the state of Victoria’s Asbestos Eradication Agency. To top off the day, Brian Eva will give us an update on FAMANZ’s activities in Australia and New Zealand.
A hot topic at FAAM and in the wider asbestos management world is the new European directive on asbestos. This reduces the Occupational Exposure Limit (equivalent to our Control Limit (CL)) from 0.1 fibres per millilitre (f/ml) to 0.01f/ml, AND specifies that the preferred method of testing would be electron microscopy. James Staff, the HSE’s specialist on the subject, will bring us up to speed on what scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) can, and crucially can’t, do.
Steve Sadley of ARCA takes us on to the next critical question. He’ll be asking, if we in the UK follow suit and reduce the CL (a move I personally think is inevitable), what are the implications to the UK asbestos removal industry, and the operatives who have to work in these contaminated environments? Towards the end of the day, Steve hands over to me for an update on FAAM’s gel cutting research project, for which I’ll be sharing new data, photos and videos.
The above are just tasters for what will be another must-attend conference. You can book tickets, or find more details including exhibition and sponsorship opportunities at the FAAM Asbestos 2024 website.
I’ll end with a reminder of those three dates for your diaries:
Written by Nick Garland on Monday June 24th 2024
May and June have been very busy for the Dev team at Assure360.
Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (or HAVS for short) is often the subject of questioning from visiting Health and Safety Executive (HSE) inspectors, with under-pressure supervisors trying to explain how they measure and record exposure. Often the maths is too much, and the contractor gets a letter.
This brings us to the first new feature from our tech gurus: a brand new module for supervisors using the Paperless app. Our long-awaited HAVS solution is fast, efficient, accurate, and above all simple for anyone unsure about technology.
The system is based on our unique exposure solution, that has led to nearly 20,000 personals being added to the biggest database in the UK. In a nutshell, the office develops a library of vibrating equipment with its associated vibration magnitude. The contracts manager assigns the correct kit to be used on a project, and the supervisor just picks from that list in the app. Our system does all the maths, warning the supervisor if the lower action level has been breached – and again if we are getting close to the upper limit.
Simple – like all the best solutions.
The next new release is another in our suite of exposure hacks. The new Exposure Target by person report allows you to check whether you have targeted your individual operatives with enough personal monitoring.
One of the requirements of the new Asbestos Network guidance is that, while you need to monitor all operatives, some need to be targeted with more testing than others. Anyone with less experience – or a more ‘hurried’ approach to removal – gets extra attention. The new report tells you immediately if you’re on target for your own monitoring strategy, using data you’re already collecting in the Paperless app.
That’s what you see on the surface, but beneath the water there is a great deal of paddling. We take your existing targets for high risk activities, and work out the average. Next the system tots up the number of exposures for each person, and the number of personals that they have had in those activities, and compares this with the average. This gives you a percentage-of-target score.
If the person has been tagged with Enhanced Supervision, then the target is doubled – i.e. we demand double the personals as they are higher risk individuals. I know I get carried away on this subject, but this is the only route to compliance without hours of Excel data mining. Our neat solution gives you 100% compliance with 0% extra work.
Finally we have completed the second phase of our People module, giving you a 100% flexible training matrix. You decide what job roles exist in your company and what skills are required, and assign those to your employees. We then track what you’ve selected and tell you what’s in date, what’s not in date and what’s about to be out of date.
What’s more we can even track the difference between role-required skills, and those that the employee has that are above and beyond. In this way, you can choose to maintain these additional skills if you want.
Written by Nick Garland on Monday June 24th 2024
You might remember the gel-cut asbestos pipe removal technique that I wrote about in October last year. This brand-new approach is aimed at an age-old problem: how to make the removal of asbestos pipe insulation safer than existing methods. Last month, in my capacity as a FAAM Committee member, I had the great pleasure of attending a site on Guernsey to conduct a further FAAM and BOHS investigation into the method.
By way of a short recap, when faced with having to remove an asbestos-insulated pipe, licensed asbestos removal contractors (LARCs) conventionally have two options. The first is full removal, the second is wrap and cut. Both involve injecting the asbestos-containing material (ACM) with surfactant and carefully removing the now wet insulation. Full removal, as the name suggests, involves taking away and cleaning all of the insulation, leaving a bare pipe to be reused. It’s a laborious process that clearly involves risk of exposure.
If the pipe itself is redundant, you can use wrap and cut. Here you inject and clean short sections of insulation to reveal bare metal that can be cut. Intact sections of still-insulated pipe can be wrapped and disposed of. This process is much safer than full removal as it disturbs only a fraction of the asbestos material. But it’s still laborious, as you have to inject and carefully remove the insulation from the point to be cut. As with full removal, you must always stay vigilant for a dry spot that could lead to significant exposure.
This is where the new technique comes in. Using EasyGel Protect, workers fix gel pouches to pipes that have already been wrapped, then simply cut through the gel, the asbestos, and the pipe. The innovation is that the gel reforms over the blade, so that the operative is always separated from the asbestos. The gel captures the dust and the team simply seals the cut end of each section with a waste sack and moves to the next cut point.
Our earlier investigation in Somerset with Horizon Environmental gave very encouraging results. Both wrap and cut and the new gel-cut technique gave similar air test results of 0.03 fibres per millilitre (f/ml). But importantly, the new technique was twice as quick, so the operatives’ total exposure was halved.
Last month FAAM appealed for suitable projects on which we could repeat the exercise. We wanted to see whether the technique could easily be adopted by a new team, in a different setting, and still deliver the big safety benefit we observed in the first test.
Paul Knight, of the Guernsey-based removal contractor ASR, quickly suggested his site at the old vineyard at A’La Fin. This was a redundant greenhouse plant room with 10 linear metres of asbestos-insulated pipes. As with the first trial, we were dealing with hard-set insulation including all three of the commercial types of asbestos: amosite, chrysotile and crocidolite.To make it more challenging, the material was in poor condition.
All of the pipes were wrapped in polythene and seven cuts were planned. The whole exercise – from selecting the cut points, affixing the gel packs, making the cuts and sealing the redundant pipe sections after removal – was completed in around 45 minutes.
This seems very fast – and it is in comparison to the traditional approach, which might have taken most of the day – but the whole process was in reality unhurried, and completed with increasing confidence. The exercise was witnessed by me (representing FAAM and BOHS), Graham Warren and Craig Binge of ASESA (ASR’s trade association), and Matthew Coggins of the Guernsey Health and Safety Executive.
Watch the footage of the cutting in action.
As with the Horizon Somerset test, the air test measurements were very encouraging. The new technique returned results of 0.015f/ml and 0.018f/ml – in line, or even better that what we’d expect from well-controlled wrap and cut removal. But again, with the work completed so much more quickly, worker exposure was significantly reduced.
This test showed that the technique is easily picked up by new teams, in different situations, who can work more quickly and in greater safety than they might expect from wrap and cut. I’m indebted to the site team, who committed to the investigation so enthusiastically.
The removalists were Paul Knight senior and Paul Knight junior, Darren Wain and Mathew Wakeford from ASR, while the air testing was expertly delivered by Daniel Klassen of Survey Safe. It was great to see their work subsequently covered by Guernsey Press, in which Paul senior was able to highlight the gap between the asbestos regulations in Guernsey and the UK.
Written by Nick Garland on Thursday June 6th 2024
The Horizon Environmental group was founded in 2011 to deliver comprehensive asbestos removal and land remediation services to the construction and public sector across the UK. Focusing on consistent high quality work and exemplary health and safety practice, the business has grown rapidly.
Today the business has expanded beyond the UK, delivering international asbestos removal services to British government sites overseas. It has also worked across Europe, Africa, Asia and in the Middle East. Horizon remains dedicated to maintaining the highest standards, upholding practices that create long-term value and enhance the firm’s reputation for honesty, integrity and safety.
As a large asbestos services company, Horizon Environmental is typically responsible for multiple asbestos-removal projects at any one time. With major clients including several NHS hospitals, projects can often be complex, and last for many weeks. In order to maintain the very high standards to which it aspires, the company uses a system of internal auditors who visit sites on a round-robin basis. In addition, an external auditor is contracted to provide regular independent audits.
Operating a business of this scale, with this level of oversight, in such a heavily regulated industry, requires a huge amount of record keeping and organisation. This is hard enough to achieve using paper-based systems, but such traditional approaches also have the effect of ‘locking up’ valuable data and insights.
Additionally, businesses using many auditors face the challenge of ensuring consistency. While multiple auditors provide a broad base of insight and experience, differing auditing approaches and report formats can make it harder to identify trends, or produce and act on consistent training needs analysis.
Horizon Environmental has long been mindful of these challenges, and aware that emerging technology could provide solutions. In 2014 it became one of the earliest adopters of the Assure360 system, leveraging the Audit app to manage audits and generate insight. In 2018 Horizon was involved in the design of Paperless, Assure360’s digital supervisor support tool, and the company became one of the launch customers for the app..
Horizon’s use of the Assure360 platform has become fundamental to its ability to manage the high volume of audits it conducts. Assure360 Audit provides a framework through which Horizon can ensure a high level of consistency between auditing approaches, obtaining meaningful and comparable results between auditors. In addition, the app helps Horizon to track and report data, providing insights that help contract managers deliver high quality outcomes on time.
Horizon was already familiar with many benefits of Assure360 Paperless. For example, the system has helped the business liberate critical safety data from site folders, allowing it to respond to process or training issues at the time they arise, rather than when the paperwork finally comes back. Under the coronavirus restrictions, however, the system proved its worth in other ways, such as by helping support remote-working staff, and showing live on-site progress to contracts managers working from home.
Most recently, Horizon benefited from Assure360’s help during its early 2024 licence renewal. By drawing on the licensing modules built directly into the database, the company was able to streamline and accelerate its application by providing high-quality reports in the required format. In addition, the Assure360 team was available to provide support and advice based on its experience with guiding other customers through the process.
“Our internal auditors picked up the process very quickly.
“With Paperless, myself and the contracts managers really like the real-time monitoring that’s available. With your archaic, traditional site folders, you wouldn’t really get to see the bones of the project until completion – or on a longer project when we did a changeover of the paperwork. The Paperless system allows us to have that real-time monitoring and see that all the checks and everything have been done in real time.
“In Covid, where we obviously had a lot of staff working remotely, we were able to tap into the Paperless system and have a real live feed of activity on site and how things were progressing. And with the picture functionality that’s been rolled out in the latest version, that’s really, really helped in that respect as well.
“Rolling out Paperless has reduced the strain on the administrative side of the business, which obviously allowed us to allocate staff to other projects in the business, which has been massively beneficial.
“When it came to re-licensing (in early 2024), using Assure360 we could directly generate reports from the vast amount of data in regards to exposures, personal monitoring – all that kind of really technical stuff. We used those as part of our submission, our supporting evidence. We had a very good experience of the new licensing process.
“I would highly recommend the whole Assure360 system. The auditing side I think is fantastic: it allows us to have a real in-depth understanding of how our sites and staff are operating. We’ve got the training needs analysis feeding into that, which once again is extremely helpful.
“The whole system – from Audit and Paperless to the cloud-based database and what you can pull from that – I think is a really useful tool. I would highly recommend it to other licensed removal companies.”
Written by Nick Garland on Thursday April 18th 2024
Last month, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) unleashed absolute chaos. For those that don’t know what happened, I’ll summarise…
The HSE has become concerned about the quality of some training – and very concerned about the effectiveness of some RPE (respiratory protective equipment) face-fit testing (FFT). The regulator suspects even that in some cases, training and FFTs were not actually being done – just the certificate issued. Due to the criticality of a good FFT, it instructed the Asbestos Network members to share this concern with the world.
Where this got highly controversial is that the HSE issued a statement naming two training organisations of which it was particularly suspicious. And even worse, the first of these two was misnamed: the organisation’s acronym didn’t match its full name, which in turn was completely wrong – and a totally different organisation. No evidence was provided, so there was little for the relevant accrediting bodies to investigate.
From the outside, it didn’t seem like the appropriate way for the HSE to raise or deal with its concerns. But a colleague of mine more involved summed it up more directly: ‘It’s a proper screw-up’.
But as the dust settles, it’s important not to lose sight of the core concern here. For a very long time there have been rumours that training, FFT, mask maintenance certificates and even medicals can be and routinely are ‘forged’. I’ve personally not seen any hard evidence to this effect, but I’ve heard the suspicions of supervisors: “he’s never been trained in his life”, and “remote training sessions are too easy to pass – so what value is there in them?”.
The other week I came across a medical certificate for an operative who had been working on site all week in the south of England, but who had somehow managed to pop up to the North-East for his medical without missing a shift. Was this evidence of fraud? Actually no, as with some digging it turned out that the occupational health centre was providing medicals over the phone. This approach was brought in as an emergency measure in COVID and was withdrawn years ago. Not fraud, but certainly shocking.
Despite the naming issue, the HSE has not withdrawn its statement, so certificates from the two named organisations (and presumably the misnamed one too) should continue to face additional scrutiny. What this translates to is that a licensed asbestos removal contractor (LARC) must conduct extra competence assessments on employees with these certificates. The press release didn’t offer suggestions on how we should approach the FFT, but I understand that the labour supply agencies themselves are ensuring all staff under their wings are being re-tested.
This event should serve as a catalyst for the industry to reexamine testing more thoroughly, and ensure it’s delivering the high standards of protection that asbestos removal demands. For even when training is actually done – and done to a high standard – it’s fair to ask whether a three-day, new operative course should be enough to allow someone to work under challenging conditions with a carcinogen. In fact I think you’d struggle to find anyone to enthusiastically support this idea.
For those that can remember, labour supply agencies used to be licence holders, and were effectively employers for a stable of workers. Maintaining a licence is not an easy thing – it takes care, attention to detail and commitment. A good agency would be seen as a partner for a LARC and, if they could provide reliable staff that were competent, they would be able to command loyalty from their customers. Their licence would be precious, and they would have an incentive to train, assess and generally look after good staff.
This all changed in 2013, when they were removed from the licensing regime, and anyone could start up a labour supply agency without any checks and balances. The HSE’s argument was that they didn’t care where a LARC got its staff, providing the LARC ensured their competence. No thought was put into how the LARC might do this, particularly for workers who might only be with them for a couple of days. This has led to a lot more labour supply agencies, but the same pool of short-term workers (STW), who are self-employed people in their own right.
There are good, dedicated agencies out there that endeavour to provide top quality staff, but there are also some that are very, very poor. The pay rates for all site staff are historically low, and therefore a bump of £5 per day has become enough for a worker to move. When demand outstrips supply, it also becomes a seller’s market. Desperate employers and desperate agencies need bodies on site, and sometimes that’s achieved no matter the competence.
We have created a market where the individual worker is the customer, and loyalty to the LARC or the agency is for mugs.
For the trainers, RPE Face Fit providers, and mask maintainers, the customer is now often the individual STW, and time has become a huge premium for these self-employed people. Anything that keeps them off-site for a shift can represent a significant loss of income. The incentives are obvious, and help explain the rise of the online refresher course, rather than face-to-face training.
If we think a little on how this incentive could twist the market it is a short leap to questions such as: ‘how quick can the training be?’, ‘do I need a FFT every year?’, ‘this second hand mask looks alright – how do I get a maintenance certificate?’, ‘have you heard that NE doctor is still doing medicals by post?’. It’s the result of the pure free market meeting safety-critical requirements – and we are where we are.
Online and remote training became essential during the pandemic, and it seems they’re here to stay. In the right circumstances, they can be exactly what is needed. My understanding of the HSE’s current position on it is that such refresher courses can be suitable for experienced workers, if supported by the employer’s training needs analysis (TNA), i.e. an employer, having thoroughly assessed their worker, deems that they only need a light-touch refresher. This seems eminently logical to me. However, the obvious implication of this is that it is not suitable for self-sponsored, self-employed agency staff, as they don’t have an employer to assess them and perform a TNA.
Things are about to get a lot worse. On many major construction sites, individuals need Construction Skills Certification Scheme (CSCS) cards to demonstrate a basic level of safety training and awareness. These are backed up by NVQs, and these qualifications have lots more checks and balances. Evidence of a candidate’s competence is recorded, and there’s auditing of both the individual assessor and the training provider by the awarding body. They also represent a huge time commitment for both the worker and their employer.
As NVQs were initially a new concept in the asbestos industry, temporary red ‘trained’ cards were made available for workers who had no NVQ and only the traditional three-day training course. Fifty thousand of these non-renewable cards have been issued, and all of them will expire by the end of 2024. The only route for these red card holders to get black or gold cards is to complete an NVQ. That’s quite a commitment even for a full-time employed worker, and seemingly inconceivable for the self-employed.
If I try to look at this impending cliff edge with some optimism, the only thing I can come up with is that, once we’ve fallen off, the few employees available might at least be of a high standard. What it could mean for the already tight labour situation hardly bears thinking about.
Whilst the HSE’s intervention seems ill thought through, it has forced us to look at the current situation, which is dire. What’s the solution? I’m not sure anyone knows, and certainly I don’t, but something clearly needs to be done.
Graham Warren of the Asbestos and Environmental Safety Association (ASESA) has called for a complete reset of the training environment. In his vision, all of the training organisations (ASESA, ARCA, ACAD, IATP and UKATA) would get together and collaboratively decide what training and competence should look like. This agreed competency framework could then be followed by all. This kind of fundamental action seems to me like an excellent place to start.
It does seem inescapable that remote training will have to be part of the mix – but it is not suitable for everyone. That is one of the many fundamental questions such a collaborative re-assessment has to answer. What does training and competence look like for our sector? What is the right training for a given individual? How do they learn? What will they engage with?
If online refreshers aren’t suitable for the self-sponsored worker, then how do we make the new environment work for this critical pool of staff? Should we consider bringing back licences for labour supply agencies, and so recreate trusted ‘employers’ with skin in the game? Again, I don’t know, but we desperately need to look at the whole problem with honesty.
