Written by Nick Garland on Thursday September 10th 2020
In its 2018 report on the asbestos analysts inspection programme, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that the practice of personal sampling was very poor. Tests were predominantly run for only 10-30 minutes and included very limited information on what the operative was doing at the time. Together this leads to such small sample sizes that the reported results are alarmingly high, yet it provides no information to understand what led to ‘hugh’ reading. In short, it’s near useless.
In contrast, the HSE judged background monitoring to be good. It found accurate counting of fibres, plus floor plans and contextual information that illustrated clearly what was going on.
But here’s the issue: the skill set for both of these areas is fundamentally identical, and yet one was found to be very poor and the other excellent It seems to me that the problem is one of ignorance about what the tests are for. Background tests are broadly understood, but personal monitoring much less so.
To get more useful results, we need licensed asbestos removal contractors (LARCs) to focus on why they need to do the test. Despite what many will tell you, they’re not doing it to check that the exposure is below the control limit. In fact they’re attempting to measure how successful their own control measures have been, and use this to drive improvements.
For this to be effective we need as low a limit of quantification (LoQ) as possible. And to achieve this we must have high flow rates, longer durations, and the full 200 graticules read.
Assure360 and its member companies are taking this principle to heart, but we’re also using data to add to a collective, community-based approach. By analysing data shared among the group, we help each other drive improvements. Assure360 members have been recording, analysing and sharing personal monitoring data since 2014. And at the time of writing, 17,818 tests have been processed through the system.
The HSE Science Division (previously HSL) has been conducting further research into improving the quality of sampling results in its Asbestos Exposure Project. The study is examining the life-cycle of asbestos removal projects. It includes working methods, types of masks and air monitoring during the work – and clearance testing at the end.
The research not only shadows the air test results of on-site analysts with electron microscopy, but uses biological monitoring of the removal operatives. The latter involves sputum and breath condensate. In-mask samplers have also been used to determine levels inside the RPE – i.e. asbestos that has bypassed the filter completely. The aim of the study was to establish how effective protective methods are, and whether any changes are required to the guidance.
In the course of the work, the HSE became aware of our vast library of personal monitoring data. Following a request by lead researcher Daniel Barrowcliffe, our member companies asked for it to be shared not just with the research project, but with the wider community. Accordingly I’m delighted to attach two appendices providing the anonymised data from our community.
Appendix 2 – All Personal Monitoring Data
I’m proud that we’re in a position to help with such an important, and potentially lifesaving bit of research, and I’m particularly grateful to our customers for their willingness to share this data. In particular I’d like to thank Asbestech, Asbestos Essentials, Gwella, Hendersons, Horizon and Sperion for their help with the project.
By sharing our data, I hope we can help drive a greater understanding of the risks faced by asbestos-removal contractors. And, returning to my initial point, I hope we can help push more LARCs to focus on more thorough personal tests. Ideally, we’ll contribute to a change of focus that sees personals not as a box-ticking exercise, but as an opportunity to reduce exposure and risk for those on the front line of dealing with asbestos.
Written by Nick Garland on Thursday September 10th 2020
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) guidance on blasting techniques was released a few years ago by the Asbestos Liaison Group (now the Asbestos Leadership Council) as appendices to meeting minutes. This approach was a handy way of releasing the guidance without all of the pesky red tape that normally plagues official documents. Alas, even this route has now closed – evidenced by the fact that the last one was well over a year ago.
I wrote about the guidance at the time. Technology has changed over the last few years, but the original document started with the recognition that blasting may be required in a few rare circumstances. It also emphasised that the process should only be considered as a last resort, and that it shouldn’t be regarded as a go-to solution.
The guidance also insisted that the use of processes like Quill, Torbo or ice (above other more traditional approaches) must be fully justified by the licensed contractor, with evidence in support. What this translates to is that the method must not merely address and mitigate the significant additional hazards, but that the reasons for introducing them in the first place must be declared and justified.
It’s important to consider those additional hazards, which typically include:
At the time there was also a concern about potential high vibration at the lance end. This concern however seems to have been unfounded, or at least it has been mitigated by newer devices. A recent HSE case study has found no significant vibration exposure from the technique.
Regardless, other concerns remain: in particular the potential for very high exposure, and the inability to effectively conduct personal monitoring or supervise the works. So why would anyone still consider blasting?
Clients and analytical consultants are normally the main driver when it comes to blasting, often due to an eagerness for ‘an asbestos-free building’. It would therefore be wise to involve them more fully in the decision making process, and explore whether their reasons for wanting to be asbestos-free outweigh the added hazards from blasting.
Ultimately, the guidance says that blasting should be justified, and that robust processes should be in place to ‘prevent misuse’. Or to put it another way, there should be a review of the justification, and it should be signed off by senior management. The technique must also be declared on the ASB5.
On a more practical level, the amount of waste the technique generates is quite astounding. The contaminated grit is heavy and requires frequent clean up. In addition, the grit itself can impact into the surface you have cleaned – requiring extensive fine cleaning. If you are not very careful, the grit can be blasted beyond the boundaries of the enclosure – spreading the problem by contaminating hard-to-access voids.
Blasting clearly presents contractors with additional challenges that make it anything but a silver bullet, and the tightening guidance has generally made it less suitable, more of the time. However, since I last wrote on the subject, new equipment that has become available that could offer a potential lifeline.
For example, Beacon’s smart recirculating NPU is an astonishing piece of kit that allows for prodigious number of air changes – vastly more than the traditional approach. Graham Warren of ACAD wrote a very good summary of how the system works, and how it can improve working conditions in the enclosure.
From the perspective of blasting in particular, the really clever bit is that the Beacon’s NPU combines recirculation and an inline heater. This means that the air inside the enclosure can be kept above the dew point – preventing condensation and drastically reducing the visibility issues and the barrier to personal monitoring.
But while the vibration issues of blasting are less of a concern, and visibility and air testing are much improved, there still remain many issues. If you’re still considering the technique for a project, you should refer to the list of additional controls suggested in the original guidance – I discussed these in my earlier article.
Still, as any H&S professional will tell you, the first thing you should consider is elimination. And in this case, technology improvements among needle guns may make it easier to eliminate blasting as an option.
While blasting requires a huge trailer, needle guns – such as the Trelawny VL303 Needle Scaler, with an electric compressor and dust cowl – are much more portable and convenient. Trelawney’s solution is low vibration, allowing for more than eight hours’ trigger time, and the H-type vacuum attachment ensures that the dust and waste generation is minimal.