Wherever there is money, there will be bad actors prepared to cut corners for profit. But the new system should at least be designed so that most of the human nature levers are pushing us in the right direction. It is, after all, a fundamental matter of workers’ safety.
Written by Nick Garland on Thursday March 14th 2024
For the past few years I’ve been writing about personal monitoring and exposure guidance. It’s an area that the entire asbestos industry has struggled to grasp. By ‘the industry’, I include everyone: licensed asbestos removal contractors (LARCs), analysts, and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). And frankly if these last two have struggled, what chance did the LARCs have?
In a continuation of our focus on the issue, I thought I would highlight the main points from the guidance. Here I’ve listed the most important issues raised, along with their implications, and how you can make sure you’re in compliance.
My first takeaway is that the guidance exists at all. It’s always been amazing to me that an area of the industry so important has been overlooked for decades. But it is here now, and what’s more it’s pretty good guidance. It’s clear, as concise as it could be, and it’s muscular – as in it goes slightly beyond the why and how to help address some of the blockers.
You can get a copy from your trade association, from the AN’s new official home on the CONIAC website, or download it from our website.
Takeaway number two would be that it demands a much improved strategy. The old approach to personal monitoring was that 40% of asbestos insulation board (AIB) jobs, 60% of pipe insulation, and 100% of ‘flock’ jobs would get a personal monitoring test. The obvious flaw with this approach is that both a one-day AIB boiler cupboard job, and a one-week AIB ceiling project with 10 operatives, count as one job.
I appreciate this might have been the best we could do before widespread use of Excel and computers, where everything was locked away on paper, but we’ve been able to do much better for decades. Now that we have access to databases, and Excel is commonplace, the guidance takes us to another place entirely.
Our monitoring strategy now needs to be risk based. So – other than what asbestos-containing material (ACM) we are dealing with – what makes one activity higher risk, and therefore one we should target with personals?
All of these will need to interact, so that Barry the new starter is targeted more than 10-year veteran Tom when removing a one-off AIB panel. Similarly, 10 operatives removing panels for seven days straight are targeted – and in particular Barry.
You need to collect data in much more detail to be able to work all this out. And that means your exposure record sheets need to be expanded to include all of this data:
You also need to create categories of people, breaking employees down into trusted, experienced workers, and those you need to focus on. Ultimately you need to cover everyone doing all of the activities. And once you start collecting this data, you need to process it.
There are only two ways you can unpick the meaning behind this very very large amount of information: a spreadsheet like Excel, or a database. If you go down the first route, you will need to build a sheet that can take all this data and automatically calculate the implications of your strategy. You need to build this out into a tool that allows you to commission the right personal test at the right time.
The first of my apologies, is that Assure360 does, of course, already do all of this for you. I’ve been talking about the subject for years, so it’s only right that I have built it into our system. The Paperless app takes data that the supervisor records (faster than they could have done on paper), automatically slices it up, and tells you who and what to test. This decision is based on up-to-the-second data and is not only easier than a spreadsheet, it’s actually admin-free, representing no additional effort whatsoever.
The guidance recognises that this is new, and that you might effectively be starting from scratch, so there’s a bit of humanity built in. It stresses that you should prioritise high-risk activities first, and back-fill to lower risk ones when you have sufficient data.
The next takeaway is the huge elephant in the room: it doesn’t matter what you want them to do, the analysts and the clients won’t do it.
Understandably, the big drive for some time has been for clients to employ the analyst directly. This removes a potential conflict of interest, but introduces others. As the client is paying, they’re more interested in leak tests and the four-stage clearance (4SC), so personals get forgotten.
The guidance directs the client to consider their duties under the Construction, Design and Management Regulations 2015 (CDM duties), and makes it clear that personals help them discharge these. After all, a series of personals is evidence that the work is being conducted safely.
The next issue here is that the analyst often thinks that the data they record is ‘owned’ by the client, and therefore can’t be given to the LARC. This has been very firmly put to rest, as the guidance states:
“analysts must always provide full PM results directly to the LARC as soon as possible after the collection of the sample via either hard copy or electronic means.”
And
“Failure to supply this information might be a breach of the analyst organisation’s duty H&S at Work Act 1974.”
The guidance also tells us that – whoever is paying for the test – the LARC should specify what and who is to be tested.
I have never seen guidance clearer than this!
The guidance lists the four tests you could do, but it focuses us on two:
It also explains why.
The SSDA is the workhorse test. It focuses on a specific activity, that is, not “AIB removal and fine clean”, but one or the other. With that restriction in mind, it is still hugely flexible and will provide you the data you need to answer a whole host of questions:
It can even help you with assessing respiratory protective equipment (RPE) suitability and the 4Hr TWA, if you design it correctly. The only thing an SSDA will struggle to cover is the old 10-minute test (but the guide effectively acknowledges those as being a bit niche these days).
The HSE sees this test as equally important to the SSDA, and there is an element of ‘just do it’ in the guidance. But at least it does tell you how to do it. I won’t go into too much detail here, but in broad strokes here’s what you need to remember.
Where the SSDA is looking at one activity, the 4Hr TWA is looking at one person, and it can (and should) encompass everything they do. The result of the test will therefore indicate the average exposure in a working day. This might give rise to two questions: why is this important, and why only four-hours if we are talking about a working day?
The 4hr TWA relates to the Control Limit, and the CL relates to decades of known occupational excess mortality data – i.e. how many people will die – if exposed above a certain figure per day over a 40-year period. We need to be as far on the right side of this figure as possible.
The average in a day is important, as the fact that no exposure was experienced at lunch, or when travelling to the enclosure and back, is relevant. It allows us to ‘calculate’ the likely total exposure in a working lifetime. Therefore whilst the SSDA helps us get better at what we do, the 4hr TWA is the ONLY risk assessment for asbestos exposure.
The second question? Well that’s a bit niche. Back in the day, pumps weren’t capable of testing over an eight-hour working day, so the asbestos community went for four hours instead. That might sound like a cop-out, but in fact if you target the high-risk activities as you’re supposed to, calculating exposure over four hours imposes a stricter limit.
The maths behind the 4Hr TWA remains difficult, but the guidance goes into some detail on how to do it. In essence, we’re back to the Excel spreadsheet again.
That said, It would be really remiss of me not to include 4hr TWA calculations in Assure360. I have, and it does. The system automatically identifies whether the test follows the strict rules. If it does, Assure360 will do the sums for you automatically and instantly. Again, our system solves a mandatory, time-consuming task, helping you focus on your work.
One of the most common questions from LARCs over the past 20 years must be: “Why do we always get ‘useless’ short-duration air tests?”
Well, at least part of the reason for not getting the right answer is that we typically don’t ask the right question. Normally we would instruct the analyst “can you do a personal whilst you are there?”. They would look to the (old) analysts guide, where they had four options.
As I have said earlier, analysts – along with the rest of the industry – have been scratching around in the dark. Without a deep understanding of the subject, their thought process might be: “I can’t do option one, because that’s four hours. The Action Level doesn’t exist anymore, and it’s nothing to do with RPE. So the only personal I can do is a 10-minute”.
The new guide is a huge improvement, as it introduces the SSDA, but we are still working in a subject area with precious little competence. To ensure you get the data you want, be clear in what you want.
Don’t ask for ‘a personal’. Ask for “an SSDA test on Tom, removing AIB on Monday. Please make sure the flow rate is two litres per minute, and that you run it for at least two hours.”
The specificity is important, and the last two parts particularly so. If you can get most of your personals to follow this pattern, they qualify for 4hr TWA calculations and you kill two birds with one stone.
As many of you will recognise, I’ve seen it as my mission to help address the competence gap in this area. That’s why one of the first features of Assure360 dealt with exposure, and it’s why I’ve returned to write about it again and again. It’s why we recently ran a webinar to help the industry understand and implement the new guidance.
It’s one of my proudest achievements that Assure360 is so ahead of its time, its users were compliant with this guidance more than four years ago. If you want to see how our system solves the issues raised here – and much more – please do contact us for a demonstration.
Written by Nick Garland on Wednesday January 24th 2024
The Asbestos Network (AN)’s new guidance on personal sampling and exposure is very welcome, but it also contains a lot of detail, and requires some significant changes to the way things have traditionally ‘been done’. That’s why we organised our recent webinar, in which I aimed to give attendees a practical guide.
I’m delighted by how well it was received, and I’d like to thank everyone who turned up and took part in such an engaging Q&A session at the end. We were joined by nearly 50 attendees, comprising many old friends, but also some new faces. It was great to also welcome two members of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), and representatives from our trade associations.
This guidance covers a very important topic that as an industry we have struggled with. It’s the first official guidance that the AN, and therefore the HSE, has provided to licensed contractors on the subject. Crucially, it contains some major departures from how LARCs traditionally approach personal sampling, which is why we wanted to offer the industry our support.
Our webinar explored practical steps on how to implement the guidance, and demonstrated how Assure360 can be used to achieve full compliance – at the same time as saving hours of work both for supervisors and the admin team. Although, like the guidance, it was focused on the needs of licensed contractors, we hope it was also helpful to analysts and end-clients.
Many of those who joined us later asked if they could have access to a recording, and we’re happy to share it again here. Please feel free to watch, and share it to anyone else who needs support or guidance.
As always, if you do have any further questions, or you’re keen to know more about how we can help you achieve full compliance, please do get in touch – we’re only too happy to help. If you’d like to go ahead with a free demo, book here.
Written by Nick Garland on Thursday January 11th 2024
We’re just two weeks into 2024, and 2023 already seems like a distant memory. It was an important year, though, so we’ve put together a quick look back at some of the key things that happened.
For me, one of the key themes of the year was a renewed focus on innovation and research. From FAAM taking an active role in researching working methods and techniques, through to the excellent and highly promising product development and fresh thinking presented at conferences, 2023 showed a lot of promise.
In March, FAAM held a unique workshop on the four-stage clearance (4SC), bringing together analysts and licensed asbestos removal contractors to examine the purpose of the 4SC, its potential conflicts, and how the two sides of our industry could learn from each other.
In October I was delighted to also be involved in a second FAAM project, investigating a new gel-pack removal technique for asbestos-lagged pipework. Both were featured in November’s FAAM conference, where my colleague Cat Holmes reported on the findings and actions from our 4SC workshop.
The summer brought some welcome news, as the government climbed down on the sunset clause initially contained within the Retained EU Law Bill. Had this made it into law, might have seen vital legislation – including the Control of Asbestos Regulations – struck from the statute books at the end of the year.
On a more personal level, July saw Assure360 hit the 15,000-audit milestone – an incredible achievement, underlining the wealth of data and experience behind Assure360 and its user community.
The summer holidays also saw a last-minute announcement that multiple schools would not reopen, while long-standing reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) was assessed. Many schools are still fully or partially using temporary buildings while they wait for affected structures to be made safe. It’s an awful scenario, compounded by the high proportion of school and other public buildings that also still contain asbestos.
The end of the year brought the shock announcement of ACTA – a new trade association with the potential to shake things up – and two highlights of the events calendar: the aforementioned FAAM conference, and the European Asbestos Foundation (EAF) conference. For 2023, another excellent EAF was given even greater credibility by stronger government buy-in – the Dutch state acted as co-sponsor. The presence of policy makers from across Europe added further weight to EAF’s uniquely brilliant approach.
As I say, a year of much promise, but in 2024 we need to continue building and improving. Changes driven by the Asbestos Network’s new personal monitoring guidance require us all to adapt – that’s the focus of our free webinar on 16 January.
Beyond that, the EU’s Asbestos at Work Directive, and by the more general push to renovate and refit Europe’s ageing buildings, will require us all to be open and receptive to new ideas. As I reflected at the end of last year, there’s a real danger that we in the UK could be left behind as Europe pushes ahead with better protection for its workers, and continues to be the driving force behind the innovation needed to make that happen. We in the UK must be sure to keep pace.
I couldn’t end without also mentioning our dear friend and inspiration, Mavis Nye, who very sadly passed away in November. I’ll always remember Mavis as one of the warmest people you could ever wish to meet. She led a seemingly miraculous life, being in remission for many years from the hideous disease mesothelioma following immunotherapy treatment. She leaves an incredible legacy in the Mavis Nye foundation, and all she and her husband Ray have accomplished in their campaign for an asbestos-free world.
Written by Nick Garland on Thursday January 11th 2024
Savana Environmental is an asbestos removal contractor, operating nationally out of its base in the North East. It’s a familiar name for many, but in late 2021 the company was taken into new management. Under managing director Craig Robson, it has relaunched with a mission to deliver the highest quality projects, with exemplary levels of service.
Savana’s new management team benefits from more than 40 years’ experience in the industry, so it knows full well the complexity of managing asbestos removal jobs, and the people, resources and expertise needed to ensure safety and compliance. The fast-growing company offers a full suite of investigation and removal services, and already has a track record of successful outcomes for clients including construction and demolition contractors, government bodies and local housing authorities.
Savana was relaunched from the ground up. This approach allowed its experienced management team to start from scratch, implementing best-in-class solutions to the common opportunities and challenges of running a licensed asbestos removal company. With the usual administrative demands, plus the challenges of managing, training and supervising many new staff, it was quickly evident Savana would need an advanced software solution to help with all the key aspects of its operations.
While some Savana staff had previous experience of an in-house system designed to minimise on-site paperwork, the team wanted a purpose-built solution that would help them manage and optimise all aspects of their asbestos-removal operations. In particular, they wanted a solution that included personal compliance monitoring, to help them comply with the long-awaited Asbestos Network (AN) guidance on personal sampling and exposure.
In late 2022, the company started discussions with Assure360, and in early 2023 it became a customer, rolling out the Assure360 Paperless app to its supervisors. Assure360 was able to move quickly, rapidly onboarding the company and initially providing essential training to contracts administrator Benjamin Eckford and three supervisors. Like all Assure360 customers, Savana has also benefited from the extensive how-to guides and videos in the Assure360 Help Centre, along with unlimited free support from its in-house specialists.
Savana quickly began reaping the benefits of the Assure360 system. Using the Paperless app, its supervisors were able to cut the time spent recording essential safety checks and completing paperwork, leaving them with more time to supervise and support project work. The office team gained direct visibility of projects and were able to gain insight in near-real time, rather than potentially waiting weeks for site paperwork that would need to be processed manually.
Assure360’s inbuilt support for compliance monitoring, which includes features such as automatic calculation of four-hour time-weighted average exposures, has already proved invaluable. The system has been designed to support the practical uses for personal monitoring as described in the AN guidance, including exposure estimation, and maintaining exposure records, test records and health records.
Through ongoing support from the team, Savana has been able to optimise Assure360 for its purposes, while exploring and getting the most from additional features. This has further improved the company’s return on its subscription, helping it deliver the exceptional quality and value it aspires to.
There was only a very short period between us deciding to use Assure360 to us actually being up and running, and now quite a few months down the line I couldn’t imagine my job without it. With our initial training session completed, we could just dive straight in. Rick from Assure360 had reassured us that we would quickly get the hang of it, which is definitely true, but we’ve had his support via some Teams meetings, which has also helped us tweak a few things for our purposes.
Assure360 has made many, many aspects of our job – particularly for me as the administrator – so much easier. It’s a lot less labour-intensive than paper forms, and a huge timesaver. It’s really helpful for us retaining records of jobs that we’ve done, and all their different aspects – such as helping us identify training needs, and then keep the records of that training.
A major benefit is that it gives me more time to get on with the rest of work. I’ve always got loads of work that isn’t related to Assure360 or reported on Assure360, so the fact that the Assure360 stuff isn’t that time-consuming helps me achieve more.
It hasn’t just been a time-saver for me, it’s been a time-saver for our supervisors who are actually out on site. All our site supervisors have a tablet, and they have the Paperless app. We’ve recently taken on another contract manager who was already familiar with Assure360 from his previous employer, so that saves time too.
Client name
Benjamin Eckford
Contract Administrator
Written by Nick Garland on Thursday December 14th 2023
Many readers will know that the sixth European Asbestos Forum conference took place in Brussels on 1 December. We enjoyed a fabulous event – founder and president Dr Yvonne Waterman really pulled out all the stops for this occasion, making it the best EAF yet.
EAF is different from other conferences: more policy-focused than FAAM, less showy glitz than some, yet it retains a level of friendly warmth and classy delivery.
There were two reasons it was so different this time round, the first was that it was a joint event, co-hosted by the Dutch state. The conference’s USP was even stronger and more obvious this year, with policy maker after MEP after government minister lining up to talk. But EAF is also collegiate, with Martin Keve of the Dutch Ministry for Infrastructure and Water Management also putting a lot of personal effort into making sure the event was a success.
It will come as no surprise that the morning session was devoted mostly to the EU’s new Asbestos at Work Directive, which actually was published on that very day. I’ve written before about the main changes this will bring about, but they bear repeating:
European Union member states have two years to implement these new rules, but there are bigger changes down the line. In six years’ time, analysts need to start counting fibres as narrow as 0.2 microns (two ten thousandths of a millimetre). That’s much too fine for optical microscopes, or even most scanning electron microscopes (SEMs), and thus beyond the effective limit of today’s widely used techniques.
The directive allows for an alternative: don’t count these super fine fibres, but drop the OEL even further to 0.002f/ml. What this essentially means is that if you want to continue to operate at 0.01f/ml – transition electron microscopes (TEM) are really your only answer.
We often talk about political will, and that quality was personified by two people in particular: Zuhal Demir (Flemish Minister of Justice and Enforcement, Environment, Energy and Tourism) who ensured that the Flemish Asbestos Safe policy became a reality, and Nikolaj Villumsen MEP, the architect of the directive, and opening speaker on the Thursday – which already felt like an age ago.
I’ll come back to the directive at the end of this piece, but I wanted to try to sum up everything else that happened or was discussed at EAF – and it’s a lot. One highlight to mention from the morning is that Frederica Paglietti, senior researcher at Italy’s National Institute for Insurance against Accidents at Work (INAIL), was able to give us hints about a completely new style of respirator they’re working on that will rise to the challenge of the new lower OEL.
In the afternoon I had the honour of hosting session B, where we examined innovation. EAF’s afternoon sessions are pretty whirlwind affairs, with each talk lasting only 20 minutes. The ideas and discussions came thick and fast: Sean Fitgerald on defining asbestos – and whether we can, Thomas Muller of Eurofins talking about using AI and automation to help with TEM analysis, Wayne Bagnall on discovering asbestos cement in poured reinforced concrete, Stefan Kempeneers on his project to harness AI analysis of high-res aerial photography to map the extent of asbestos roofs in a whole region. And all of that before the first break!
After the break Sven de Mulder gave us an update on the incredible progress that Flanders is making in its Asbestos Safe policy. To finish off we had Graham Gould and Inez Postema both talking about asbestos eradication from different angles. Graham made the case for the thermal destruction of asbestos rather than burying it in landfill. In the second, Inez focused on her use of water and the natural alkali pH of cement to denature the material.
Whilst Graham did indeed touch on his own thermal approach, his main thrust (echoed by Inez) was a call for action. It’s much easier to commercially destroy asbestos when there is still lots of it in the built environment. If we continue to bury it, it will create a problem that’s far harder and more expensive to solve.
While it was a frenetic afternoon, full of ideas and innovation, two different uses of AI stood out for me. Thomas Muller gave a review of the lab group Eurofin’s project to harness robotics and AI. The way it’s being used to address ergonomic hazards for its analysts, at the same time as reducing the time spent by 70%, is impressive. The timing of this work is ideal: we need to massively increase the productivity of TEM analysis to implement the new directive.
The second was the use of AI to study photographs of huge acreages of roofing. This would allow analysts to understand the likely extent of asbestos roofing in a given town or region. It’s been shown by numerous reports now that asbestos cement roofing is not nearly as safe as we have historically thought in the UK. When we do finally start to do something about it, this seems like the perfect way to get a handle on the problem.
The format of the EAF is always to come back together to conclude the conference, and this time it was particularly special as there was an award. This was in recognition of Tony Rich – a jobbing analyst by day, but also a spectacular photographer. Based in the US, his nom de plume is Asbestorama, and you can find his work here on Flickr.
To return to the directive, we in the UK can of course ignore it. But we do so at our peril.
I recall going to my first EAF in 2015. Back then there was a feeling that the UK was pretty good at managing asbestos, and that we could in fact teach our European cousins a thing or two. Over the years, though, it’s become increasingly obvious to me that we’ve been static and have become complacent.
The approach in many EU countries is already outstripping us. I can point to recent European innovations including a fully automated robotic disassembly plant for asbestos-contaminated train rolling stock, AI-driven TEMs that are three times faster than the manual equivalent, gel technology to capture asbestos dust at source, and brand-new respiratory protective equipment (RPE) concepts – rather than the converted WW2 gas masks we essentially use.
Now we can even put a number on how far we risk falling behind – if we ignore the directive (or at least its intention), we would be offering our workers 50 times weaker protection.
In the past, when writing about the Asbestos at Work Directive, I’ve been sceptical as to whether it has been thought through sufficiently. Particularly, I wondered whether the practicalities had been fully considered. Current removal methods are nothing like good enough to meet the new exposure limits. Current RPE doesn’t perform well enough, so essentially everything we do would have to change.
Now as I leave the conference, I realise that it’s the way we think that needs to change. The new directive is the law that should make us reimagine everything.
Written by Nick Garland on Wednesday December 13th 2023
I’ve written several times about the Asbestos Network (AN)’s personal sampling and exposure guidance, which was published in August. Both ARCA and ACAD have spent a good percentage of their recent regionals taking members through the details – of which there are lots.
This guidance covers a very important topic that as an industry we have struggled with, and it’s been worth the wait. It’s a fairly weighty 21-page document. Overall it’s very much aimed at the licensed contractor – i.e. the sharp end – but it’ll be useful to analysts and end-clients too.
This is the first official guidance that the AN (and therefore the Health and Safety Executive) has provided to licence contractors on the subject. And there are some major departures from how contractors traditionally approach it.
That’s why we’re hosting a webinar to talk in detail about the changes that the guidance demands. We’ll be exploring practical steps on how to implement them, and demonstrating how you can use Assure360 to achieve full compliance – at the same time as saving hours of work for both your supervisors and admin team.
So whether you’re an Assure360 customer or not, please join us on January 16, 2024. To book your place, please just fill in the details below. We hope to see you there!
Written by Nick Garland on Thursday November 23rd 2023
Last month’s Faculty of Asbestos Assessment and Management (FAAM) conference already feels like ancient history – but at the time of writing it’s all of three weeks ago! Below is a brief look at some of the highlights for me. Broadly speaking, the conference’s focus on new research really summed up what FAAM should be about. As an organisation, we really can bring the structure, independence and academic rigour that can help bind our industry together.
In last month’s newsletter I wrote about an incredible piece of research that FAAM undertook to investigate the viability of a brand new removal method. At the conference, FAAM’s earlier research into the working relationship between analysts and supervisors provided a real highlight.
Cat Holmes, a colleague of mine on the FAAM committee and a consultant at ION in North Wales, gave a groundbreaking talk examining our unique attempt to bridge the gap between two sides of our industry: analysts, and licensed asbestos removal contractors (LARCs), during the period of highest stress and conflict – the clearance of enclosures.
Cat explained the lessons that were learned on the day – the fact that the supervisors can teach analysts a lesson or two in the first stage (completion of the job and condition of the enclosure). But also how the analysts showed their experience in the mocked up second stage (visual inspection), and in particular their ability to find the small things.
The biggest reveals though were the lack of formal training that any supervisor receives in this critical area, or the attention given to it by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). To my knowledge, no LARC has ever been asked to prove a supervisor’s competence in visual inspections.
Cat outlined that the next step will be another round of workshops, this time focusing on how best to deliver that training. These may possibly lead to joint refresher courses for supervisors and analysts. Professional bodies such as BOHS, IATP, ACAD and ARCA have all expressed interest in sharing in that experience.
The HSE’s Martin Saunders gave a fascinating talk on the regulator’s research into the effectiveness of control measures in asbestos removal. And there were some very useful takeaways. Despite the site teams knowing the HSE was observing them, time pressures tended to lead to poor practice. In one example methodical removal of asbestos insulation board ceiling tiles morphed into uncontrolled breakage (caught on recorded CCTV footage).
Martin also discussed the use of PVA (the white glue we all remember from primary school) in improving asbestos control. It’s actually been used in asbestos removal for many years, as when diluted and sprayed it can act as a temporary binder or sealant for asbestos fibres. There have always been two uses – one bad and one good.
The first is spraying the enclosure liberally before an analyst starts their visual and air test in the four-stage clearance process. This has been quite rightly outlawed for a very long time, as it prevents the analyst from adequately testing the enclosure. The second is spraying the polythene enclosure walls after the third stage (air test). This is good practice but has largely fallen out of favour for some reason – possibly because it’s become wrongly linked to the former nefarious use.
The reason why it is good practice is that when you dismantle the enclosure after a successful clearance, there is a new exposure risk that can be minimised if an effective sealant is applied to the sheeting. As the polythene is disposed of as asbestos waste anyway, sealing any rogue fibres to it is a good thing.
And that brings me to another point raised regarding the reuse of sheeting. All polythene is considered contaminated waste, and therefore shouldn’t be re-used. This includes airlocks: while they are visually inspected by the analyst, they’re rarely if ever air tested, so they are considered waste even more so than the enclosure polythene.
Sam Lord, also of the HSE, gave a great overview of the ongoing HSE school investigation. I say ongoing, because the regulator is about to start on a new series of inspections. Sam’s talks are always worth catching, as she manages to summarise the key information in incredibly accessible language. Two slides encapsulate that perfectly – the first concerned things that are frequently done wrongly:
Asbestos Register
Management Plan
Staff and Contractors
The second summed up key messages to all schools:
And finally a teaser for the upcoming European Asbestos Foundation (EAF) conference. Dr Yvonne Waterman of the EAF gave an overview of the current global state of affairs – a sweeping look at the asbestos bans across the world, and legal cases where some are hopefully being brought to account for their, and their companies misdeeds.
Yvonne has also been able to reveal the incredible news that the Dutch government is co-hosting this year’s conference. This means that the World Health Organisation, along with a wide range of member states, will be sending delegates. The keynote speech is by Gordana Materljan LLM. (EU Commission DG EMPL), who was intimately involved in the new Asbestos at Work Directive.
This critical piece of legislation will have impacts on not only the cleanliness of an asbestos enclosure before it is handed back, but also the nuts and bolts of protecting the worker tasked with cleaning it. Can the respirators available on the market today cope with the new limit and the existing methods of removal? Probably not. Do the methods need to change wholesale? Almost certainly.
If the FAAM conference is the first must-attend conference of the year, the EAF is clearly the other. It’s a two-day event, with the main conference taking place in Brussels on Friday 1 December – I hope to see you all there.
Written by Nick Garland on Wednesday October 25th 2023
In late 2022 I attended the European Asbestos Forum conference in Amsterdam. This won’t come as a surprise – I wrote about it shortly afterwards, and anyway I’ve been going since the very first conference. In part inspired by EAF, I’ve regularly talked about how important it is for us to look beyond our shores to find new solutions to old problems.
I’ve also talked about how UK asbestos innovation seemed to stop with the introduction of wet injection. Don’t get me wrong: injection – and the huge safety benefit that comes with removing asbestos that is properly suppressed – was a huge improvement on what went before. But for 20 years we have been resting on our laurels somewhat.
That’s why at EAF 2022 I was so interested in BCL Invent, and their product Easy Gel. In layman’s terms, this is a range of shaped plastic pouches filled with gel. The application that sparked my imagination was for cutting cement pipes, where the pouch is secured to the pipe before being cut through. Rather than just suppressing the dust – which it appeared to do – the gel remained on the surface, forming a barrier – separating the worker from the activity.
This is a crucial consideration if we want to improve safety: how do we separate the worker from the activity? It will become increasingly important as and when the European occupational exposure limit (OEL) is reduced by 10- and 50-fold in the coming years.
BCL Invent’s new approach transformed a very direct and personal activity into one that was significantly more remote. The air test results that they were obtaining were also very impressive; less than 0.0048 fibres per millilitre (f/ml) for cutting a cement pipe and <0.0032f/ml when cutting fibreglass-insulated pipe. I asked myself – how would it perform with the very common challenge in the UK of asbestos-insulated pipes?
Of course, there’s already wrap and cut, a similar method which works as follows:
The bare section of pipe is then cleaned, the exposed edges of insulation sealed, and the pipe is cut. The whole process is repeated until the entire pipe has been removed.
Wrap and cut has an advantage over cleaning the whole pipe, as it’s safer: there’s less asbestos disturbance, and it’s quicker so there’s shorter exposure. As a bonus, it’s also cheaper.
It has downsides – in particular vibration and noise. Hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS) is particularly challenging. A reciprocating saw is so vibrating that the normal limit per person per day is just 15 minutes. There are also several points in the procedure where we expect the worker to stop, check and repeat. It’s therefore understandable that operatives tend to over-inject, reducing the possibility of coming across dry patches – but dramatically increasing the spread of contaminated water.
Easy Gel seemed much simpler, with very few ‘moving parts’. If its barrier approach worked, it could fall into that sweet spot that the original wrap-and-cut method occupied – safer, quicker and cheaper.
If it works – but who finds out whether it can? The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) doesn’t approve methods: that’s not its job and it never has been. Innovators should be those creating the hazard. But we operate in a fractured industry where licensed contractors have a lot to lose. And we as consultants have become very risk-averse, guilty of blindly applying and enforcing guidance.
Step up BOHS and FAAM, who are in the ideal position to investigate the safety or otherwise of innovative techniques. We designed a rigorous experiment to examine the hypothesis that the use of a barrier gel would be enough to suppress fibre release.
As a control, we first tested the traditional wrap and cut method. Three cuts were made, which took 57 minutes. The results of the two personals for the cutter were both 0.02f/ml.
Here’s a video of the cuts being made…
I intentionally held the video on the last frame with the cut end visible. If we were relying purely on wetting of the insulation – the clear dry spots would have led to significant fibre release. But we didn’t see this.
Five horizontal cuts were made in a 45-minute period using Easy Gel. The results of the two personals for the cutter were 0.02f/ml and 0.04f/ml respectively. The cutter achieved a further four vertical cuts in a 48-minute period. Here the personals were slightly higher at 0.03f/ml and 0.06f/ml.
Our results confirmed that the key quality of the gel-cut method was the formation of a physical barrier, which prevented fibre release. You can see this in this still frame, which shows the extent of (imperfect) wetting from the gel. Were we relying solely on the gel’s wetting properties, this would have resulted in high fibre release.
While the individual personal results with gel-cutting were slightly higher, we were able to make cuts more quickly, so total exposure was reduced. Another way to look at this is to ask what would happen if more cuts were made.Twelve cuts using the wrap and cut method would take approximately four hours. The same gel cuts would take less than two. Reducing exposure time by 50% would reduce total exposure.
For this test we also used an ALERT constant monitoring device, and the data we received gave us fascinating insight into the fibre release. We could see the distinct cut points as they happened. The wrap and cut method was particularly interesting – giving us peak exposure after the cuts, not during. You can see this in the chart below, where the pink trace shows fibre levels, and particles are shown in green.
So what did we learn? While the results for vertical cutting with gel packs were still low, it’s slightly more difficult to control than horizontal, so they were slightly higher than the horizontal values.
There’s a more significant, if subtle, difference when it comes to HAVS. With a quicker process, workers could make more cuts in a shift, increasing their exposure to harmful vibration. In addition, the cutting technique required the user to keep the foot plate away from the gel pack to avoid crushing it. This in turn leads to less control and more vibration.
There’s a narrower margin for error with gel cutting – effectively the width of the gel pack, rather than the 150mm you get with the wrap and cut method. When considered with the reduced cutting control, this reduced margin for error might be significant.
The increase of the already significant vibration hazard is particularly problematic for the method and must be addressed before it is used commercially.
We observed comparable air test results: wrap and cut at 0.02f/ml, and gel cut (horizontal) of 0.03f/ml. As wrap and cut resulted in an excess of injection liquid leaking out, gel cutting gave a higher degree of control – there was virtually no spread of contaminated gel.
The gel cut process is much quicker. If 12 horizontal cuts were to be made using the traditional method this would take approximately four hours. Using gel cutting would take approximately half this (meaning the exposure in the subsequent two hours would be zero) . Therefore, whilst the test results are comparable, a total exposure or four-hour time-weighted average (4hrTWA) calculation would be approximately 50% of the wrap and cut equivalent.
This increased efficiency could lead to shorter project duration – which would be commercially attractive to clients and licensed asbestos removal contractors (LARCS).
However, due to the commercially attractive nature of the method, the increased vibration and reduced control must be countered before the procedure is adopted. The following currently available solutions should be considered:
Whilst the picture shows an uninsulated pipe, these devices are equally usable on wrapped insulated pipes. This approach imposes a great deal of control on the cut and virtually eliminates vibration. This modification should be considered for all uses of reciprocating saws, and would be crucial when considering the new method.
This project shows what a fully functioning, joined-up industry can achieve. The innovators must be the hazard creators, but FAAM can provide the structure, independence and academic rigour to prove a method can work.
I’d like to extend our particular thanks to Ben Ives of Horizon Environmental, for tolerating a research project on an asbestos removal project, and to G&L Consultancy for the analytical work. Special thanks also to ALERT for providing the constant monitoring kit, and last but not least BCL, for modifying Easy Gel for the UK application.
Our thanks also go to the site teams:
Horizon Site Team –
Lee Woodward
Jacob Rowley
Jamie Hewings
Matthew Hewings
G&L Site Team
Jim Scholes
Archie Charles
Written by Nick Garland on Wednesday September 13th 2023
I’ve written several times about the Asbestos Network (AN)’s personal sampling and exposure guidance, and I’m pleased to report that it’s finally been published. You can get a copy from your trade association, from the AN’s new official home on the CONIAC website, or download it from our website.
Like most guidance, this has been a long time coming, predominantly because the AN is mostly made up of members of the technical working group – who are by definition volunteers. This guidance covers a very important topic that as an industry we have struggled with, and it’s been worth the wait. It’s a fairly weighty 21-page document, but the meat of the guidance is contained within seven pages. Overall it’s very much aimed at the licensed contractor – i.e. the sharp end – but it’ll be useful to analysts and end clients too.
So what does it say? Here’s my summary of the main body of the guidance, with the key elements to look out for. Helping companies with exposure monitoring is very much our thing at Assure360, so I’ll also weave in a few tips as to where we can help implement the guidance effortlessly.
This is a great start to the document, examining why we do personal sampling, and exploring tips on how to be as efficient as possible. The main reasons for doing personals are:
The AN’s guidance confirms what Assure360 has been advocating for some years: that with a properly designed strategy and system to analyse, a single air test could address all of these requirements.
The starting point of any strategy is clearly the question of what type of job you’re dealing with:
It might be useful to think about personal monitoring as an audit of a particular removal activity. You don’t audit every site: you select a wide range so it’s representative, and you weigh it in favour of higher risk activities – whether that’s because of the activity itself, or the experience and competence of the staff. Clearly anything new (new technique or new staff) should be in the high-risk category. Another area you should focus on is obviously ones where you are getting higher than expected results.