So could improved needle guns finally end the need for blasting? Both techniques are slow going, but I’ve spent time talking to supervisors proficient in both, and needle gunning seems to win. I’m sure there may still be times when blasting is the only workable approach, but as the alternatives improve, the justifications for blasting will have to be stronger and stronger to pass muster.
Written by Nick Garland on Friday April 3rd 2020
The end of March marked an important milestone for anyone working in the asbestos-removal industry: a full year of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)’s new licensing regime. It’s been a turbulent 12 months, with initial head-scratching giving way to very real challenges for licensed asbestos-removal contractors (LARCs) and the HSE alike.
So what changed, what was it like for people on the front line, and what’s the situation now? In addition to our work helping customers successfully renew their licenses, we’ve been speaking to contacts within industry bodies and the regulator to get the clearest picture. Here’s our take on where we’ve been, where we are, and what’s coming next.
What changed?
For those who haven’t been following the saga, from the start of April 2019 the HSE began piloting a new asbestos-removal licence regime. Its intended goal was to shift some of the onus and therefore workload from the HSE to the licence holder.
Under the previous system, LARCs would submit a comparatively small amount of documentation outlining their competence, and the HSE’s inspectors would come along to assess it for themselves. It was perceived that in some cases, part of that process would involve the HSE assessor rephrasing their questions until the ‘right answer’ was given – a helping hand over the line if you like. All being well, the HSE would renew the licence, applying any conditions it found necessary.
With the new system, the HSE shifted the focus away from its own inspections, placing the onus on LARCs to provide extensive evidence backing up their competence. Key to this is a new, multi-section online form, through which the applicant provides clear evidence to show how they plan, execute and audit jobs to an exemplary standard.
The HSE’s shakeup was long overdue. Like many in the industry, I’d been calling for the abolition of the different length licences seen under the previous system. These were often – mistakenly – seen as an indicator of a contractor’s competence. Asbestos-removal licensing needed to be simplified, and the HSE needed to concentrate on improving industry standards.
On the surface of it, the overhaul was almost exactly what we’d been asking for. Out went variable length approvals in favour of fixed three-year licences without publicly visible conditions attached. And the move away from inspections promised to reduce the workload on already overstretched assessors.
Did it go wrong?
It’s hard to avoid the impression that the changes caught everyone out – including the HSE itself. Launched as a trial with little publicity, early applicants found themselves reapplying through a radically changed system, with precious little guidance on what the new requirements were. LARCs were unsure of the format and content of the evidence that the HSE was after, so the latter soon found itself struggling with the overheads of dealing with inconsistent applications, using wildly different methods of evidencing.
There were other teething problems. Rather than present LARCs with a slick online interface, the new online form actually required evidence to be submitted via emails. Many of the first applicants reported that the incoming size limit was set too low, resulting in submissions not getting through. Before long, applicants faced significant delays to their renewals.
It’s here – around the summer of 2019 – that things started getting dicey. As we continued working to ensure our customers could quickly extract the evidence they needed straight from the Assure360 system, we began hearing horror stories. Many renewals were dragging on for weeks longer than expected, with some LARCs even coming perilously close to having their licence lapse – with the potential risk of losing their business as a result.
Figures compiled by ACAD backup what we were hearing at the time. Over 2018-19 the HSE refused just two licence renewals. During 2019-20 this shot up to 14. Perhaps more significantly, there’s been an acceleration in the falling number of licensed contractors. In the three years from April 2016 to April 2019, the number of LARCs dipped by 6%. There’s been a further 6% fall in just the last 12 months.
While it’s hard to attribute these figures entirely to changes in the licensing system – especially considering the backdrop of Brexit uncertainty and an underperforming economy – anecdotal evidence suggests they were the major component.
The LARCs’ view
Among LARCs we’ve spoken to, Luke Gumbley, director of Emchia, had a fairly typical experience.
“I completed the online form from start to finish. It took me about four weeks, and I think I’d still be there now if it wasn’t for Assure360,” he says. “There were a few teething issues at the start of the new HSE process because their communication wasn’t the best, and I think over the first few months it was hard for applicants to know what evidence to present, and how to present it.”
Discover how we help Luke achieve the high standards he wants to be known for – read the Emchia case study.
Luke’s experience is typical of the kind of feedback we were getting, as customers tried to get their head around the new system in its early days. As another customer drily observed: “Change management is an art in itself.”
“What they’re trying to do is replace one or two days’ interviews with government inspectors with the information that LARCs now have to provide. And because the system’s still in its infancy, it’s not brilliant. For example: it’s not a portal you’re uploading to – you’re just emailing them.”
Many of the LARCs we’ve spoken to are in favour of the online renewals, but figures from ACAD show that they’re in the minority. While 19% prefer the new system, an overwhelming 44% say that it’s worse. There’s broader support for specific changes, however, with 37% agreeing that the new fixed three-year term is an improvement over the previous one, two or three years.
Perhaps surprisingly, some of those who experienced the new system at its most challenging are among its supporters. “While I was doing it I thought it was the worst thing in the world,” says Luke Gumbley. “Now I’m done I’ve come around on the new system. It’s helped me understand my business more and given me confidence that we’re doing exactly what’s required.”
The HSE’s view
While we speak with LARCs daily, we’re also fortunate enough to enjoy good relations with key figures within the regulator. Informal conversations revealed the HSE’s view on how the trial had gone, what could be learned, and what comes next.
A specific challenge that the HSE has experienced is the difficulty LARCs had with organising the email responses in a logical manner. This was compounded by the huge variation in the documents they used for evidence.
Obviously, the HSE can’t commercially endorse anyone, but our clients have found that we can help with this. With nearly 20% of the industry using our solution, one in five applications will be submitted on a very familiar form.
However, the ALU team recognise that LARCs are businesses, and as such they can’t give 100% of their focus to the renewal. It’s accepted that poor communication and a lack of empathy have been issues. Greater efforts are being made by the HSE to address this, but LARCs also need to improve. Our conversations revealed that many of the ALU’s emails and telephone calls go unanswered as the HSE follow up applications. Their message is to make sure that you provide the best methods of contacting you. My message is to check your spam folder!
Questions of competence
One specific area of concern for the HSE during the trial was LARCs’ wider understanding of hazards beyond asbestos. The specific example given was an apparent misunderstanding of the confined space guidance that came across during one review.
This echoes one of my concerns: that we as an industry can be too focused on the risk posed by the deadly substance we manage, sometimes to the extent that we ignore greater or more immediate dangers. I recently discussed how we, as asbestos professionals, can be blinkered when we think about risk – you can read that article here.
What’s the situation now?
The current COVID-19 crisis notwithstanding, we’ve now entered a period of more stability. The ALU sees the trial as a success, though it recognises that there has been a very steep learning curve for everyone. The trial has now ended, and the new system is the reality for all applicants.
Since autumn 2019, things have generally begun to look up. The HSE’s communication has improved, and guidance on what the HSE expects is much clearer. Today there’s far more support for LARCs as they enter the process, and we’re hearing that for most customers, renewal times are far more reasonable.
We’ve a history of supporting customers through HSE licence renewals, so we’re proud that we were able to help from day one of the new system. We worked hard to introduce and perfect a new, dedicated licensing module, so it’s rewarding that so many of the people we’ve spoken to have cited Assure360 as a major help during the turbulence of the last 12 months.
“Assure quickly enables you to extract the information which will help prove that you are complying with the HSE’s licensing criteria,” explains Clinton Moore, director of Sperion.
“When the HSE asks, for example, ‘Can you demonstrate how you carried out an audit and found something wrong, and what you did about that error and how you applied the training?’, Assure lets you record those processes and do a very simple print out to prove what those processes were and how they were completed.”
Discover how we help Sperion streamline its paperwork and extract more meaning from its site safety data. Read the Sperion case study
Phil Neville, operations director at Asbestech, agrees: “Assure360 makes it very simple to demonstrate to the HSE that we are collecting personal exposure information… and that management see and review it regularly. We can show that we use the information from it to identify trends, but also to identify our anticipated exposure levels – which we need to draw up our method statements.”
“The HSE has stated that they expect licensed asbestos-removal contractors to be ‘exemplary’. Assure360 helps us demonstrate that we are.” Read the Asbestech case study
For Emchia’s Luke Gumbley, the benefits of Assure360 extend beyond the software system itself. “With Assure360 the information I needed was at the tip of my fingers. I leaned on the Assure360 team, asking where the information was and how to present it, and they were great – even sending me links to the actual information for my business, which I could then share with the HSE.”
What’s next?
From our discussions with the HSE, customers and our professional bodies, it’s clear that there’s widespread support for the new system. However, that doesn’t mean it isn’t still without its flaws.
As I discussed during my recent appearance on the Asbestos Knowledge Empire podcast, there’s a sense that LARCs may previously have benefited from the ‘whites of their eyes’ experience of being grilled in person by HSE inspectors. Anyone who’s been through it will know it can be a daunting process, likely to expose businesses who aren’t completely on top of their processes and record-keeping.
There’s work to be done on the submission process, which still relies on email. The regulator’s ultimate goal is for a portal through which LARCs can upload all their evidence, but developing it is very much a resource-led decision and it could be some way off. In the meantime, careful use of Dropbox should help the process.
Other elements of the experience are already better. The guidance has evolved with a narrowing of the required evidence – the HSE has now been much more specific as to what it wants to see. There is also now a clear timetable to follow. You will get the invitation to reapply for your licence four months ahead of its expiry date.
COVID-19 permitting, the HSE has a 10-week deadline from start to finish, with a commitment to get the decision to you at least 2 weeks before the end. This process includes an admin check, the review itself and a buffer in the middle. So the message for LARCs is to count back from your licence expiry date:
This totals 12 weeks, leaving you only three – four weeks to reply to the invitation, pay the invoice, assemble all the evidence and submit the application. But there is no reason why you can’t be ready ahead of time – you’ll be only too aware of your licence renewal date, so assemble much of the evidence before you get the letter.
Overall, there’s a sense that while the industry has taken a step forward, not everything has improved under the new system. And for those LARCs who found themselves at the forefront of the trial, there was little in the way of support through what for some was a bruising and costly experience. But if the pain of change management was disproportionately borne by one half of the participants, it does at least seem that many lessons have been learned. The next phase of licence assessments will be much easier.
Written by Nick Garland on Tuesday March 10th 2020
We’ve long been admirers of the Asbestos Knowledge Empire – a series of podcasts run by Acorn Analytical Services’ Neil Munro and Ian Stone. Speaking to a cross section of health and safety and asbestos experts, the series is helping play an important role in spreading awareness and fostering asbestos expertise. So when Acorn asked if I’d like to participate I jumped at the chance.
In a wide-ranging hour-long chat, we covered subjects as diverse as how I got my start in the industry, the one-time ubiquity of asbestos, and the importance of analysts and removal contractors ‘wearing lots of hats’. We also talked in depth about the Health and Safety Executive’s new licensing regime, the problems it’s solved and the new challenges it’s created.
If you’re interested in what I had to say, or if you’d just like to hear from the industry’s other leading lights, head over to Asbestos Knowledge Empire. There you’ll be able to listen to the latest episode, and find links to follow the series on popular platforms including Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
I hope you enjoy listening as much as I enjoyed taking part!
Written by Nick Garland on Monday June 24th 2019
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is in the middle of one of the biggest shakeups of asbestos licensing since the permissioning regime was introduced. I’ve already written about what’s changing, but I want to expand more on how Assure360 is better placed than ever to help customers through the whole licence application process.
The new electronic system of asbestos licence assessments is well into its trial, with multiple organisations already having experienced it. The whole process is radically different for applicants, with much more emphasis being placed on a review of the application and its supporting evidence than on the meeting itself.
When I first heard of the change I was very sceptical – and I know some HSE inspectors have had their doubts. There are obvious advantages to testing the mettle of a potential licensee whilst the asbestos licensing principle inspector (ALPI) looks them in the eye. But there have long been concerns over consistency in the current system, with some areas reputed to be much more rigorous than others. In the new regime, assessments are triaged by a central team, which should help in this regard.
The focus is now on providing evidence to support a licence application and, as at least one HSE inspector has observed, Assure360’s entire premise is to provide information to support sensible decisions. Its power is made even clearer with the new regime. The ability of Assure360 to support the bid – whether at the basic Silver or the fuller Gold and Platinum levels – is clear.