So target high-risk activities for monitoring first, then when you have enough data on them, broaden out to other areas like set up, fine cleaning, waste runs and enclosure dismantling. Remembering that anything new always goes to the top of the list. Similarly, make sure you cover all workers, with new starters, short-term workers and agency staff getting a particular focus.
What this means in practice is the old strategic approach to get a personal on 40% of all AIB, 60% of insulation, and 100% of ‘flock’ jobs is very much no longer acceptable. You now have to have a strategy for specific activities. Consider the risk presented by AIB alone. Clearly AIB is more risky to remove when it’s nailed than when it’s screwed, or lying around as debris. But now consider the same activities, but with a team of short-term workers you have no experience with.
For years now, Assure360 has followed this approach, with individual targets for all activities. We also have a new feature that focuses this down to individuals – with some staff tagged as needing additional supervision. The combination will allow enhanced rates of auditing and personals where they’re needed. Data is provided by the supervisor’s Paperless App faster than they could have recorded it on paper – and the database analyses it for you instantly.
We rarely get numbers in guidance, but this one is an exception. If you have a small stable workforce, repetitive work and low previous results, a single monthly personal to keep on top of monitoring is considered sufficient. It goes further – if you don’t do any licensed or Notifiable Non-Licensed Work (NNLW) work in a month – no monitoring would be required. The long-term aim of your strategy shouldn’t be to test every employee on every job, but to eventually cover all employees on all activities.
At this point the guidance adds two important notes. When faced with a certificate giving you the results, there will be lots of numbers. Confusingly you’ll be told what the Calculated and Reported results are. For your purposes always use the Reported result.
The second note is when and how to use the protection factor of the mask being worn. You only use these when comparing it to the Control Limit – i.e. the four-hour time-weighted average (4hr TWA).
There are two types of personal monitoring that we all undertake. The main workhorse is the Specific Short-Duration Activity (SSDA). The second is the Four-hour Control Limit compliance check, more commonly known as the Four-hour Time Weighted Average (4hr TWA). The guidance explains both in some detail.
I’ll start with the dreaded 4hr TWA. As I’ve written a few times, this test is less about fibre levels for a particular activity, and more to do with the operative’s exposure over the course of a shift.
If a normal day for your team is:
then a single air test that covers all of that would be the perfect 4-hr TWA test. However, it wouldn’t be very good at determining the peak in the middle (removal).
The reason why I call the SSDA the workhorse is that, while it’s principally used to measure a specific activity, the results can be used for all of the purposes laid out in the strategy section above. It can even tackle the 4hr-TWA provided the test matches the World Health Organisation (WHO) criteria: a flow rate of 1-2 litres per minute, and a minimum volume of 240 litres – which may be pooled from more than one sample. For maximum flexibility – if you can move your standard test to two litres per minute (2l/m) for two hours – it will cover most areas and will result in a good limit of quantification. As an extra bonus, Assure360 has long had this parameter built in, so we automatically do the calculation for you.
The guidance calls for close supervision, so that when the activity stops, the test should stop. Going back to the example above, the SSDA test should only be run for that middle 30 minutes of AIB removal. You would need to ramp up the flow rate to close to 4l/m to get a good limit of quantification. The analyst should watch the operative throughout the test, summarising what they did on the certificate – especially if they diverged from the planned method.
Advice for Clients and Analysts
Refreshingly, the guidance now speaks directly to the client, prompting them to consider the role of personal monitoring data in helping them discharge their duties under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDM).
It also helps us rethink the relationship between the licensed asbestos removal contractor (LARC) and the analyst. Irrespective of who is paying for the consultancy, it’s the LARC that should specify the requirements of the personal monitoring, for example specifying a two-hour SSDA at 2l/min, on James Smith, while removing nailed AIB.
Analytical companies are directed to ensure analysts have the right equipment, and that they’re competent to undertake the test. This seems obvious, but it is definitely not just LARCs who have historically struggled with personal monitoring. The Faculty of Asbestos Assessment and Management (FAAM) recognises a poor level of competence in this area, and is looking at how it can improve the skill set across the board.
The guidance also states (in bold!) that analysts must always provide full PM results directly to the LARC as soon as possible after the collection of the sample via either hard copy or electronic means. It also states: “Failure to supply this information might be a breach of the analyst organisation’s duty under Section three of the Health & Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.” So, LARCs should no longer have to hear ‘This is the client’s data, I can’t give it to you’.
Analysis and Review
A LARC is expected to review all personal monitoring reports on site and extract management information from the data.
There are two PM thresholds above which we need to do something. The first is when the result is above what the mask can deal with. This is a combination of the assumed protection factor (APF) of the mask and the control limit (which is 0.1 fibres per millilitre of air sampled (f/ml)). The APF is 20 for a half-face mask, 40 for a full face, and 2000 for a respiratory airline supply (RAS) mask. Therefore:
These are clearly shockingly high results. If you got them, your instinct to stop work immediately and investigate would obviously be the correct course of action.
It’s worth noting that in Europe they are going to reduce the occupational exposure limit (equivalent to our Control Limit) to 0.01f/ml, so the above numbers would become 0.2f/ml and 0.4f/ml. I think the goal here was always to reduce the exposure faced by normal (non-asbestos) workers. However, when these same numbers are applied to removal activities, we’ll have to reassess whether our methods and RPE are capable of meeting them. It’s also worth noting that, while European law no longer automatically applies to the UK since Brexit, on this, we’ll most likely be forced to follow suit. Watch this space.
The second threshold is when PM results are significantly (the guidance says 25%) above your anticipated level. In this case you need to investigate and review the method if necessary.
Prompt investigation underpins everything – identifying (ideally immediately) if a test is elevated, and then establishing why. This then allows you to do the next steps that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) requires:
Assure360 does indeed make all of this simple. We alert the supervisor when the reading is above the mask capacity, and management are informed instantly if either threshold is exceeded. We also have reports that compare and contrast data for individual operatives, and trend analysis is on all of our dashboards.
The guide details specific, required, practical uses for personal monitoring:
| Estimation of exposure | This is a section that has been long included in competent method statements, but the guidance looks for a little more detail than is perhaps in some documents: a breakdown into activities. Therefore include pre-clean, enclosure construction and fine cleaning in monitoring strategies, as well as the removal phases. You of course get this data from analysing the personal monitoring that you have previously conducted.
The guidance says that industry figures can be used as a starting point for new activities. Assure360 gives you benchmarked access to over 28,000 personals that have been recorded on the system. |
| Exposure Records | This is the written (or digital) record of the personal sampling/air monitoring required in the regulations. The actual detail is in para 482 of the Approved Code of Practice (ACOP), and it’s reproduced in the guidance.
It should be noted that this does not need to be one document, and it can be stored in more than one system. |
| Record of each test | The ACOP also requires you to keep a suitable summary of test results for each individual, so that average exposure for individuals and different activities can can be accurately estimated. It suggests a spreadsheet document(s) or a database. |
| Health Records | You must maintain health records for all employees, whether directly employed, short-term or agency.
Other than names, medicals and other information as detailed in the guidance and the ACOP, you must record the work carried out, location, dates, duration (hours per week), and the RPE used. Records must be kept for 40 years or until the employee is 80, whichever is longer. Therefore, the records of a 20-year-old short-term worker employed for one day must be kept for 60 years, not 40. |
Recording, calculating and displaying all of this data is complex. While it’s possible to create spreadsheets for the job, we’re really at the stage where a database is needed. There are many database programs out there that will allow you to create the analytical systems that the new guidance demands. But there is only one in which the systems are already built for you, and where they’re linked directly to the supervisor and to management teams.
Assure360 Paperless is designed specifically for the average supervisor, shaving hours off their daily admin duties. They’re able to record all of the data needed for this analysis faster than they could have written it down in the first place, and it’s transmitted directly to a database that has the power to analyse it as the HSE wants.
Not only does the system capture and securely store all the required safety and monitoring data, it uses it to give you far greater insight into the way your asbestos removal projects are running. At a glance, you can see how each job is progressing, and use reports to identify training needs. It’s not just a way to stay in compliance with the guidance: Assure360 gives you huge practical benefits that improve safety and quality, and save you money.
We’re always happy to show people how our system works, and how it can benefit every aspect of their business. If you’re interested in a free demo, and a free pilot, please do get in touch.
Written by Nick Garland on Friday September 1st 2023
The announcement from the government that multiple schools will have to close or partially close due to the long known presence of RAAC has further ramifications. Reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete or RAAC was used extensively in public buildings between the 1950s and the 1990s, for those of you that know your asbestos prohibition dates – this is the ‘heyday’ of asbestos use.
Asbestos is frequently hidden in the structure of the building, and can take weeks of planning and careful removal to find and address. In buildings of this vintage, such an issue will be highly likely. This additional delay could extend the school closures, potentially to months. But that is not even the main issue – the urgency of the RAAC question, might lead schools to overlook the asbestos question entirely.
The recent Department of Work and Pensions Select Committee report (April 22) highlighted the specific risk of asbestos in schools. ResPublica have recently stated that 80% of schools contain asbestos. The recent study paper by the National Organisation of Asbestos Consultants (NORAC) and the Asbestos Testing and Consultancy Association (ATaC) has similar figures, with 78% of the buildings they looked at having contained asbestos.
Following the select committee report, the HSE visited 421 schools to inspect their compliance with the regulations. 140 were considered to be falling short and received letters from the HSE instructing them on improvements that were needed in their management of asbestos. Of these, 27 received improvement notices (legal instruction for mandatory specific improvements), and one a prohibition notice (not to enter their boiler room until asbestos was removed). Whilst 33% non-compliance will not be a surprise to the industry, it should be seen as a worryingly high figure.
The Cliff Edge
I recently wrote about the cliff edge the country is heading towards in the race to net zero and the lifespan of system built buildings – deadlines a few years off. Now there is another ultra urgent deadline – repair or replacement of these RAAC structures so the schools can re-open. That is an awful lot of construction work that needs to be done immediately on buildings with clear potential to contain asbestos. The pressing and very public urgency to fix the RAAC problem might overwhelm other considerations – and in particular the asbestos risk.
HSE’s recent findings confirm what has been long suspected, that the model of manage-in-situ is not working well in schools. If the asbestos risk is overlooked now and not factored into the emergency, this latest crisis could be made even worse.
Written by Nick Garland on Wednesday July 12th 2023
The Times is turning into a real champion for those of us who want to change the UK’s approach to asbestos. The paper has kicked off a new – and extremely welcome – campaign to eradicate asbestos from schools [paywall], launching it with another excellent article.
It’s fantastic to finally see the issue getting some mainstream coverage. You’ll probably remember that I’ve written before about asbestos in schools. I think it’s an issue that many of us in the industry feel increasingly strongly about.
It’s instructive to remind ourselves as to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) advice to schools regarding asbestos. They must:
In a school setting, those most at risk of disturbing ACMs are tradespeople, caretakers and others who work on the fabric of the building. The school’s plan needs to contain provisions to ensure that they have information about the location and condition of ACMs. The duty-holder should also ensure that any staff likely to disturb asbestos are suitably trained.
As I’ve pointed out before, this is essentially the same advice that applies to any other employer, and any other workplace: manage the ACMs in situ. But schools are unique.
In law, a school is a workplace, but the majority of people using them are children – sometimes as young as three. Despite the known vulnerability of children to pollutants, contaminants and other environmental hazards, when it comes to asbestos, schools are treated like any other workplace: they’re subject to workplace asbestos fibre limits, regulations and management approaches. And that’s a problem – both for our children, and the professionals who teach them.
The Times’ article brings together lots of stats that, when read together, paint a very stark picture of the current situation. Figures gathered by the National Union of Teachers’ Joint Union Asbestos Committee (JUAC) reveal that, since 1980, around 400 British school teaching professionals have died of mesothelioma, the cancer almost exclusively linked to asbestos exposure. An average of 19 school teaching professionals now die each year from mesothelioma – up from three per year in 1980.
This is likely to be an underestimate, as occupation is not stated on the death certificate of those over 75 – which is the age group accounting for most victims of this horrible disease. To my mind, the real figure could even be double or triple this number.
Research by the US Environmental Protection Agency estimates that for every teacher that succumbs to the disease, a further nine pupils will go on to die from mesothelioma in later life. The JUAC estimates that as many as 10,000 pupils and staff have died to date due to exposure to asbestos in schools.
A unique challenge
Why is asbestos such a serious problem in schools? Aside from the particular vulnerability of pupils to the substance, the UK has a major problem with how widespread ACMs are – and also with the poor state of repair that some school buildings are in. More than this, schools are under budgetary pressure – heads are thinly spread as it is.
In 2018, the government asked schools to provide information on asbestos in their buildings, through the Asbestos Management Assurance Process. In 2019, AMAP reported that 80% of schools contained asbestos.
In addition to this, the National Audit Office has estimated that 24,000 school buildings are beyond their design life. Nearly two-thirds of these are the system-built buildings that so frequently contain asbestos. Last year the Department for Education revealed that there was a risk of the collapse of one or more blocks in some of these schools.
A recent Freedom of Information request by JUAC to 60 of these system-built schools revealed that nearly half did not have an “up to date” asbestos survey, and two-thirds had not identified where all of the asbestos was.
In an ordinary workplace, the HSE’s ‘manage in-situ’ advice can work very well. Surveyed, recorded and managed properly, ACMs should pose no risk – provided the management plan ensures that they remain undisturbed. Proper management starts with a management team that has the training and experience to properly understand the risk, and design and implement appropriate controls.
The Times’ article brings together a body of evidence demonstrating that, for schools at least, this is not working. Headteachers have been unreasonably forced into the role of duty holder, responsible for management of asbestos in their schools without adequate training, support or budget.
When you add in the fact that the majority of the school population can’t be considered competent around asbestos, and the complication that we don’t know the true scale of the problem, it is not surprising that the system isn’t working.
Phased removal
If management in-situ doesn’t work for schools, the only answer is surely the phased removal called for in the excellent Work and Pensions Committee investigation and report. As I have written before, the government rejected the report’s key recommendation to remove all asbestos from public and commercial buildings, and this is where the Times is taking up the banner for schools, with its five-point plan:
The paper’s campaign has already gained support from significant political figures including Nadhim Zaharwi , Alan Johnson and Matt Hancock, who between them have formerly held the roles of Chancellor, Education Secretary, Home Secretary and Health Secretary.
The Times clearly doesn’t want to let this lie, and I applaud it for that. Its launch article ends by asking if you have been affected by asbestos. If you have, email the paper at [email protected].
Written by Nick Garland on Wednesday July 12th 2023
You may have read about my recent experience in organising the Faculty of Asbestos Assessment and Management (FAAM)’s first four-stage clearance (4SC) workshop. The event produced a trove of information that we can feed back into the faculty conference, and ultimately into better, joint training for analysts and asbestos supervisors. But since the event, I’ve also been keen to use the insight we gained to make sure Assure360 is making the 4SC as straightforward as possible for everyone involved.
That’s why we’re embarking on a complete overhaul of the enclosure 4SC process on the industry-leading Assure360 Paperless app. The aim is to make it a lot clearer to supervisors and analysts, streamline the whole process, and use our learnings from the FAAM joint workshop to make it less confrontational and encourage team effort.
At the same time, we’re also starting an industry-first research project. By harnessing the power of the data management that comes as standard with Assure360, we’re trying to identify the underlying reasons behind whether an enclosure passes or fails the 4SC.
Our new-look process will record not just passes or fails, but the stage at which the enclosure failed:
Assure will also include a statement from the analyst as to whether they were familiar with the scope and project in advance. This should help with understanding the impact of involving or not involving them in the planning stage.
Crunching the numbers
These are all fairly routine data points to collect, but where Assure360 can go further than any other is by cross-referencing them with other data. Examples of where we can do this include:
Like everything we do at Assure360, the number crunching will all be done in the background, and the insight presented to you in handy and easy to use reports. There’ll be absolutely no additional effort needed on your part.
We’re particularly keen to harness the vast expertise of our community of users, so please let us know what other factors might have an impact on the success of a project. We’d really appreciate it if you email your input to us on [email protected]
Assure360 is the industry standard – if you are yet to experience the only productivity tool designed specifically for the asbestos removal industry, please contact us here, or email us on [email protected]
Written by Nick Garland on Wednesday July 12th 2023
Ours is a small industry, so I’m incredibly proud to report that last week we hit a huge milestone: the 15,000th audit completed using the Assure360 system. This particular audit was recorded by Asbestech, one of our longest-standing community members.
Clearly audit information is 100% confidential, but I’m sure Asbestech won’t mind me sharing that it was an unannounced ARCA perfect, A-rated audit that was translated onto the system.
This is an important feature of Assure360. Translating all of their ARCA audits to Assure360 has allowed Asbestech to benefit from the independence that a trade-body audit gives them – but also harness the power of the Assure360 management system. Not only do the ARCA audits now inform Asbestech’s compliance processes, they also contribute to training needs, trend analysis, and even drive the agenda for supervisor meetings
While we believe that the Assure360 Audit 3.0 App is the best on the market by a country mile, Assure360 itself is an all-encompassing health and safety management system. Crucially, we are not protective, or prescriptive as to where the data comes from. The Audit 3.0 App syncs findings directly to your dashboard in seconds. Translation of an ARCA (or ACAD) audit takes approximately five minutes.
Either way, the benefits you get by using the most powerful analysis system are incredible. We even allow independent auditors to use the app completely free of charge. It’s an expression of the underlying principle of what we do at Assure360: simply to help you manage all the information you have in the most efficient and productive way.
“We’ve been a long standing client of the A360 auditing suite; we find it both simple to use to conduct audits and simple to use to interpret the audit findings from all parties. The dashboard and report generating tools allow us to cascade learning points through our business very quickly.”
Phil Neville
Operations Director
Asbestech
“It covers just about everything you could want on an asbestos audit, along with general health and safety. I think it’s industry standard. It’s the benchmark we should all be working to.”