So what can you expect from the new application form? Here’s a brief overview of each section, with an explanation of how Assure360 can help both with your approach, and with providing the evidence that the HSE expects to see. It’s worth noting that the form comes with dire warnings to anyone tempted to use a consultant to complete it: there are grave consequences, potentially including licence revocation.
The first few sections of the application form are fairly broad, asking for details on who will be in the meeting and other key individuals who aren’t going to be present. It also asks what sources of information, legislation and literature you rely on. There are no ‘correct’ answers for any of these – they establish who the controlling minds are in your business, and how you stay abreast of changes and improvements in the industry.
So what helps here? Being a member of a trade organisation helps demonstrate a commitment to higher standards, while attending regional meetings can be an excellent opportunity to share experiences with like-minded professionals. I give out updates via my monthly newsletter (if you haven’t signed up – add your email at the bottom of this page). I also publish safety alerts.
By section four, the application form really starts to test your competence as an organisation by looking at plans of work. The HSE specifically asks for two different examples, and states that they should relate to jobs that you do.
What the form doesn’t say explicitly is that despite it being only two, they should cover all of the different types of job that you do. For example, if you have completed 100 asbestos insulating board (AIB) jobs and one pipe insulation removal, don’t submit two AIB jobs. What you do if your work extends beyond two types of job isn’t entirely clear.
After Section four, Assure360 becomes invaluable in your efforts to demonstrate and evidence your competence as a licensed contractor. Without it you’ll be scrabbling around for paper evidence, but with it, everything is at your fingertips. It’s up to you how you submit evidence, either printing it off or giving the HSE a read-only link to the correct page of the system. There is even a page dedicated to the licence application, in which we’ve mapped out the correct reports against each section in the application form.
These sections are all about site and equipment checks. Ordinarily you’d provide the site files – coffee stains, spelling mistakes and all, and you’d need to scan every page and save them as PDFs. A potential pitfall is the size limit on emails you can send to the HSE. The form states a maximum 25MB, but the real limit seems to vary – with some people reporting less than 12MB.
However, with Assure360 Paperless all of the plant, equipment and site checks are at your fingertips, and you can show them to the HSE. A few clicks will allow inspectors to see absolutely all the relevant checks completed on a site. The feature isn’t just restricted to plant and equipment – it covers enclosure checks and smoke tests too. All certificates completed in the Paperless app are uploaded directly to the project file and are time and date stamped. The App even helps with spelling.
Section seven deals with respiratory protective equipment (RPE), personal protective equipment (PPE) and air monitoring. Understanding and recording this has always been a problem for the industry, but it was one of the first things that Assure360 cracked.
Within two minutes, Assure360 users can provide detailed evidence of:
Just imagine trying to explain all of that with only an Excel spreadsheet!
This section covers health records and medicals. It’s an area that we don’t yet cover, but Assure360 is developing all of the time. Coming soon there will be a full personnel management system, which will be free to all subscribers.
These sections cover leadership and management – often difficult concepts to get your head around, never mind explain in writing. Again, Assure360 is there to provide evidence to backup your words. At the touch of a button you can display exactly what you are observing on site. You can show all of the non-conformances from all of your audits, including what you did to rectify on site and, critically, what you did to ensure they wouldn’t happen again.
With Assure360’s unique benchmark tool you can also spot what the entire army of Assure360 auditors are encountering, across the country. Being forewarned of developing problems allows you to plan to avoid issues and mitigate risk. This constitutes evidence of a proactive approach to health and safety management, and demonstrates your ability to look beyond just your company. Remember that this links in with one of the questions in the form’s early sections, on how you get your health and safety information.
Using Assure360 you can illustrate how many times your contract managers, senior management and even directors attend site. It’s seconds’ work to present the data in a colourful chart showing how many audits the entire team are doing, and providing direct evidence of senior management’s attendance on site and involvement in health and safety.
The final benefit is that you can remap all of the above information to reflect training needs for the individuals across your business. More on that in the next section.
Section 11 is all about training and competence. Assure360 is built around effective auditing, and the first thing we made the data do was drive competence. Providing evidence for all your assessments and training needs analysis is extremely straightforward. Within minutes you can present:
With Assure360 you can present a competence scheme that encompasses everyone in the organisation – not just supervisors and operatives. It is so comprehensive that it exceeds the HSE’s expectations.
The final section focuses on reviewing and measuring performance. As I said, auditing is the emotional home of Assure360. Auditing with the system saves about two hours compared to the traditional paper and Excel route. Add to this the fact that the database automatically interprets and re-interprets all of the observations and it’s the health and safety manager’s dream.
When it comes to the new licence assessment system, this section represents exactly what Assure360 was designed for:
Trend analysis – company as a whole, individuals, specific competencies and non conformances
Setting health and safety targets – you can move beyond the standard ‘no RIDDOR’ and ‘no enforcement action’ to set imaginative targets and evidence trends in performance at the individual level
What’s your strategy and are you hitting it? – evidence your success through simple one-click reports
This section also covers personal monitoring, through direct assessment of the method. Assure360’s personal monitoring module can be harnessed to show how you assess every aspect of each project. Users can generate reports to show only the personals that exceeded what was expected, along with links to reveal what was done about it, the assessed root cause, and any supporting evidence.
The HSE is still testing its new licence regime, with current developments officially regarded as a pilot scheme. Doubtless the system will be revised and refined before going ‘final’, but for LARCs renewing their licence it already requires a new approach.
For companies struggling with old, paper-based systems, the licencing regime’s increased focus on excellent record keeping, analysis and management competence is a challenge. However, Assure360 customers not only have the best tool for managing all aspects of asbestos removal, but the best tool for documenting, analysing and demonstrating their competence at doing so.
Written by Nick Garland on Thursday June 13th 2019
For some years, there’s been a question mark hanging over the Health and Safety Executive’s licensing regime for asbestos removal. With variable licence periods creating confusion among clients and an unintended hierarchy being created within the industry, attempts to overhaul the system are to be welcomed by everyone.
For those who don’t know, the existing system is a permissioning regime. Would-be licenced asbestos-removal contractors (LARCs) and those who want to renew must demonstrate to the HSE that they have the necessary skills, competency, expertise, knowledge and experience of work with asbestos, together with excellent health and safety management systems. The outcome is either no licence, a three-year licence, or any period between. Additional conditions are sometimes attached.