Dave Philips
D & N Asbestos Advisory Services
“There’s a benefit to auditing based on a consistent process. Fundamentally it means you can’t forget to do something – either on site, or when writing up the audit. With Assure360 it’s got that consistency: the layout’s the same, the information is the same. It’s easy to follow, and it’s easy to identify needs in operatives as well.”
Paul Beaumont
BIACS
Discover how Assure360 and the Assure360 Audit app could improve your management, understanding and planning of asbestos removal. Get in touch today to learn more or book a free demo.
Written by Nick Garland on Thursday June 22nd 2023
I’ve previously written about the ongoing standoff between the European Parliament, EU member states, and the European Commission regarding the exposure limit for asbestos. Well, that standoff is set to enter a new phase at the upcoming interinstitutional talks with the European Council.
To recap, the Commission has proposed a reduction in the exposure limit of asbestos at work to 10 times lower than the current value. That would mean reducing it from 0.1 fibres per cubic centimetre (f/cm³) to 0.01 f/cm³. But for the European Parliament’s employment committee (EMPL), this is not enough – they are insistent on a 100-fold reduction, to 0.001 f/cm³, after a transitional period of four years.
In the UK there isn’t an exposure limit for asbestos, but it’s analogous to our Control Limit, which is also 0.1 f/cm³. We have another limit called the Clearance Indicator. That’s the level that an asbestos enclosure must pass before it can be handed back, and that’s set at 0.01 f/cm³.
The lines are fairly firmly drawn with the EU ministers of employment setting out their position in early December last year, which was to agree with the Commission’s 0.01 f/cm³ proposal. But Danish MEP Nikolaj Villumsen wants the Parliament to keep its stronger position.
“Sadly, we know that some member states are satisfied with a limit value 10 times as high as what we propose, with outdated methods of measuring and less stringent approaches to training and certification,” he said. “This is what we will be up against next.”
This matters to the UK because, if the EU reduces its exposure limit, it will be very difficult for us not to follow. But I’ve previously touched on a more fundamental problem if the limit chosen is 0.001 f/cm³. There’s currently no equipment or testing technique available that can do personal monitoring tests at these levels. The technology simply isn’t ready to support them.
Furthermore, the masks that asbestos removal workers use have a protection factor of 40. This would mean that to stay within the lower 0.001 f/cm³ exposure limit, any method used to remove asbestos must not release concentrations above 0.04 f/cm³. I’m not aware of any working method that would reliably achieve this.
There are two things at play here: what is safe to hand back to the normal users of the property, and what’s safe for the workers actually removing asbestos in enclosures. It’s concerning that the implications to asbestos removal appear not to have been thought through.
It’s vital to protect workers and other users of the built environment, and I can see a lower exposure limit is a positive move. More stringent cleaning and more accurate testing will be able to achieve this. But, how will these new levels affect the removal operatives themselves? Protection technology improves all the time, and perhaps the lower limit will force some kind of breakthrough, but in the absence of that it’ll be a hard limit for the industry to meet.
Written by Nick Garland on Thursday June 22nd 2023
You might have already read or heard my thoughts about the Retained EU Law (REUL) Bill, which is making its way through parliament. If you’re not familiar with it, it’s a piece of Brexit legislation that aims to bring into UK law regulation that has its origin in European law. While it’s seen as a crucial step by those who want a stricter interpretation of ‘Brexit’, the bill as originally set out had huge and manifest problems.
First of all, REUL covers a vast amount of legislation – the current count is that it affects approximately 5,000 laws, and (terrifyingly), nobody seems to know exactly how many. It includes such critical and effective regulations as the Control of Asbestos Regulations.
The biggest issue with this is that the bill contains a sunset clause, which would essentially provide that, unless an individual piece of law is ported over to UK law or re-written (a mammoth task), then it will disappear at the end of the year. If this clause survives unchanged, the prospect of accidentally losing vital legal mechanisms is very, very real.
So it was some comfort when I came across a fantastic article published by the Institute for Government last month, which brought to my attention the significance beyond the headlines of a statement by Business and Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch.
There seems to have been an outbreak of sense in the approach to the REUL, inasmuch as Rishi Sunak and Kemi Badenoch “have agreed to ditch the sunset from the bill and instead provide parliament with a list of all REUL the government intends to repeal.” It will now be these selected laws that disappear automatically at the end of the year, rather than all EU based laws.
It will still be a mammoth task for legislators to unpick the long list of regs that are disappearing – but at least the immediate risk of oversights and mistakes, has gone away.
As the Institute for Government article also recognises, the wording of Badenoch’s statement, suggesting a much more sensible approach to regulatory reform. Words such as “proper assessment and consultation” make a welcome appearance, for example.
However, a concerning element of the amended REUL is that in the original legislation, only the Supreme Court could depart from established EU case law, but the bill now effectively opens the way for any court to do it. That leaves a legal avenue for anyone who did not like a decision under EU law. The government is also giving itself a permanent power to amend REUL under the bill, without any additional commitment to consultation or proper parliamentary scrutiny.
In this matter, the House of Lords has done a great service to the country, forcing the government to address the unrealism and risks of its self-imposed deadline. But there are still big question marks over the amended approach – and more work to be done.
Written by Nick Garland on Thursday June 22nd 2023
The ACAD awards dinner and golf day has been and gone, and I have to say it was another triumph. Graham Warren managed to organise excellent weather – a trick he seems to repeat every year.
I don’t golf personally, but apparently it was very tricky – a local golfer told me ominously that the course wasn’t long, but that ‘it defends itself’. Our Phil Bowen, who was on a team with Ashley from SAR, returned a very creditable three under par. We didn’t get close to any of the prizes though.
Back at the hotel, Sam Lord of the Health and Safety Executive presented a technical update on the regulator’s workings. She shared interesting previews of the Asbestos Network technical working group’s focus for this year. The personal monitoring and health records guidance that I wrote about recently is due to be finalised at the next meeting.
After that the most interesting new piece is guidance for supervisors on the four-stage clearance and doing visual inspections. This is partially informed by the excellent work that FAAM did with the joint analyst and supervisor workshop in the spring. FAAM is planning another workshop, probably in the autumn, I am sure we will be sharing the lessons from that to support improved guidance in the same way.
Richly awarded
Assure360 had the honour of sponsoring the Excellence in Audit awards again. The awards go to all members that received a 100% audit – which is impressive to say the least. There is a further award that goes to the team that has a very high standard, but also excels in best-practice innovation on site.
I had the great pleasure of presenting trophies to Amianto, MSS, Omega and Westcross on the night. Other winners not able to make it for the presentation were:
Congratulations again to all winners. It’s a joy to be acknowledging and celebrating their thorough and exemplary work.
John Barnes was excellent as the after-dinner speaker. He always was a very thoughtful, considered and entertaining sportsman, and in his speech he was able to weave his very interesting life and career into revealing observations on running businesses. He clearly remembered his time at Watford with great fondness, and came out with the amazing fact that Graham Taylor took the team from the old fourth division to top-flight runners-up in just five years. More importantly, the team that finished second to Liverpool that year was 80% the same as the one that started that first season at the bottom.
As I say, a thoroughly enjoyable day and evening, but there was one sadness to it all. Mavis Nye was due to present the Supervisor of the Year award, but unfortunately illness prevented her. I am sure Mavis is in all of our thoughts, and I hope that her sheer determination wins through again in her fight against this horrendous disease.
Written by Nick Garland on Tuesday May 16th 2023
The Times recently carried a special report on asbestos (paywall). Steve Boggan’s excellent article was a rare example of a detailed, thoughtful, well-researched and intelligent piece of writing on the subject in the mainstream press. Without the unscientific scaremongering that is so often peddled out, this piece told the unvarnished reality – which frankly should be scary enough.
Boggan interviewed several sufferers and family members. These included Wayne: an HGV mechanic, Grace: a retired teacher, and Garry: who recently lost his wife Debbie to the disease. While their stories are all different in the detail of their unfairness and tragedy, they all share a central core – the fact that they didn’t know that they were being exposed.
The article discusses the recent Department of Work and Pensions Select Committee report, and focuses on the two main recommendations that would address this ignorance. These were a national register of asbestos, so we know where all of the material is, and a plan to remove it all. Both have been rejected by the government.
Boggan quotes the prominent campaign group ResPublica who state that 90% of hospitals and about 80% of schools contain asbestos. The recent study paper by the National Organisation of Asbestos Consultants (NORAC) and the Asbestos Testing and Consultancy Association (ATaC) has similar figures, with 78% of the buildings they looked at having contained asbestos.
I don’t know how accurate the ResPublica figures are, and I know the NORAC/ATaC piece was only a snapshot, but in part that’s the point: no one has an authoritative overall view of how big a challenge we have.
The Cliff Edge
As a country we are heading towards two impending cliff edges. The first is that many of the schools and other structures that contain asbestos have a light steel frame construction. These have a design lifespan of 40 years, and we’re at least 10 years beyond that now.
The second is Net Zero. If we’re going to achieve this, there’ll be an awful lot of building work required.
Between these two massive construction challenges, many of the buildings we currently use are either going to be demolished or heavily refurbished in the next few years. Without knowing how big the asbestos problem is or having a national removal plan in parallel, it would be human nature to lose sight of the issue.
Many still see asbestos as a problem we fixed long ago. It’s still there, though, just not widely known or understood. The climate emergency, by contrast, comes with a very pressing and public deadline. But if we don’t get the asbestos plan right, it seems inevitable that the rush to Net Zero will lead to an avoidable spike in asbestos exposure – and it could be centered on the schools and hospitals used by the most vulnerable in our society.
Written by Nick Garland on Tuesday May 16th 2023
Another great asbestos article by the Times (paywall), this time on a subject I’ve raised a couple of times in the past – asbestos exposure from makeup. Katherine Quarmby and Andrew Ellson’s story reveals that over 100 British women suffering from mesothelioma are currently taking on American cosmetic giants to get compensation.
A bit of background. Talc is a mineral that is mined out of the ground. What is not so widely known is that it’s chemically fundamentally the same as asbestos. The mineral develops into asbestos or talc according to slightly different geological conditions. In fact most talc mines also contain asbestos deposits and some fibres even start at one end as talc and end up asbestos. The low-tech nature of mining for talc has inevitably led to contamination of the supply chain.
What’s also not so widely known is that talc is not just sold as talc and in baby powders. Many brands and types of makeup use the mineral as a key ingredient. In fact you’ll be hard pressed to find eye-shadow, foundation or blusher that doesn’t contain it.
The article highlights that the latest UK statistics showed a 7% increase in women being diagnosed with mesothelioma, a faster rise than in the previous eight years. New cases in women have doubled since the early 1990s, while they’ve ‘only’ increased by about half in men.
The Times doesn’t draw a direct line between these alarming numbers and makeup, but the latest HSE statistics indicate that only around a third of female diagnoses are linked to occupational exposure, or living with a partner who was exposed.
It does seem the potential for asbestos contamination in talc has been known by these companies for decades. But setting that to one side for a moment, we certainly know it now, and we know that talc in makeup presents a health risk. Whilst we haven’t yet quantified the level of risk, the regulations state that there shouldn’t be any. There are safe and cheap alternatives, such as corn starch. Which begs the question: why does talc’s use persist?
Written by Nick Garland on Wednesday April 12th 2023
Regular readers might remember that, last summer, I wrote a summary of the monitoring, health and exposure guidance that the Asbestos Network has been working on since 2019. I’m reliably informed that, with a fair wind, this guidance will actually be released this summer.
I’m aware I’ve said this before, but the latest draft has come quite a long way since my last review. Now it really does feel like it’s nearly there, but this also means that it’s worth revisiting – as a lot has changed.
I’m going to cover the main points in this update to my previous review, but I strongly suggest you give the original a read. It’s also worth providing your feedback through the trade organisations, as there’s still time for your input to help shape the outcome.
In this review I’m going to highlight how Assure360 users are already prepared. Essentially, this new industry best practice has been Assure360 standard practice for years. It’s all powered by Assure360 Paperless, which is both compliant AND massively more efficient than using Excel and paper.
Since my last review, the guidance document has been honed down to eight pages, plus appendices. The Asbestos Network recognises that this is first and foremost a communication piece for licensed contractors, and by focusing on that audience it does the job well.
That said, there are nuggets for clients, which give the guidance a wider reach. The likes of FAAM will be looking at it closely in their attempts to investigate and improve the personal monitoring skill set of analysts.
The first couple of pages set out the what and the why. The ‘what’ summarises the tests that need to be done. It’s now been honed down to a simple four-bullet list:
Those who need more detail can find it in the appendices, but two tests are picked out as being key, and these get a bit more detail within the main body of the guidance. Not surprisingly, these are the 4Hr TWA and the SSDA tests that I’ve written about before. As a reminder, here’s my analysis of the techniques:
Specific short-duration activity (SSDA) Monitoring
This is the workhorse test that you will use most of the time. It’s used to test a specific activity. The guidance talks about the importance of really focusing on the individual task. To this end it stresses that it’s no longer good enough to, for example, talk about removal of asbestos insulation board (AIB) – now you need to detail the fixing too. An example given is breaking out a single AIB panel, followed by fine cleaning. This should be viewed as two separate tasks, and either you should test them separately, or prioritise the high-risk element.
As the purpose of the test is to examine an activity, you are allowed quite a bit of licence. The flow rate (how hard the pump is working) should be between two and four litres per minute, and the minimum volume tested should be 120 litres. These recommendations are very much intended to ensure you get a decent limit of quantification.
Four-hour time-weighted average (4Hr TWA)
The dreaded 4Hr TWA should be far less opaque if you’ve read my previous articles on the subject. Its main purpose is to discharge your duty to ensure workers are not exposed above the Control Limit (after taking into account the mask protection). Essentially, if an employer causes an operative to be exposed to asbestos, we should be able to tell them accurately how much they have been exposed to. The testing rules are set internationally, so the results can be accurate and comparable.
As 4Hr TWA is all about the person, rather than the activity, it can’t be used to populate the SSDA data. However the reverse is not true – if you select test parameters that comply with both, then you will be able to satisfy both duties in one. In short – if your default SSDA test is run for two hours at two litres/minute and 200 graticules – you will get a good accurate test that can also be used to populate the 4Hr TWA data. As Assure360 users will know, the system automatically does the calculation for you, provided your test follows the rules.
The guidance then goes into more detail on the ‘why’, mostly pointing you at the various regulations that demand compliance. However, littered through the document are more ‘whys’. Fundamentally, it makes the case that exposure monitoring – if done correctly – can be a practical management tool for testing competence.
The next part of the guidance focuses very helpfully on strategy. The starting point is to give an indication of absolute minimums – for example if you have a small, stable team, with consistently low readings and a predictable list of project types, you should aim for at least one test per month.
The first very important steer that you need to be aware of comes next. The traditional approach for LARCs’ exposure strategy is that 40% of all AIB jobs, 60% of all pipe insulation, and 100% of all flock jobs get a personal. This isn’t going to be good enough anymore.
Just as with audits, you should be targeting high-risk situations over low risk. The guidance gives you areas to consider when setting your strategy:
To obtain this data, the LARC therefore needs to be very clear as to what they want. No matter who is actually employing the analyst, you need to specify when, where, doing what, and who (will be doing it).
This new granular strategy, able to focus on individual removal techniques and the experience of a worker is going to really test your Excel skills. For Assure360 users however, it’s again very easy. We allow you to set targets for individual activities, and the system tracks how many times anyone uses each method on site. With every recorded instance it reassesses your strategy and alerts you to any personals you might need to do. Again, it’s all automatic through the Paperless system. We can even tag agency or new starters to increase their testing frequency.
Looking to the Construction (Design and Management) regulations and the duties that these place on clients, the guidance makes the point that personal monitoring data is a valuable measure for management of a project, and that clients should therefore insist on personal monitoring data in the contract. The implication is that if the client is appointing the analyst as good practice dictates, they should specify personal monitoring, along with leaks and clearances.
The LARC should view the dynamic between themselves and the analyst as customer and supplier. At this moment, no matter who actually pays the analyst, they’re providing the LARC with a service. To further underline this new way of looking at the relationship, the LARC should ensure the competence of the analyst to conduct personal monitoring, just as they should with any supplier.
The implication is that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is starting to believe that United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) accreditation alone isn’t enough. But the guidance doesn’t suggest how a LARC can be assured a consultancy has demonstrated competence in this area. Possibly this is where the likes of FAAM step in to investigate and improve the skill set across the board.
As delays in getting personal monitoring data could lead to increased exposure to asbestos, the guide states that analysts must provide the certification ASAP, no matter who is paying for the service. There is a stark warning that failure to do so could be seen as a breach of their duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act.
The second half of the guidance is very heavy on how you should analyse and use the data – which takes us firmly away from the thoroughly outdated idea that ‘we test because the HSE says we must’. The key to all of the points I’ll detail now is that you need to be responsive in how you interact with the data.
The supervisor needs to analyse the results, and there are two triggers for intervention:
With some training, the supervisor should be able to keep on top of this for you. Assure360 users have an extra layer of control, as any elevated result automatically sends an email to management and tracks what action has been taken.
All of the results must be reviewed by management, and the guidance tells you what you need to be checking:
There are really only two ways that you can do all of the analyses that the full guidance requires. The first is through a spreadsheet, which involves some skill with software and a great deal of time entering in the data from paper site records. The other is with Assure360 – there’s no real alternative system.
Our software takes the data that the supervisor is routinely recording, and does all the analysis for you. This doesn’t happen by luck, for years we’ve been exploring how to use site data more intelligently to provide greater safety and insight.
As our industry guidance increasingly calls for smarter data collection and analysis to drive safety, Assure360 customers are already reaping the benefits of this approach. In the words of one HSE inspector – ‘Assure360 presents all the information to you on a plate, allowing you to make sensible decisions’.
If you’ve got concerns around the guidance and the changes you’ll need to make, or simply if you’re yet to see what Assure360 can do for you, why not contact us? We’d be delighted to give you a demo, and set up a free pilot of the system.
Written by Nick Garland on Thursday March 9th 2023
Friday the 24th February was a big day for me, albeit one that probably wasn’t on your radar. For some time I’ve been planning a workshop on the infamous four-stage clearance (4SC), and I was delighted to take the lead on delivering this inaugural event for FAAM.
This wasn’t just another P404 – BOHS’ official training course on 4SCs – but a unique attempt to bridge the gap between two sides of our industry: analysts, and licensed asbestos removal contractors (LARCs).
The very fact that we all understand what I mean by ‘two sides’ hints at the suspicion and conflict that exists between removalists and analysts. It’s been getting worse over the last 20 years, as the pressure increases on the 4SC – and in particular the visual inspection – as the key check on licensed removal work. Today, the 4SC is the cauldron where the pressures of business come up against the mandatory checks of heavy regulation. Improving the process, and adding to everyone’s understanding, is one of the biggest challenges we have.
With fellow FAAM committee members Louis Slattery of Air Surveys, and Cat Holmes of ION, we tried something new – a practical session to bring together experienced supervisors and analysts so that they could learn from each other. While we didn’t know quite what to expect, we hoped they’d each benefit from the strengths of the other, and also that they’d get an insight into each other’s point of view. The ideal outcome would be better communication and ultimately a stronger team attitude.
We used the fabulous facilities at Airborne Environmental Consultants (AEC) in Manchester, where they have full-scale mock enclosures set up. We focused on the first two key stages of the process.
With the attendees placed into analyst / supervisor pairs, they were thrown in to do the preliminary stage one inspection, where we saw the strengths of the supervisors coming to the fore. And while the supervisors obviously felt in their element, it was also great to hear a different viewpoint from the analysts, and see an instant rapport building between the two. The following debrief was also refreshing, with everyone being open in revealing gaps in their knowledge or things that they might have missed.
After lunch were two realistically mocked up enclosures with a host of issues hidden in each. Now the analysts showed their experience – not particularly with the significant failings, as both members of the team easily found those – but more in their ability to find the small things. We had the pleasure of witnessing analysts’ ‘dark arts’: the carefully angled use of a torch to reveal settled dust, or mirrors to inspect behind and under obstacles. It’s an amazing skill set, so crucial in preventing an unsafe enclosure being handed back.
The final debrief was as good as the first. For me personally there were two significant moments in the end-of-the-day chat. While everyone knew that it is the LARC’s duty to ensure that the enclosure is 100% clean, changes to the handover certificate were also brought up – for the first time the supervisor’s name is being attached to this liability, making them more directly responsible.
For me, the logical conclusion of this personal liability is that it should reposition analysts as the supervisor’s best friend. After all, they’re the final backstop before the supervisor’s enclosure is handed back.
This discussion produced another eye-opener for us all. Although it’s always been the LARC’s responsibility to ensure that an enclosure is free from asbestos when handed back, supervisors have never been given formal training in this as part of their initial or refresher training. This is something I’d personally always assumed was included. And if that incorrect assumption runs all the way up to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), it would lead to this critical competence issue being overlooked at licence assessment.
I and the other organisers hope that this will be the first of many workshops, with feedback provided to the FAAM conference, and ultimately that our findings will also inform future analyst and supervisor training. The ideal outcome is that joint training in this key competency becomes a routine reality.
I’d like to extend my special thanks to Kellie Naughton of AEC, Ian Halpin of RSK, Liam Bodger of Emchia, Nick Butters of ABP, Aidie O’Neil of East Coast Insulation, Nicola Ratcliffe of TRAC-Associates, John Malloy of RS Asbestos, Neil Hardy of IATP and Phil Roberts of the HSE, who all very generously gave up their time to make this workshop possible.
Written by Nick Garland on Thursday February 9th 2023
Site welfare is something that’s all too often overlooked on asbestos-removal jobs. We’ve all worked on sites with incredibly inadequate facilities, whether it’s too few loos, unsuitable washing facilities, or just nowhere to sit and take a break.
One of the main reasons it’s so common is that a lot of these projects are quite short term. Sometimes it’s just one or two days. Management can become too focused on the complexity of the job itself, which leaves welfare as an afterthought. Another issue is that these short-term jobs are typically in flats and houses, and by their very nature they prevent access to on-site facilities. For example, asbestos removal of the riser in a toilet might mean that the loo is available for the first couple of hours, but then it’s very much not for the rest of the day.
But while the management may forget to provide it, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) views adequate welfare as a fundamental basic necessity for workers. In fact, during the COVID restrictions, Prohibition and Improvement Notices that mentioned COVID almost exclusively targeted inadequate welfare.
Management can also misinterpret the ‘so far as reasonably practicable’ (SFARP) exception, thinking along the lines of “It’s a one day job. What’s it reasonable for me to allow for?”. The law sets out a basic expectation of toilets, a supply of hot and cold (or warm) water for washing, changing facilities, drinking water, and somewhere to eat and rest. You’d have to have very significant reasons to not provide the minimum.
The HSE is reinforcing this with the release of some new guidance: Construction – Welfare Standards. I’m grateful to Graham Warren at ACAD for flagging it up in the latest newsletter. The guidance is actually for its own officers, not us, but understanding how the HSE will be looking at the subject is crucial: inspectors are directed to take ‘appropriate’ enforcement action to secure compliance.
HSE action
The guidance makes clear that where toilets, hand basins, drying rooms etc. haven’t been provided, or they’re inadequate, an Improvement Notice (IN) is the appropriate response. There will be local exceptions that might even dial this up to a Prohibition Notice (PN), for example if there’s an imminent risk to health. But the guidance also states that prosecution should be considered for repeated offences – or even if the first offence is bad enough.
The penalties for getting it wrong are therefore significant. The guidance quotes multiple regulations and guidance documents, weaving together a framework for the inspectors to justify enforcement action. The most significant is obviously the Construction (Design and Management) 2015 (CDM 2015) regulations. Among other things, these introduced clear definitions for all parties in construction (including clients), removing the cloak of invisibility that had allowed some clients to claim ignorance.
In practice a client needs to create an environment where work can be carried out with the appropriate welfare facilities in place. If the works involve a specific fenced-off construction site, use of the client’s own facilities should not be the default option. The regs go on to say that where there isn’t such a specific construction site, clients are legally required to make their own facilities available for use.
Domestic clients are the exception. CDM 2015 and the HSE guidance both recognise that they don’t have legal duties, so it falls to the principal contractor (PC) and other contractors to ensure compliance.
Contractors’ duties
Principal contractors have clear and unavoidable duties to provide facilities from prior to the start of construction work, all the way through to the end of the project. Contractors’ duties shadow those of the PC. If there are several contractors on a site, it’s a case of liaising and cooperating with the PC. If there’s only one, then all of the duties are yours.
That ‘so far as reasonably practicable’ get-out gets some clarification with regards to welfare. In essence it’s about weighing the measures needed against the sacrifices involved. Crucially, though, it’s weighted in favour of health and safety, i.e. it’s assumed you’ll provide the welfare, unless you can demonstrate it would involve ‘grossly disproportionate sacrifices’. Cost is not the primary focus and shouldn’t be considered ‘disproportionate sacrifice’.
Toilets are mandatory (i.e. you don’t get to say they’re not reasonably practicable), and there’s a hierarchy, with flushing toilets at the top and chemical Portaloos very much at the bottom. The guide states that for large or long-running sites the provision of ‘only portable toilets’ is considered insufficient – as it would very much be reasonably practicable to provide better.
All welfare facilities must also be ‘readily accessible’. What this means varies with the urgency: rest breaks can be planned, so the distance to travel can be greater. Toilet facilities, however, need to be much more convenient. The guide quotes BS6465(1) as stating that construction sites should provide WCs within 150 metres of the workplace. Arranging toilet use with a café that’s 10 minutes’ drive away would not cut it.
For the same reason the numbers of cubicles are also pre-determined:
| Number of people | Cubicles (not urinals) |
| 1-5 | 1 |
| 6-25 | 2 |
| 26-50 | 3 |
There are some other key requirements:
What I find particularly interesting about this guidance is the way that it details other regs and approved codes of practice (ACoPs) detailed in the guidance. It features them along the lines of ‘areas to be considered when considering enforcement and prosecution’. But to think of it another way, I always like to ask one of my favourite questions: ‘Why are we doing this?’ – as understanding why is often the lightbulb moment.
Of course, there’s the basic human dignity of providing somewhere to go. Not to mention hygiene 101: wash your hands before you eat. But as these often don’t seem enough reason, how about:
I’m sure you can think of more examples and, if they apply to the work you’re doing, the HSE inspectors will doubtless think of them too. Perhaps it’s time for those of us who design and commission work to stop treating facilities as so much of an afterthought, and start planning work around the comfort of the people who do, after all, do the work on the ground.
Written by Nick Garland on Thursday February 9th 2023
Last December the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) completed its second post-implementation review (PIR) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations, 2012. A PIR is essentially a state-of-the-nation report to look at whether a set of regulations are working, whether they’re achieving the intended aims, and whether there were any unintended consequences. PIRs are enshrined in the regulations themselves – i.e. as part of the regs, the HSE has to mark itself every five years to make sure it’s achieving what it set out to do.
PIRs are typically huge documents, containing a great deal of evidence. This one is no exception. It includes minute detail on who responded to the associated questionnaire. This time, 1,850 people did, which is clear evidence of the importance our small industry attaches to this legislation.
The people who responded were broken down as follows:
Those figures make it clear that the industry as a whole was engaged in the process.
One unusual thing is that this PIR was delayed by six months. This was for good reasons – the HSE wanted to incorporate the findings and feedback from the Work and Pensions Committee report. Mostly, though, how this featured was where the HSE referred back to its written response to the committee, or even that it fell outside of the scope of the questions they asked the responders – so not much extra light shone on the recommendations.
After the delay, the PIR is now published, and is a vast 160 pages long. If you’re interested in more detail, fortunately the good people at NORAC have boiled it down to something more digestible. In a nutshell, it’s all good, and there are no plans to change the legislation at this time – which hopefully will save it from the bonfire of the European legislation that is coming our way.
Written by Nick Garland on Tuesday January 17th 2023
It’s only mid-January, and already the Christmas holiday is beginning to seem long ago. We spent the run up feverishly working on some major updates to the Assure360 platform. Releasing them just before Christmas meant that we could down tools and relax, but we realise that many of our customers won’t have found the changes yet. With that in mind, here are some of the new features and improvements.
First up, we’ve made a really big change for our larger Enterprise clients – those with multiple divisions that may have very different ways of working. Site staff inductions and work area workflows can now both be tailored for different divisions in your company. Need a different workflow for the licensed scaffoldings group, or a team that works exclusively outside and in remote areas? That’s now no problem to set up – just give us a call if you’re interested in upgrading.
We regularly get client requests for new data, improvements and reports – this feedback is invaluable for our development plan, so thank you. The Assure360 project is a community solution. Many of our best ideas come from you, and everyone gets the benefits in the form of free updates.
With this release, the Assure360 Paperless app dashboard gets two community-led innovations. The first is Plant Usage – a brand new report that tracks where equipment was last used on site, and by whom. One of the beautiful things about Assure360 is that we collect everything as data. And because this is already in the system, any new report is automatically backdated and available for previous, current and future jobs.
Another community request was that the Paperless Work Area dimensions should get a decimal point. Done – a simple win for all you detail-focused Contract Managers. Keep all your requests coming, please.
Among the other updates, we’ve enhanced two admin reports – the Manage Multiple SHEQ Actions and Manage Multiple Exposure Actions reports. Both get extra information to help pinpoint what was happening on site. For those of you that haven’t used either yet, the first is a very useful report for closing out actions after team meetings. The second is brilliant for your admin team to group exposure actions into single strategies. You can find them both in your Admin drop down menu.
We’ve made another improvement to the Assure360 Audit App that should appeal to all our trusted auditors. The app now puts all of your client’s People into different pots. This is automatically sorted, so you will now be able to focus more on identifying issues on site, closing them out, and kick-starting recurrence prevention.
Our last app tweak represents a small but important victory against acronyms and unclear language. In Assure360 Paperless, the exposure section used to ask: “Was the activity measured?” This ludicrous question was always intended to mean ‘did you get a personal done on this?’, so we’ve changed it to “Personal Monitoring test carried out?”. All I can say is sorry, but it’s fixed now!
Finally, we’ve made an important and useful change beyond our web and app interfaces. To streamline actions from audits, we’ve added lots more site-specific information to the emails you receive from the system. Now you can triage and prioritise more effectively.
We hope you enjoy using the Assure360 system and all three of our apps, and we hope these changes make them even better. If you’d like any more information on any of these enhancements, please do get in touch.
Written by Nick Garland on Wednesday December 7th 2022
The fifth European Asbestos Forum (EAF) lived very much up to its billing, with a breathless conference programme featuring 21 international speakers. But, as I’ve said before, what sets Dr Yvonne Waterman’s EAF apart is that it is so much more than a conference. The clue to why is in its name – forum.
The conference itself was on Friday 11 November, but the wider event got under way the day before, with a field trip to the Asbestos Museum and the Asbetter asbestos denaturing plant.
The first of these was absolutely fascinating: a private collection showing off a fraction of the vast number of products that have, and still do contain asbestos. From fake (fireproof) Christmas snow, through moulded cement ceiling tiles that looked like carved wooden panels straight out of a Jacobean mansion, to toy Eternet trucks with real asbestos cement pipes! Good Lord.
Next for us was the Asbetter factory. Asbetter is an innovative firm that is attempting to develop commercially viable means to destroy asbestos. Asbestos is known to dissolve in high alkaline solutions. Cement itself is strongly alkaline. Therefore if you add water to a ground up cement debris and heat the resulting suspension (to approx. 90oC), you end up with a cementitious slurry with ostensibly no asbestos fibres remaining.
Such a simple solution would seem to be witchcraft – but the science is sound, and Asbetter has scanning electron microscope (SEM) data to suggest that all of the fibres have dissolved. The company does, however, face challenges in ramping its current pilot plant up to a full commercial outfit:
I wish the business good fortune, as the world very much needs a solution for asbestos that isn’t simply burying it in the ground.
One of the unique appeals of EAF is that Yvonne works time and space into the schedule. It’s the vital magic that makes all the difference to your enjoyment of, and what you get from, the conference. After the field trip, we all headed back to the hotel for a laid-on meal. By the time delegates get to the conference day itself, they’ve already met many of the speakers and other delegates, got to know each other, and formed friendships.
Conference day
At the conference itself, I was chairing Session B (technology). It was brilliantly fascinating, but being on duty I didn’t have the time to just simply enjoy the event, or to make all the notes I might have liked to. With apologies to any of the delegates that I don’t mention here, or don’t cover in the detail they deserve, here are some of my highlights from the day.
Member of European Parliament (MEP) Nikolaj Villumsen opened the conference, explaining the European Union’s goal to reduce the Occupational Exposure Limit (OEL) for asbestos. You may remember that I talked about this in my post from the FAAM conference.
While the new OEL goal was initially 0.001 fibres per millilitre of air (f/ml), in the end the figure settled upon was a less stringent 0.01f/ml. This compromise level was seen by the Commission as more practical, and not requiring much in the way of prolonged technical adaptation. Mr. Villumsen explained his disappointment and frustration with this, and said that it would likely be amended.
In a later talk Federica Paglietti, of the Italian worker safeguarding body INAIL, was able to reveal that only the day before, the EU member states had indeed agreed to amend the limit to the original 0.001f/ml. In addition, they’d agreed that PLM (optical microscopy) would be prohibited in favour of electron microscopy. There will be a lead-in period of somewhere between five to seven years.
I know the UK is no longer part of the European Union, but if ‘they’ implement this, the gravity may well prove un-resistible. It’s not possible to morally argue against a lower limit, but to adopt 100% electron microscopy in the UK within a mere seven years – from a base of virtually nothing – is a daunting task.
It has to be said that we were slightly stunned by these revelations. So much so that another revelation – that the encapsulation of asbestos would be prohibited in favour of removal – almost slipped by unnoticed.
Huge changes are afoot.
Later in the day, Professor Arthur Frank gave us a tour-de-force analysis of asbestos exposure sources new and old. He also shared an eye-opening look at the vested interests that still prevent the US from introducing an asbestos ban – more than 15 years since it was banned throughout the EU.
Next came two very difficult-to-hear talks. Syed Mezab Ahmed is a Pakistani asbestos campaigner, fighting for an asbestos ban in his country. He was able to organise a conference in Karachi with many internationally renowned speakers. Alas from that moment on, his life, and that of his family, has been under constant threat. He’s suffered the crushing of his car, death threats, and even a 40-plus hour kidnapping of his father, all to shut him up. The final straw came when the local police said they could not protect him. He and his family fled for their lives, and now exist in hiding somewhere in Europe.
Colette Willoughby brought her testimony of the experiences of female analysts to a new international audience. I wrote about her experiences after she first shared them at last year’s FAAM conference, and Colette herself was kind enough to write us an update last month. Colette shines a light on this very dark aspect of our industry. Despite the progress she has helped bring about, it doesn’t get any easier to hear her talk on the subject.
After Colette, keynote speakers Inez Postema and Angelo de Jong laid out Asbetter’s revolutionary new approach to dissolving asbestos. While this was of most interest to those who weren’t able to go on Thursday’s field trip, it remained fascinating to those of us who did.
Breakout
After this the forum split into two groups. I had the privilege of ‘refereeing’ the technology breakout session. We had Sean Fitzgerald on measuring microfibres, and the state-of-mind that a fibre has to have to be asbestiform. Rikard Hodgberg (of INASCO Asbestos Converting AB) discussed another potential treatment of asbestos – using high-temperature denaturing. Tony Smith of Sundstrom also took us through the new ISO standards, which will revolutionise how we approach respirator design and, crucially, training for the wearer.