It sounds simple enough, but there are multiple problems. While nobody is meant to infer anything about competency from a company’s licence term, in practice customers choosing a LARC often treat the full three-year licence as a prerequisite. In addition, LARCs can’t notify a project that extends beyond their licence period – that means that bidding for complex, two-year-plus jobs is effectively restricted to the 35% or so of LARCs with a three-year licence.
Against this, in recent years the HSE has been less inclined to give out three-year licences. Among other things, that’s resulted in an increased workload for inspectors as they conduct more regular licence inspections. There’s a burden for LARCs, too, as there’s a considerable cost and administrative overhead to each licence application.
It’s no surprise that the HSE wants to shake things up. It’s already started to pilot a new regime that shifts the onus away from licence inspections, and more onto LARCs to provide evidence of their competency. In the new system, first-time applicants still get inspected, whereas existing LARCs re-apply via an electronic form.
A couple of years ago I called for an end to the fixed-term licence, and the introduction of monitoring visits. Essentially if you’re good enough, you get a licence. If not – you don’t. it’s recently emerged that in the pilot scheme the HSE are moving towards just that. As ACAD’s Graham Warren explains in a LinkedIn blog post:
“Some eagle-eyed people have been asking ACAD why all renewals [under the electronic pilot scheme] seem to be issued the full three-year term. HSE have confirmed this is not some chance occurrence, but actually how the new system works.”
At renewal, companies either won’t get a licence, or they’ll be licenced for the now-standard three-years. This doesn’t necessarily mean that LARCs that would previously have received a one or two-year licence will be turned down. In all cases where a company is judged competent, the HSE will issue a three-year licence, but it may require a formal review to ensure any improvements are fully implemented. Crucially, this review period will remain confidential, unless the LARC fails to make the required improvements, so it won’t affect the LARC’s ability to compete for contracts.
The change is virtually what I called for, and it’s a vast improvement. By settling on a single, three-year period, the HSE will reduce the confusion among clients who see one and two year licences as less of a vote of confidence. Moving the major work of re-licencing onto a three-year cycle will reduce the burden for LARCs, allowing them to concentrate on making the improvements the HSE wants to see at the review meeting.
For the HSE, it means less licence inspection work, and a relief from the commercial pressures to grant three-year licences to the biggest contractors, who may previously have needed them to bid for the most complex works. A more centralised approach by the HSE (all applications are reviewed by a single team) will mean much more consistency, too.
As Graham points out in his post, there may be some interesting consequences. With clients no longer able to select LARCs by licence duration, they’re likely to look for other ways to determine which companies are working to deliver the highest standards. Being able to demonstrate fastidious record keeping, management and analysis – for example through membership of a trade body such as ACAD – will become more of a competitive edge.
Assure360 can really help here, too. Our data-based system makes it easier not only for LARCs to manage asbestos removal, but for them to demonstrate the high quality of their training, competency, and analysis of key safety factors such as exposure monitoring.
In fact the new regime fits seamlessly with the Assure360 ethos. Being a health and safety system, specifically designed by asbestos industry experts for the asbestos industry, Assure360 has always allowed you to showcase your expertise. Vast quantities of evidence are now required in advance of the licence assessment, and Assure360 customers can simply provide it by running a series of reports. The database presents all the proof that the HSE could ever ask for. And with the new Paperless solution, even site files can be viewed with real date and time stamps on the certification.
We’ve got a great track record of helping clients prepare for, and excel at licence renewal: under the existing scheme our customers have consistently proven far more likely to achieve three-year licences. Under the new regime Assure360 will streamline the process even further, as our reports are mapped against the questions the HSE are asking.
So if you’re applying for a first-time licence, or preparing to renew an existing one, why not get in touch and see how we can help?
Assure360 will be at the Contamination Expo on the 11th and 12th of September – stand J7, directly opposite ACAD. So if you’re looking for guidance and insight into the new process, pitfalls to avoid and strategies to help – there couldn’t be a better first port of call.
I will also be speaking on the first day – 12:30 – 13:00 at Theatre 21 The subject – you guessed it is the only one that matters right now, the New Asbestos Licencing system and how electronic solutions can help.
Written by Nick Garland on Wednesday May 29th 2019
We’re not alone in having wondered whether the HSE’s asbestos licensing system was entirely fit for purpose. With three possible licence durations and multiple conditions that can be attached, clients often use a LARC’s licence as a shortcut to judging competence. Re-inspection as frequently as every year creates lots of work, both for the LARC and the HSE, and doesn’t necessarily result in raised standards.
A couple of years ago, founder Nick Garland called on the HSE to settle on a standard three-year licence, backed up with formal reviews. It’s recently emerged that’s exactly what’s happening in the HSE’s electronic licensing pilot – in this article, Nick explains some of the benefits and consequences.
Note: The post below was originally published by Nick Garland on LinkedIn in 2016. You can click here to read the original post.
The licence terms awarded to asbestos contractors have reduced year on year. I examine the latest data and offer an opinion on a better way forward.
A phrase every LARC will be familiar with, as it seems to be in all letters written by the HSE. One of the principle purposes of such a regime is to:
“…maintaining and improving standards of health and safety”
The Health and Safety Commission permissioning regime policy statement
Maintain and improve standards of H&S, presumably by weeding out the incompetent and promoting best practice. But why then are average licence terms shorter now than they were? I have been in the asbestos industry since the early 1990s, and I’ve definitely noticed the change. Can we infer that the HSE’s opinion is that the industry is less safe and less competent than it was?
Licence assessments can be a very unpredictable time. All of the companies that I work with have heard of, or experienced extremely intense assessment interviews, but at the same time hear of laissez faire ones with very little detailed examination. Requests (demands) from the ALPIs is often insightful but can also be bizarrely arbitrary, with little practical application. One licence assessment ended up insisting that filing cabinets be used (rather than the perfectly acceptable system the LARC already had) – resulting in the conversion of the one and only meeting room into an archive room.
We all know anecdotally that it has become harder and harder to get the ‘full’ three-year licence from the HSE, but the latest figures are quite stark.
ALG figures, supplied by ACAD.
ALG figures, supplied by ACAD.
Excluding new licences (always one year) there has been an alarming drop of 23% in three-year licences issued in that period.
ALG figures, supplied by ACAD.
In my experience the industry, whilst there are some bad eggs, is getting much better. When I think back to the beginning of my career, where it seemed everyone had a three-year licence – the differences are remarkable. Now projects consider the wider job and recognise non-asbestos hazards. In fact, it seems a different industry with most of the stories of astonishing individual poor practice in the past.