I also had the pleasure of introducing Jody Schinkel of TNO, a Netherlands-based research firm. He presented the findings of a project establishing the risks posed by the vast acreage of asbestos cement roofs in Holland. The report is in Dutch, but Google Translate is fabulous – here’s its English translation of the full report.
Among other test parameters, the researchers collected the water run-off from the roofs. The collected sludge was found to be an average of 12% asbestos. Further analysis and testing allowed them to discover that each square metre of roof ‘lost’ 1.2g of asbestos to rainwater annually. With an estimated 74 million square metres of cement roofs in Holland, this works out at approximately 90 tonnes of asbestos per year going into the surface water, drains, or the top 50mm of the ground adjacent to the roofs.
I was fascinated to hear from Aron Cserkaszky of Frontier Microscopy – the home of Marvin the robot microscope. For those of you that haven’t read my other pieces on this, Marvin is not a paranoid android, but an innovative bit of technology. It combines a standard optical asbestos microscope, a 3-D printer, and a computer, with AI.
Load Marvin with an asbestos air test slide and he will read it for you. Marvin does not get tired. He diligently reads the slides exactly to the rules no matter the external pressures, and can keep counting as long as you like – increasing his sensitivity hugely.
This has tremendous implications for the asbestos industry, as it is portable, and gives a traceable and repeatable result fast. Depending on the settings, Marvin can measure down to the new OELs proposed by the EU. Even better, it allows the analyst to focus on the most important part of the UK clearance procedure: the visual inspection. Hopefully the apparent EU moratorium on optical microscopy won’t affect this technology: we wouldn’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Stay Alert
Loretta King and Daniel Rushton also presented on Alert’s live asbestos monitor. If I’m honest, I have previously been doubtful of the device – this may have come from when they pipped Assure360 to the post of Innovation of the Year at the Contamination Expo! But seriously – Daniel effectively and neatly acknowledged and addressed my previous concerns.
While Alert doesn’t tell us the concentration of asbestos (and therefore risk), what it does give us is the ability to instantly spot when asbestos release has happened. This has very wide ranging applications. Firstly, in investigating short duration ‘low-risk’ removal techniques where it can help identify the precise behaviour that led to fibre release. It’s also very useful in leak testing from enclosures. A team that knows immediately when something has happened can act immediately, rather than wait for a quantitative air test. There is even the possibility of hooking up the device to a high flow pump to immediately start a test.
The final speaker in our session was Alexandre Chasteloux, of BCL Invent – a French company. I’ll admit to a certain amount of professional resentment towards France, as they always seem to have the best advances, technology and kit when it comes to asbestos.
Alexandre was presenting on a gel fibre-suppression technique. The concept (gloopy substance that helps retain fibres) is pretty much as old as the hills, but the application was very impressive indeed. Essentially BCL Invent contains the ‘special’ gel within a localised plastic pod. The user fixes the pad to the substrate, and drills or cuts through it into the material beyond.
I have no idea how special the secret gel is, but the videos were incredibly convincing. One showed a simple wrap around a cement pipe, then a reciprocating saw cutting straight through both pad and pipe, with no apparent dust release at all. The data sheet that I’ve seen claims that cutting through raw MMMF (man-made mineral fibres) pipe insulation generates a fibre release of <0.01f/ml (or <10f/m3 for our European colleagues). The potential to improve the safety and speed of wrap and cut pipe removal is tantalising.
To sum up, it was an incredible event, full of ideas, technology, and opportunities to share knowledge. The energy and enthusiasm that EAF generates is visceral. All of the 150-ish delegates I spoke to – whether policy makers, consultants, activists, asbestos removalists, or policy wonks – left energised and enthused about this niche in which we make our careers.
Written by Nick Garland on Wednesday December 7th 2022
The recent Work and Pensions Committee report on asbestos management has started to move the conversation in some very positive directions. I wrote recently of how 13 of the committee’s 16 recommendations had been taken up by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which was actively investigating how to implement them. As I understand it, such a positive hit rate from a select committee report is near unheard of.
One recommendation that isn’t being adopted is that there should be a national database of asbestos. Like many in the industry, I’ve written about the shortsightedness of this decision, but it has had a very interesting result – the industry is attempting to fill the void itself.
This is principally happening through two initiatives. In the first, UKNAR, Asbestos Smart and Open Asbestos are working to bring all of the asbestos software companies together. The goal is to make it easier to communicate asbestos registers to the people at risk, i.e. those that need to know.
The second initiative owes its existence mostly to the HSE’s assertion that we don’t know what we don’t know. In other words, that there isn’t much data available to measure the effectiveness of duty holders’ management of asbestos in the real world. And what evidence the HSE does have (through visits to properties) is broadly very positive.
Now, the asbestos consultants reading this would have mostly spat their tea out, as it didn’t match what we were seeing. Happily, ATaC and NORAC stepped up to investigate and create a report on what we really do know. Their exercise is intended to be repeated annually, so that we will effectively get a grade card of how well we are doing and how things are changing over time.
The result is a very impressive example of joint research and collaboration. The data set is vast, taking in more than a million lines of information. The data covered 128,761 individual sites, and of these, 100,660 contained asbestos-containing materials (ACMs). The analysis was complicated by the range of terminology used, and some significant reconciliation was needed. Despite this, the study was able to produce some really impressive headline stats.
Damage in the details
A total of 710,433 ACMs were identified. These were mostly non-licensed materials, but some 157,940 (spread over 32,814 buildings) were the higher risk ACMs such as asbestos insulation board (AIB) and pipe insulation. Some 10,054 (6%) of these ‘licensable’ ACMs were deemed to have medium damage, and 19,347 (12%) high damage.
The researchers also segregated between new surveys and reinspection reports (i.e. known asbestos that was being re-checked as part of a management plan). The latter showed:
It’s clearly a very impressive piece of research, and as a point-in-time spot check on asbestos it is an enormously useful data set. But other than “we still have a lot of asbestos” and “there is a long road yet to walk”, what does it tell us?
It’s clear that the report isn’t set up to be a worthy, academic piece. In fact, I think that its messaging was intentionally straightforward. The bulk of the report is given over to ‘Findings’, but it’s actually a blend of the findings and the authors’ take on what this data means.
To my eyes there’s a lack of nuance. For example, in one of the sections it suggests that the very fact that reinspection surveys identified 10,452 ACMs with high damage indicates that either:
The report suggests that either way it demonstrates poor management of the risk. That might be the case, but it could also be that the number was nearer to 12,000 a year ago, and that the duty holders are prioritising their remediation plan, for example by locking away the rest so it is no risk to anyone. The same information could now be seen as evidence of excellent management. We just don’t know.
Perhaps I’m looking at it too deeply, and the point of this first report is just to get the attention of the layperson. I certainly hope it achieves that, but its real value (and it should be huge) will come when it’s repeated year on year. Do we see the percentage of asbestos in poor condition reducing? Are we eliminating ACMs? Are we moving fast enough?
Or, as the report seemingly indicates now, are we actually seeing inactivity, and an attitude more akin to box-ticking than active management of risk? I look forward to finding out, and for us all to be able to act on the answer.
Written by Nick Garland on Thursday November 10th 2022
(Image courtesy of @IsteadAV / Twitter)
This year has felt rather full with conferences, which isn’t exactly surprising after the couple of years’ Covid-enforced hiatus that led up to it. To top it all off, my favourite two come almost back to back. I’ll circle back to EAF, which is on 11 November in Amsterdam, but first I wanted to give my customary write-up of the FAAM conference, which took place on 18-19 October.
Organised by the Faculty of Asbestos Analysis and Management (our home as asbestos professionals), FAAM was a thorough success. This year marked the first time it’s been launched by a policy maker: Stephen Timms MP, chair of the Work and Pensions Select Committee.
Mr Timms revealed some of the inner workings, thoughts and movements leading up to – and in the aftermath of – the committee’s crucial report on the Health And Safety Executive’s Approach To Asbestos Management. Of its 16 recommendations, 13 have been taken forward by the HSE, a remarkable success.
It’s a bit harder to pin down which three suggestions didn’t make the cut. One is the deadline for removing asbestos, and another is the centralised national register. I believe the last is including more work history information on death certificates, which is outside the purview of the HSE anyway.
It’s a shame: all of these would have enormous value. The 40-year deadline on removing asbestos from non-domestic buildings is simply crucial: if there’s no plan, the retrofitting and refurbishment required to reach Net Zero could bring about a catastrophe of disturbed materials.
And, as Mr Timms explained, just having to submit your asbestos survey to a central register would encourage better behaviour and be a sampling point for enforcement: when building X doesn’t have a register on the system, it’s a good idea to pay it a visit. However, as the Government Digital Service would have to lead on this, it seems there’s been a government decision not to provide funds.
My reading of the report’s reception is that the HSE has taken forward everything it can, and that the government has blocked – or at least shown no interest in actioning – the remainder. I’ve written before about the significance of the funding crisis facing the HSE, and Mr Timms finished his talk with a welcome call to arms – write to your MPs and demand more funding for the HSE so it can do its job properly.
Occupational exposure – a fascinating challenge
The rest of the first morning was taken up by a series of discussions centering on the European Union goal to reduce the Occupational Exposure Limit (OEL) for asbestos, and the challenges it might create – in the UK we have a control limit instead. Dr Yvonne Waterman spoke about the very strong political movement to reduce the European OEL to 0.001 fibres per millilitre of air (f/ml), but in the end the figure that’s been settled upon is a less stringent 0.01f/ml. This compromise level is seen as more practical, in that it wouldn’t need much in the way of prolonged technical adaptation.
Morally it is not possible to argue against this, as less exposure can only ever be a good thing. However, Gary Burdett was there to articulate the challenges of achieving this target – and in particular a fundamental flaw with the proposal.
Principally, the issue is that to test to a given level, the EN standard (EN482) demands that we are able to measure an order of magnitude lower: to reach the current OEL of 0.1f/ml, for example, we must be able to measure down to 0.01f/ml. That’s possible with the existing optical microscopy methods, but if the OEL is 0.01f/ml, we need to get down to 0.001f/ml. If it were 0.001f/ml, then the method needs to achieve 0.0001f/ml!
Gary was doubtful that the current WHO method could achieve these lower levels, so we need to agree on something new. As Gary explained, that means new technology, new competencies, and having the time to implement both. To be clear, he’s not arguing against the new limits, more that we need to agree on a method and work together on implementing it. He did go further, suggesting that research into reducing dust emissions would potentially reduce the risk more effectively.
The move to new methods throws up other challenges, such as how you find conversion factors to link new and old fibre-counting methods. In his talk, Remy Franken reported on an attempt to do just that. There was also a perceptive question from Andrey Korchevskiy on whether there should be different OELs for different fibre types – I’ll return to that in a moment.
Next up was a short presentation by Philip Hibbs of FAMANZ, about the burgeoning new Faculty of Asbestos Management of Australia and New Zealand. The key moment for me was when Philip mentioned that 3.8% of their membership are asbestos removal professionals – or as they put it splendidly, removalists.
Gary Burdett said later that was a lightbulb moment, and I couldn’t agree more. In the UK our industry has always been very much them and us, with a schism between the removers and analysts that only seems to get worse. Would this be the answer here – welcoming in asbestos professionals from all elements of the sector?
Into the afternoon
In the afternoon, Andrey Korchevskiy took us deep into the weeds of lifetime risk assessments. To illustrate his points, he presented two imaginary case studies – Mr and Mrs Smith.
Mr Smith was exposed to 0.1f/ml of asbestos over 20 years whilst working in the construction industry. This was predominately (95%) chrysotile, but 5% of his exposure was to amosite. For Mr Smith, the lifetime risk analysis identifies an increased risk of cancer of 391 cases in 1,000,000. Interestingly 64% of this risk arises from his comparatively tiny exposure to amosite, and this explains Andrey’s earlier question concerning different OELs for different fibres. Tightening the amphibole OEL makes a lot more sense to him, as it is responsible for so much more of the risk.
Mrs Smith’s exposure was through talc contaminated with asbestos – 0.07% tremolite, 50% of which was not asbestiform (essentially chunky fragments that don’t have the morphology that indicates a high risk). Her risk calculation indicated 0.24 cases of cancer in 1,000,000. This seems absolutely tiny – and if correct it would be a huge comfort to anyone that is concerned about similar exposure. That said, it doesn’t line up with the increasing case law emerging from the states, or the decision of Johnson & Johnson to stop selling talc.
Day two
To kick off day two, the HSE’s Sam Lord gave us an overview of the executive’s plans to implement one of the DWP report recommendations: a focus on improved monitoring in schools. Four hundred primary and secondary schools will be selected for visits – in fact, these have already started, and are expected to be completed by March 2023. The idea is for this to be a collegiate supporting visit, with more of a focus on why and how schools actually manage asbestos. In short, how they go beyond just “the survey report is available”.
A year earlier, Colette Willoughby had shocked FAAM 2021 with her testimony about the personal safety of female analysts. She was here again to update us on the Female Analyst Working Group – one of the many positive outcomes from her courage in speaking out. Real measurable progress has been made, although she would say there is still a mountain to climb.
The group recognises that analysts (no matter their gender) are often put into a difficult position, with huge responsibilities that result all too often in abuse. But its findings show that for female analysts it’s even worse – and sadly not in the least consigned to history. Their mission is to start with the female experience and focus on that. This should improve matters for everyone, before they widen the remit.
The group’s first meeting set several key areas and goals:
Its main progress to date is in the area of decontamination, with recognition by the HSE that currently available Decontamination Units don’t comply with the Construction (Design and Management) regulations on welfare. This can be fixed – Colette name-checked Beacon International’s simple but revolutionary magnetic lock, which allows the user to secure all doors from the inside. The wider focus is on education for LARCs. Specifically, the need to help supervisors better understand the role of analysts, what all the stages of the four-stage clearance are, and what exactly they’re signing with the handover form.
There’s a continuing need to hear from analysts and others in the industry who have suffered or witnessed abuse, intimidation or other unacceptable behaviours. If you need to share an experience, you can contact the group through two confidential email addresses: [email protected] and [email protected].
Colette will also be attending the ACAD regionals in the coming weeks to brief LARCs directly, and staying for questions afterwards. Hopefully ARCA will be able to extend a similar invitation to her – we all need to be better.
Wrapping up
The toughest slot of the conference – the final 30 minutes of a two-day event – was filled with some finesse by ACAD’s Graham Warren. He closed the circle by providing the LARC’s view of the four-stage clearance process. Graham covered recognition by the trade organisation, the importance of the supervisor visuals, and how ACAD is using its audit scheme to explore compliance. “Developing, getting there – but some way to go” was the message.
ACAD had also completed some research on its members. Ninety one percent either introduced the clearance handover form in 2018, or already had an equivalent system. The final 9% only introduced the form with the recent publishing of HSG248 – the HSE’s Analysts’ Guide.
When asked, “Are analysts demanding the form?”, the news was less encouraging.
While just 9% said analysts rarely asked for the form, only two thirds (65%) of analysts were always or nearly always demanding it – that’s surprisingly low compliance overall.
When asked how the process could be improved, members cited improved planning, communication, and better analyst understanding of the removal process. Graham recognised the fact that this was echoing the goals of a workshop proposal that had come up earlier in the day.
Helping FAAM’s membership beyond the conference
Gary Burdett and I spoke just before lunch on joint research ideas for improving the value of FAAM’s membership. FAAM wants to help its members be more directly involved with – and benefit from – faculty membership beyond the conference. As FAAM Committee members, it’s a subject close to our hearts.
The first suggestion we came up with was to explore the dearth of advice for the general public when they are presented with small and large-scale asbestos issues at home. Often the advice from local authorities is to contact the HSE or ARCA, with not much else on top. The initial step in improving this would be for interested members to help with contacting local authorities to explore the advice available. We’d then work together with the goal of designing competent advice. Participants in the research would be able to use this for CPD.
The second suggestion is something quite close to my heart, echoing what FAMANZ’s Philip Hibbs said, and feeding directly into the behaviour issues that Colette talked about. The premise is that our supervisors and operatives don’t understand what analysts do or need, and vice versa.
Our proposed solution is that FAAM organises workshops where the two sides of the industry can get together and learn from each other. The hope here is that closer ties will produce better understanding and cooperation. Ultimately, we all might just get better at our jobs. We’re still at early stages, but initial conversations with the Independent Asbestos Training Providers (IATP) have been very positive, and I am hopeful that both ACAD and ARCA will be enthusiastic supporters.
If you are interested in getting more information, helping develop, or participating in either of these ideas, FAAM will be reaching out with ways you can do that. The same goes if you’d like to share and have support with any other bright ideas that will help the industry. If you’re not a FAAM member, you’re always welcome to contact me directly (see below).
Returning briefly to the conference, it was again a thoroughly interesting and engaging event. More than that, I found it a very welcome return to the face to face experience. As I said at the top, my favourite two conferences are back-to-back, and the brilliant EAF is on Friday 11th of November. Depending on when you read this, I hope to see you there, or at one of next year’s events.
Written by Nick Garland on Wednesday October 12th 2022
As you’ll no doubt know, mid-September brought the annual Contamination and Geotech Expo to the Birmingham NEC. Of the event’s four ‘themes’, its Hazardous Materials area focuses on contaminants and the protection of the environment – it’s one of the leading asbestos events on the calendar.
But increasingly I find myself rather conflicted when I talk about the Expo. I think it’s perhaps because I represent both sides of our industry. On the one hand, I’m a techy policy consultant, with a slightly embarrassing passion for exposure monitoring. On the other, I’m very much concerned with the nuts and bolts of asbestos removal.
The asbestos industry is not an ivory tower – it is a very practical application of science. Obviously, it must constantly change and improve as the demands grow and the technology gets better. But while the science of finding and monitoring asbestos is critical at major events, we mustn’t overlook the needs of licensed asbestos removal contractors (LARCs). Yet LARCs have been poorly served over the years by industry events, and the Expo was an exciting breath of fresh air in that respect. Unfortunately the Contamination Expo is not what it once was.
Cement and sharing
As I say – I am quite conflicted, because on the day I went this year there were some great talks. The first one I attended was on asbestos cement. Dr Yvonne Waterman spoke brilliantly about a new Dutch report that will highlight the slightly ignored danger around the material. Expect more detail on this theme at November’s EAF conference.
In the afternoon we heard some exciting developments relating to the sharing of asbestos register information. Andrew Paten, Andy Brown and Robin Bennett spoke about OpenAsbestos, a new open source interface that links asbestos registers like Tracker and the UK National Asbestos Register (UKNAR) with portals that need the information – like UKNAR’s Asbestos Smart.
Just the very fact that a single open source portal now exists is fantastic – it’s a huge step towards everyone being able to get asbestos information when they need it. But further exciting news was announced. Along with the Tracker and UKNAR, Teams is apparently also aiming to become compatible with OpenAsbestos, and Lucion is now also looking into it. The fact that the three big players in the industry are prepared to set aside their commercial differences for the greater good should give hope to us all.
The changing Expo
Assure360 has been attending the Contamination Expo since its inception back in 2016. In the early years, it was held at the Excel in London and it was very much targeted at the whole industry: it covered analysis and surveys alongside removal. LARCs exhibited as well as equipment manufacturers from the UK and across Europe.
Our stand was opposite ACAD’s, and just down the aisle from ARCA. We were next to a fantastic French manufacturer – CNSE – who had brought a decontamination unit over. At the time it really put the ones on offer here in the shade – though it was expensive, as I understand it. There were talks on a wide range of issues directed at consultants, but also LARCs. It was a well rounded and very exciting couple of days.
I’ve been unsure about the Expo’s direction of travel for the last couple of years – and Covid can hardly have helped – but fast forward to last week’s Expo and it has changed markedly. The floor area devoted to the asbestos industry was much smaller than previous years. Gone were most of the LARC-focused manufacturers – the last one standing was Thermac.
ACAD and ARCA were still there, of course, but all of the other stands were consultancies, and new technology for consultancies. That’s fantastic for me if I’m wearing my techy, policy consultant hat, but it offered almost nothing for LARCs. The few that did show up must have asked themselves: “Is there anything here for me?” The answer was: “Not a great deal.”
There was and is a vital place for a good event that showcases and promotes innovation and best practice in our industry (all of our industry). However, unless the Contamination Expo does something dramatic to arrest its drift, it will just be a show for the consultants and policy wonks like me, and that’ll be a great shame.
Written by Nick Garland on Wednesday October 12th 2022
Long-term customers will already know that we’re constantly developing the Assure360 suite of products to make it better. This isn’t tinkering for the sake of it: we’re always gathering feedback from our community so we can target any issues, and add in features and improvements that help make our software more powerful and effective for everyone. Not just that, but we use our software every day for demos, audits and other consultancy work – we’re always finding things we can improve.
So I’m happy to announce that the latest update to the Assure360 Paperless app is a belter. We’ve added signatures to the Site Diary and, when you link this to the dictation feature and photographs, you get an incredibly flexible productivity tool for supervisors
Now there’s a hassle-free way to add longer entries without all the typing. That’s great when you’ve got a unique situation that isn’t already covered by our fast, menu-based entry system. It’s ideal if you hate typing on a tablet, or when the site demands safety gloves.
Signatures is the icing on the cake. Say you have a new Method Statement on site. The supervisor can detail the key changes using the dictation mode and tag the operatives as present. They can sign, and then photos can be taken to demonstrate they were there.
More than anything, the changes make record-keeping quicker and more accurate. And that’s the whole point of the Paperless app.
Written by Nick Garland on Wednesday September 14th 2022
Photograph courtesy of Horizon Environmental Ltd.
Consider the case of a client with a boiler room, once liberally splattered with asbestos-based insulation material. It’s comparatively easy for a licenced asbestos-removal contractor (LARC) to strip out the bulk of the material with low-risk techniques, but it soon becomes a case of diminishing returns. The less asbestos there is remaining, the harder it can become to remove it, and the greater the expense.
When faced with asbestos insulation residues on semi-porous substrates like brick and concrete, removal of the final 0.1% of asbestos-containing material (ACM) is very challenging. Residual fibres can be embedded in pits, dimples and micro cracks – making the traditional, low-impact approach of hand scraping accompanied by suppression and shadow vacuuming extremely time-consuming. Often, the removal ends in an admission of failure and encapsulation – a process all too likely to be repeated by another LARC in a few years time.
Clearly this is quite an unsatisfactory position for the client. They’re spending a vast sum of money on asbestos removal, only to be presented with a residual risk that still has to be managed – and probably at the same level and cost as before.
It’s therefore easy to understand the temptation of aiming for 100% ACM removal in a boiler room. It’s broadly possible through the use of two competing techniques: blasting (using wet media), and low-vibration needle gunning. Both have their champions – two LARCs I know are very firmly in opposing camps. In the red corner we have: ‘Blasting is faster at cleaning than needle guns, even when you factor in the additional clean-up’. And in the blue corner: ‘Needle gunning is a much simpler method that creates lower exposure and is easier to manage’.
Comparing blasting and needle guns
It’s important to start with one thing that both needle guns and blasting have in common: you’re not supposed to use either technique unless you’ve already done your best to remove all significant deposits of asbestos through traditional methods. This means scraping off all but the last miniscule ACM traces manually – accompanied by sprayed surfactant and shadow-vaccing.
With the use of needle guns on the rise, I’ve also heard that HSE inspectors are coming across it more. And, quite rightly, they’re asking whether the method has been properly assessed. I’ve heard that while the HSE isn’t tremendously keen on blasting, it has questions over the vibration levels of needle guns (more on this later). Clearly this is crucial to any technique or technology: it must be properly assessed, and your team must be competent to use it.
Both techniques present their own challenges which need to be considered if you are aiming for spotless. You’ll need to balance all of the pros and cons when you complete your risk assessments.
Noise and vibration
The noise levels of blasting vary dramatically depending on several factors including the choice of media, and even the location (boiler rooms usually reverberate more, for example). Due to this uncertainty, Quill – one of the leading blasting manufacturers – is a little cautious about publishing noise figures. Essentially, it’s not possible to predict an accurate noise level unless you know the usage situation. Quill says that noise at the lance could be >110dB(A). Vibration magnitude is negligible at around 0.2m/s2. That’s 10 times lower than the EC-specified minimum level for unrestricted hours of work.
Needle guns used to be known for their huge vibration levels, but recent pneumatic variants are much improved. The one I am familiar with is the Trelawny VL303, whose manufacturer claim it has a noise level of 109.5dB(A), and vibration of 2.3m/s2. However, there does seem to be some question marks about this very low figure. Not least because normal operation is to use two hands… Clearly, unlike with blasting, whatever the HAVS (hand-arm vibration syndrome) data is, it is not negligible. If you plug 2.3m/s2 into the HSE’s HAVS calculator, you get a remarkable nine hours and 27 minutes to reach the lower exposure action value (EAV). However, worst case vibration data from the manufacturer indicates something nearer to 90 minutes or below. I understand Trelawny are conducting some independent HAVS testing and the report will be out soon.
Whether blasting or needle guns are selected, then effective hearing protection will be mandatory. Vibration needs to be looked at, and hopefully accurate data will be available soon
Waste
There’s no avoiding the issue, blasting will add waste to the project. Quill states there’ll be 0.5-1.1kg of material created per minute of use. You’ll need to consider the increased manual handling issues that this will create for the project. These may be exacerbated if you have to lug waste up from the basement – especially if there is any restricted access involved.
Fibre release
Both techniques are high-impact, high-disturbance methods that should only be used on trace residues. Both techniques use different approaches to keep dust and fibre levels down. As the name suggests, wet blasting uses water – which atomises as it hits the substrate with the blast media. This will probably be most effective when removing chrysotile residues, as amphibole fibres such as amosite or crocidolite are hydrophobic (they repel water).
Needle guns use the shadow vac technique, and come with dedicated vac cowls. The H-Type vacuum is attached at point A in the diagram, providing effective local exhaust ventilation (LEV) at the point of disturbance (B).
As with any asbestos-removal technique, you’ll need to test that exposure is as low as practicable, and investigate any elevated results.
The real problem for wet blasting comes with all that water; Quill states that you’ll be using 2-4 litres per hour. Water vapour plays havoc with air testing – whether that is standard optical or electron microscopy – occluding the filters so they can not be read. The default position seems to be that you should assume a high fibre release, and use supplied-air respirator (RAS) masks.
By contrast the needle and shadow vac technique is relatively easy to test. The results I’ve seen are favourable, with an average of 0.06f/ml (fibres per millilitre of air), highest reading of 0.12f/ml, and lowest of 0.01f/ml.
Water vapour
The high humidity of blasting creates two more issues that you need to allow for. Water does not play well with a negative pressure unit (NPU)’s HEPA filter. To counter this, Quill provides moisture vanes that work along with the standard pre-filter to protect the HEPA.
Another impact – especially in the cooler atmosphere common to basements – is that we often hit the dew point and visibility falls dramatically. Neatly, Beacon’s recirculating NPU incorporates an in-line heater to prevent this. You cannot underestimate the impact of low visibility on supervision – vision panels and especially CCTV will both become very limited, and you’ll need to identify enhanced supervision techniques to combat this. You may consider having a deputy supervisor in the enclosure to be the eyes of the lead supervisor outside.
Other considerations
There’s a rather unfortunate, nebulous bag of additional issues that you will need to factor in. As we’ve established, both blasting and needle gunning are very, very noisy, clearly requiring hearing protection. The follow on effect of that is that operatives will not be able to hear you when you try to communicate with them, whether routinely or in case of an emergency.
This is further compounded by the visibility issue discussed above – i.e. you can’t see them, and they can’t hear you. You might consider flashing beacons, activated externally, at the point of work, which will allow you to stop work quickly and easily. The extra internal supervisor would also help with this.
You also need to consider that needle guns are quite heavy, in addition, large-bore compressor hoses and metal coupling will add markedly to this. You should always step down to the narrower whip lines to minimise this manual handling issue. Generally, you should also consider fatigue as a hazard.
Another consideration with blasting is that the media obviously goes somewhere. Predominantly this will be the floor, but if operatives are working near the enclosure wall it could damage the sheeting and lead to a breach. A less obvious risk is that the media can be blasted into inaccessible voids, resulting in a spread of asbestos. Your design process needs to include careful planning of how and when to use the technique to avoid this.
Finally, while it’s not really part of the risk assessment, needle guns are much more mechanical than blasting equipment. As such they have moving parts, and need to be maintained through periodic stripping down, cleaning and oiling. They are also vulnerable to icing up where the weather outside is cold. For both cleaning and good maintenance, Trelawny recommends ISO22 low viscosity anti-freeze oil.
It’s hard to argue against a client’s wholly understandable desire for an asbestos-free boiler room, and these two techniques are the only options that get close to achieving it. As with all asbestos removal methods, however, they bring a range of issues that have to be individually and collectively assessed. It’s our job as professionals to understand the complexity, and ensure that we manage all of the risks.
Written by Nick Garland on Wednesday September 14th 2022
Peter Cooper is surely one of the most experienced site workers in our industry, having begun his career aged 18, shortly after leaving school with few qualifications. During Pete’s 35 years at the coalface, the rules and guidance surrounding asbestos removal have changed markedly. Pete had already been in the industry a decade when asbestos was finally banned in the UK. And like all of us working with the material, he’s still dealing with its legacy.
Today Pete works as an asbestos supervisor for Vertex Asbestos Removal. Providing nationwide coverage from its base in Essex, Vertex provides a full range of asbestos management solutions to schools, hospitals and commercial premises, together with the offshore and marine industries.
After a couple of years working for a different licensed asbestos-removal contractor, Pete returned to work at Vertex. During his time away the company had rolled out Assure360 and begun to use the Paperless app. Not being particularly familiar with computers and technology, Pete was concerned that he may struggle to adjust to recording safety checks and managing other site information on a digital system.
Along with Vertex’s other supervisors, Pete received an introduction to the system from the Assure360 team. Supported by the growing library of instructional videos in the Help Centre, he quickly found himself learning the Paperless app and growing in confidence.
Today, Pete is an enthusiastic user and advocate for Assure360. Remarkably, through using the system, he has become more comfortable with technology in general. His new confidence has helped him adopt other solutions such as OneDrive, allowing him to work completely paper-free on site – and benefit from having more time available to actually supervise.
In the years when I first started there wasn’t any personal monitoring as such. I never had that for probably the first 10 years of my career. There were no face-fits, you just got a full mask that could have holes in it, or cracked pipes. It just wasn’t regulated like it is now.
Wherever I’d worked before we’d used paper to record checks and manage the work. Apart from maybe having a couple of certificates on your iPhone it was all paper.
I’m not the best on computers and things, and I was a bit nervous about using Assure360 at first. We got a trial of the system, and Nick [Garland] came out and showed me how to do it, and from there I just got better and better at it. When you ring Nick he answers his phone straight away and helps you out with it. I’m clued up on it, but I’m still progressing with it – getting into all the things.
I’ve got used to Assure360 now, and it’s kind of turned me on to other things; it’s moved me over to working out how to use things like OneDrive as well. It’s done me a favour really; it’s got me used to doing things on iPads that I never thought I could have done.
I seem to have got better with technology now that I’m using it every day. I haven’t got any paperwork on my site whatsoever!
Paperless is better because you don’t worry about people spilling things on your paperwork, or the wind blowing it away, it’s always just there whenever you go back to it. And it’s quicker. When you went to fill your paperwork out it could take four or five hours, whereas with 360 it could take 20-30 minutes in the morning, then you just go back to it during the day.
I can use the free time to actually help my team: carry things and sheet up with them, whereas before I’d be sat here with my glasses on with my paperwork. It’s even better for the analysts with four-stage and signoffs and everything; no messing about with bits of paper to get the sign off – it’s all on there.
It’s a good system and I’d recommend anybody to try it. If you keep tapping at it it will come naturally to you – even for somebody who hasn’t got GCSEs or other qualifications. I prefer it to the old systems. It’s quicker, easier – everything’s better with it. You haven’t got to sift through lots of paperwork, or worry about something stupid happening to it. When I first came to work at Vertex I was handed a large hard file for every job. Assure360 is much better.
We’re really happy with how it is going – it’s much easier to plan projects and get the information to and from site. The transition over has also helped us to comply with our ISO 14001 requirements when it comes to carbon footprints etc.
Written by Nick Garland on Monday July 18th 2022
It gives me a huge amount of pleasure to announce that our latest app – Assure360 Audit 3.0 – has been finished! You can already download this third release of our essential health and safety auditing app to your iOS or Android device: find Assure360 Audit on the Apple AppStore, and Assure360 Audit on Google Play.
We had big ambitions for this release of the app, and we’ve spent the last year or two on a long development road, guided by the suggestions of our fellow safety professionals. This isn’t some lightly tweaked update: Assure360 Audit 3.0 is packed with new features and functionality, designed by and for auditors.
The app is now much smarter – it talks to our other solution, Assure360 Paperless. If you’re auditing a site that is being run with our industry leading Paperless solution, then the Audit App already knows all the details from the job – including the address, and who is on site. Another new feature is that you can promote a site ‘operative’ to a Deputy Supervisor. This will automatically adjust the competency questions to correctly reflect their management role.
The app’s improved intelligence has also allowed us to build in more flexibility. Assure360 Audit has always supported bespoke audits, but now the process is incredibly streamlined. A brand new audit can be designed, rolled out, and shared across the community within just an hour or two.
We’ve added specific improvements and extra functionality all-round. Some examples include:
Photographs
One of the most common requests from auditors was ‘can we take more photos?’. We’ve done away with the previous limit – take as many as you need to describe the situation.
Assigning points
We’ve revamped this system to add much more flexibility, allowing 10% increments, rather than the previous 25%. You can also double up. Imagine the example of a severe trip hazard. Obviously the supervisor should have resolved this before you got there, but say three operatives also ignored it. The app now allows you to assign the issue to all four of the site team, without overstating its overall seriousness.
Safety Tour
This isn’t a new feature, but with the improvements in the latest release, it’s well worth discovering if you don’t already use it. Activate it, and the app strikes out every question with ‘N/A’. You can then dip into the audit and record only the particular areas of interest. It’s ideal for senior managers visiting the site for a meeting, for example.
Site return
Now, if you’re returning to a site you already audited, you can copy the original audit, rather than starting from memory or scratch. This allows you to directly comment on progress, and it helps ensure more thorough follow-up.
All our apps are built from personal experience, but Assure360 Audit in particular is the app I use almost every day. Among its new features, our new search facility is my personal favourite: just type in a key word for what you are looking for (e.g. ‘Trip’), and the app will filter the menu to show the most relevant bits. As a quick way to find the best home for your observation it’s an obvious time-saver, but it’s also a big bonus in other situations:
The final major improvement is to the upload process. Now all you do is tap Sync when finished, and the audit will upload directly from your app to the cloud, assigning any actions within seconds of you leaving the site.
It’s been a long development road, but we’ve arrived at a redesigned health and safety auditing app that further simplifies and improves the auditing process. It’s full of expanded functionality, and enhanced to further streamline data collection and synchronisation. We’re delighted with the outcome – and we hope you will be too.
Want a demo of the new Assure360 Audit app, and how to get the most from it? Curious to see what Assure360 and its apps can do for you? Why not contact us? We’d be delighted to show you around the system.