So, if we are not getting any worse and the principle aim of a permissioning regime is to drive standards, why are the licence terms going down?
Could it simply be that there are less licensed contractors out there and the HSE want to exert more control. A tighter leash if you like? Certainly, the tone of some licence assessments and HSE visits indicate this.
The HSE tell the wider construction industry (and clients) that they shouldn’t use the licence term as a tool for selection. If the company has been given a licence (any licence) that indicates that they (the HSE) are satisfied and this should be good enough. The clients however (quite reasonably) take the view that well if you are concerned enough that you won’t give them a 3-year licence, then we are concerned too.
A licence holder can’t notify a project that extends beyond the licence expiry date.
We add then that the HSE publish the expiry date of licences – so if you track these things, you can plot a company’s standing. A client also instantly sees which companies can notify the project that they are considering. This might not seem a big concern, but very complex major works, might require 2+ years to complete – knocking out 65% of contractors.
With this in mind – are the HSE less inclined to reduce the term for a huge company? Do they back away when a downward tweak might stop a multi-million £ job in a power station? Certainly ‘the word’ is that they do.
The licence term is certainly a commercial driver.
In my opinion the HSE should remove the fixed term licence. The HSE should assess a company and give, or withhold a licence based on the interview and past performance during site visits. These licences should not expire (I hear howls of outrage).
What should replace it is a tailored review schedule for that specific contractor. Essentially, ‘Yes we are content for you to work with asbestos, but we want to see you again in 6 months, or 12 months or 3 years, just to make sure things stay on track’. A structured plan could therefore be put in place on what improvements must be implemented before the next monitoring visit.
The monitoring schedule would not be published and would not appear on the licence itself. This therefore could not be used for contractor selection. The pressure would be released from the HSE to grant 3 year licences for commercial reasons. There would be no issue of notifying jobs beyond the end of the licence expiry date – as there won’t be one. The HSE can concentrate on maintain and improving standards and do so in a much more structured way.
As I say this is an opinion piece, and I would welcome everyone’s thoughts and feedback.
I have been in the asbestos industry since the early 1990s, helping licensed asbestos removal contractors stay at the forefront of the industry.
Written by Nick Garland on Wednesday March 13th 2019
What is the point of the four-stage clearance (4SC)? It’s a serious question. If the point of removing asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) is to make an area safe for the people who want to live or work there, then the 4SC isn’t just boxes to tick on a form – it’s the final, critical part of ensuring that the area is actually now safe.
As a legally mandated check, the 4SC is there as an independently executed analysis of the licensed asbestos-removal contractor’s (LARC’s) removal and cleaning processes. If we can’t trust it to work, we can’t have faith in any of our asbestos-removal framework.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) knows this only too well, which is why in 2014/15 it conducted a thorough study into analytical practice in the industry. Finally, the report is out – although the November 2018 publication is still marked as a draft. What does it say, what can we conclude, and what comes next? Here’s my analysis.
First, some background. The 4SC is a legal requirement after any licensed asbestos removal work. It must be conducted independently, by a qualified analyst working either for the LARC (contractually, rather than directly), or the client themselves. It’s a test of the enclosed area within which controlled asbestos-removal has taken place and, obviously, it comprises four elements:
The second stage is widely accepted as the most important part: if there is no visible asbestos (including dust of any kind) then the air test is likely to pass.
Previous studies and anecdotal evidence indicate that audited 4SCs fail more asbestos-removal work than unchecked ones, strongly suggesting that a watched analyst is more diligent. While that may only be human nature, our primary interest here is in establishing a reliable quality standard. With something this safety critical, training and procedures need to work together to ensure consistent standards across all 4SCs.
The HSE’s investigation sought to explore if and where the current systems were failing, and establish how to rectify any problems. Its first step was high-level information gathering in the form of a questionnaire sent to all (as of 2013) asbestos labs. This was followed up by 22 head office visits, and 20 site inspections during 4SCs. The very first thing this tells us is that if not actually volunteers, all of the participants had at least some warning before they got involved.
In all, approximately 70% of analyst organisations gave information, and 15% of organisations received a head office and inspection visit. When in 2017 the HSE’s Dr Martin Gibson revealed some of the early findings, he made it clear that avoiding the questionnaire did not reduce the chance of getting a visit – quite the reverse, I would hope!
The HSE reports some raw stats:
Three-quarters (75%) of the companies reported that less than 20% of all 4SCs were not up to the required standard at the first time of asking. Just to clarify, that’s a LARC’s cleanup work being found inadequate in less than one in five cases. That sounds promising, but the extremes of the scale were astonishing. Two percent of labs stated that they failed over 80% of site enclosures the first time round, whereas about 10% of analysts said that they never failed clearances!
That’s a big spread, suggesting a big variation in standards, and the HSE is keen to address it. The report insists that analysts should provide photographic evidence in clearance certificates to back up their decisions. It’s a move that has long been telegraphed – and is becoming increasingly common practice.
Nearly all laboratories reported that some remedial work was always required to allow enclosures to pass at stage two (the critical visual check). Often, where this extra cleaning was ‘minor’, it was done by the analyst. But what is ‘minor’? One analyst reported cleaning, without the LARC, for over an hour.
THe HSE makes it clear – cleaning an enclosure is licensed work, and if an analyst does it they’re breaking the law.
Let’s not mince words here: the enclosure should be clean before the analyst gets to it. Not only should the operatives have cleaned it thoroughly, but the supervisor should have done their own visual inspection – just as diligently as the analyst is about to do. If it’s not clean, the LARC didn’t clean it properly, and every time this happens it should result in a failure. Only then can work standards, and those of the individual supervisor, be tracked and rectified.
The competency, or otherwise, of supervision was questioned by several of the labs, with some questioning whether supervisors had even completed their own pre-analysis visual inspection. Looking at the situation from the other side, I know that top-quality, diligent supervisors are recognised within the industry as the gold they are.
To address these process failures, the HSE is introducing two new measures:
Together these will constitute valuable management tools for LARCs who seek to monitor and improve their processes. By tracking how many HFs are issued before an area passes the 4SC, the LARC can assess the effectiveness of its own cleaning and supervision. The percentage of enclosures passed first time could even become a target for supervisors. At the same time, analysts need to be able to back up their decisions – hence the call for photographic evidence in clearance certificates.
At Assure360, we’re keen to support these processes. In Assure360 Paperless, all enclosures are formally passed (signed on the tablet) by the supervisor, and this data is emailed to management and the analyst. Once the analyst has completed their 4SC, they also sign for a pass or a fail. Because we deal in data, not ‘smart’ forms, the team can track progress in real-time, and we can report on trends at the touch of a button.
The HSE found that the understanding of personal protective equipment (PPE), primary and full decontamination was approximate. Some analysts wore normal clothing under their coveralls, and decontamination was often found to be poor, with analysts having no written procedures or training on the subject.
The report stresses that detailed written procedures must be in place for all analytical companies. These should insist that domestic clothing must not be worn inside enclosures, and they should include clear decontamination instructions – explaining when full and preliminary decontamination procedures are appropriate. They should also be followed by practical training on decontamination procedures.
What does the HSE think is suitable in this area? Read the draft report on the ACAD website, or read my Asbestos Analysts’ Guide white paper.
The HSE didn’t generally find fault with quality control, and found that in some cases QC systems were highly sophisticated. However, there were multiple flaws in the work in practice. The HSE noted incidents including:
In some cases, the HSE’s observations led to enforcement action.
Air testing procedures also showed some poor practice – predominately where analysts rushed the counting of fibres, potentially leading to under-recording of asbestos. The HSE observed this on site, but also by studying 4SC certificates after the fact.
While some of these failings could be connected to the pressures to just get the job done, to my mind the trend reveals flaws in the auditing and implementation of the QC process. If these failings happened literally in front of HSE inspectors, then they’re likely to be normal behaviour that’s been missed or ignored by the analytical companies’ own audits.
In all, by my reading of the report there seemed to be significant questions in about a fifth of site inspections. The HSE has called for a strengthening of the processes including that:
The HSE found the practice of personal sampling to be very poor – a personal bugbear of mine. Tests were predominantly run for only 10-30 minutes and included very limited information on what the operative was doing at the time. Together this leads to such small sample sizes that the reported results are high, yet provides no information to understand the result. In short, it’s near useless. Some analysts stated that licensed contractors were only willing to pay for the minimum of testing, but my experience (backed up by the report) is that LARCs don’t know what to ask for.
The Analysts’ Guide, when we finally get it, will help massively in this area, but in the meantime you can read my white paper on what’s in the draft version.
In contrast, the HSE judged background monitoring to be good, with accurate counting of fibres, plus floor plans and contextual information that illustrated clearly what was going on.
But here’s the issue: the skill set for both of these areas is fundamentally identical, and yet one was found to be very poor and the other excellent. This reveals a level of ignorance that still amazes me, and which isn’t restricted to analysts and LARCs. I have been in licence assessments where an HSE inspector has stated unequivocally that the a flow rate of one litre per minute is critical, and that exceeded this will invalidate the test. Wrong, but too many people believe that the rate is set according to how lungs work.
Tracy Boyle (ex-president of the British Occupational Hygiene Society) pinned Martin Gibson down on this at November’s FAAM conference. Essentially, the higher the flow rate the better. The bigger the volume of air tested, the lower the limit of quantification you can establish. These are the most important factors, and thankfully we will get clarity on them with the new analysts’ guide.
Finally, the HSE also flagged up concerns about potential overwork and conflicts of interest within the 4SC system. Compared to when I started my career, 25-odd years ago, there seem to be fewer analytical companies working directly for the LARC. Similarly the days of multiple clearances per day are also reducing, though 30% of analysts still reported completing two 4SCs per day. While three or more 4SCs in a day was very rare, four organisations admitted that it happened on more than 20 days per year.
The HSE acknowledges that by working directly for the client, rather than the LARC, analysts will avoid conflict-of-interest problems. Its report also suggests a contractual clause specifying who pays for remedial work and retesting when an enclosure fails the 4SC, removing any pressure from the analyst on site. Whether the client is the building owner or the LARC, though, poor cleaning should mean the LARC pays.
A number of companies commented that coming to an asbestos-removal job ‘cold’ interfered enormously with their ability to make a positive impact on the project. The HSE underlined the legal duty on LARCs and their clients to cooperate with the analyst, and the report recommends that the analyst be involved from the earliest stages.
Ideally, analysts would undertake a pre-removal scoping visit to feed into the LARC’s method statement, but alternatively they’d at least receive a copy of the method ahead of time so that they don’t go blind into the job.
The report’s final recommendation is that the HSE repeats the whole exercise after it publishes the final version of the new analysts’ guide. I’ve got my fingers crossed that might finally happen this summer. In the meantime it’s worth restating that I’ve based this summary on the draft version of the HSE’s analyst report, dated November 2018. I’m given to understand that it’s essentially final, subject to a spell check.
If it helps, I didn’t find any typos.
Written by Nick Garland on Wednesday March 13th 2019
Late last year the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) revised its Plan of Work (PoW) guidance – its third attempt.
The first was pretty awful, littered with duplicated effort and illogical formatting. Unfortunately, a good slice of the industry dutifully tried to implement it.
The second, Asbestos Liaison Group (ALG) memo 04/12 (commonly referred to as the ‘aide memoire’), was a huge improvement. It concentrated the contract manager’s mind on the recognised primary focus: a PoW is a tool for the site team, to help them complete the project safely.
As the aide memoire was so effective, it was a slight surprise to me that with the backlog of other priorities, the HSE was taking another run at it. So what’s the current guidance? Here’s a link to Asbestos Regulation 7 plans of work – purpose and core principles, and here’s my attempt to summarise it, and interpret some of the more controversial elements.
The first thing to note is that the memo’s target audience is the HSE’s own inspectors, rather than licensed asbestos-removal contractors (LARCs) themselves. As an internal HSE guide, expect to read language like ‘have they considered’, rather than ‘have you considered’.
But clearly, as a document outlining the approach the HSE will take to assessing PoWs, the memo is also of huge importance to contractors. We’re also told that the guidance will appear in the the new HSG247 Licensed Contractors Guide when we get it – possibly in 2020 – so it’s doubly important.
Thankfully, item two in the introduction states that: ‘A PoW should be a practical and useful document describing a safe working method for staff to follow.’
We should keep this very much in mind, as clearly the PoW will be used by others, including managers, clients, auditors, regulators, and the analyst conducting the four-stage clearance (4SC). But if the document is produced just to please the client and the regulators, and not with your supervisor and operatives at the very forefront of your mind, then it will have failed its primary purpose.
Before we get into the specifics, it’s worth drawing attention to the HSE’s guidance on making PoW documents readable and readily understood. Sensibly, it encourages the use of diagrams, flow charts and photographs as ways to provide key information and break up pages of text.
The guidance recognises different styles of the Plan of Work, from the fully self-contained, to those that make extensive reference to standard procedures. However, it cautions against the inclusion of very standard procedures, such as the bagging of waste and enclosure materials. The HSE’s logic here is that, presented with lines and lines of text covering the mundane, the site team could miss the one line of crucial detail.
The advice here is sensible, but I’d stress that a balance needs to be struck that finds the right level of detail for the team in question. Skills and experience can vary tremendously, and some workers need more guidance on basic procedure than others. If a project will involve new starters, agency staff or short-term workers (STWs), they’re going to need fuller descriptions and more information.
The guidance is structured into appendices:
All seven contain a mix of text and simple bullet points detailing what should be considered where relevant. Remember that I’m pulling out some highlights for you to consider, rather than duplicating everything: you can find the full text here.
There is a full page of bullets in this appendix, which are mostly things that a LARC would expect as standard. There are a few however, that some might have missed in the past.
While most methods include an upper maximum, the guidance is actually calling for the number of staff that will work, both within the enclosure and in support or supervisory roles outside. This is clearly much harder to put a reliable number against, and may vary as a project proceeds.
While the guidance is still only new, I’ve already seen instances where this is being requested by the HSE inspectors. The reason is the impact on how you intend to remove the waste. Will a 1m baglock be large enough to double-bag? Are other solutions to be used – e.g. passed as part of the 4SC process?
I’m going to allow myself to go slightly off topic here because I don’t think some LARCs always understand the double-bagging process. The two bags have to add up to 1,000-gauge polythene, and the outside of the outer bag can’t have been inside the enclosure. It’s this last bit that seems to pass some by. A single wrap made from 1,000-gauge polythene fulfills the first element, but not the second – so it’s not sufficient.
This is a key point. Removal of an asbestos insulating board (AIB) is different when done from a scaffold tower than it is at floor level. The method must detail all of the elements that are different – including getting that waste to the floor.
Welfare is key, and the guidance calls for it to be detailed in the method. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a one-month or one-day job, you need to consider it, make provision and detail those arrangements. This could be temporary cabins that you or the principle contractor (PC) provide – but for very short jobs it could be the use of onsite or nearby facilities.
The biggest impact in this section is where the guidance states that a PoW should detail how long the 4SC is expected to take. If we look at the analysts’ guide (which is still in draft at the time of writing): where timings are mandated, the visual inspections alone are very lengthy. The visual for a single AIB panel is predicted to take up to an hour, and as the supervisor also needs to do this before the analyst can start – a small enclosure can easily take 3-4 hours to sign off. Boiler rooms could be days.
Contractors must essentially agree in advance with the analysts the details and duration of the personal monitoring. As readers will know this is not always easy. Often the analyst is working directly for the client and not the LARC. But it is crucial to know what you want, and to train the supervisor in what to ask for.
What will the HSE’s analyst report change? Read my analysis
Identical projects in a nursing home, an empty warehouse or a demolition site will all be very different. They’ll throw up different answers to questions such as how you segregate your works from moving traffic, or vulnerable adults and children, and whether there are special hazards such as gas vents or live plant which will need to be made safe by specialists.
You will doubtless have a standard approach, but as soon as there is a working-from-height confined-space element, the standard approach won’t fit anymore. There is rarely one answer that fits all situations, and you may have to get imaginative. Sometimes, something as simple as having harnesses on hand that you can use to assist an incapacitated worker may be enough. Remember, too, that the confined space rules changed in 2015 – you can read my analysis here.
The HSE reminds its inspectors of the minimum requirements for all drawings:
In short, this appendix is all about sequencing. It is the raw planning, unique to every site, that the HSE expects to see. It involves answering questions relating to the order in which the job will be tackled. For example, if there are multiple enclosures, are they to be run simultaneously or one after the other?
The timeline needs to include hold points – very important elements of a job such as an electrical isolation, without which work cannot start, or cannot progress to the next stage.
In the case of longer jobs, the guidance also calls for a sensible breakdown of what is expected each day. If management, or the regulator, attend site on day 10, for example, they should be able to tell if the work is on target. The HSE may compare actual site progress against the schedule to draw conclusions about the standard of planning, the efficiency of the site team, or even the quality of its work.
The Timeline should contain the method proper – i.e. “We’ll do this, then this, then this” – so the HSE acknowledges that a PoW might not need a separate control measures section. Control measures could be in the timeline, in standard procedures, or even in site drawings. However you cover control measures, the following are key elements to keep at the front of your mind.
In our industry it is very easy to be blinkered. We’re experts in asbestos, and most contract managers can draft an excellent method to deal with it. But what about other hazards? Sometimes asbestos is the least of our worries. The risk assessment should always be done first, and the control measures included in the PoW.
It’s worth stressing this because it’s simply so important. Say we are dismantling an asbestos cement roof below overhead power lines: it would be very easy to design the perfect asbestos job, which endangers the lives of everyone on site. And while that’s clearly an extreme example, we commonly do work at height, in confined spaces, or near unprotected drops and other hazards. The core thing to remember is to always keep the risk assessment in mind when designing the whole project.
Beyond this critical issue, the HSE focuses on specific areas including the following:
Most of the material in the final appendix is relatively standard: it’s common to most load lists and I won’t repeat it here. There is however one unusual nugget: just listing ‘stepladder’ or ‘tower scaffold’ is not clear enough. The plan writer should specify how many treads the ladder should have, or the size and width of tower scaffolds and their working platform height. The idea is so that the right equipment can be hired, or the site crew know to load enough components.
Overall, this is a very useful document that helps focus the Plan of Work author’s mind on what is important – putting together a comprehensive plan to ensure asbestos removal work is safe and effective.
Together with the analysts’ guide it should help bring best practice situations into the mainstream, raising the standard of the PoW, and with it the quality and safety standards we can achieve across our industry.
Written by Nick Garland on Wednesday February 20th 2019
More than 19 years since it was banned in the UK, asbestos remains widespread in our private and public buildings. It’s still there because removing it all presents a huge, hazardous and expensive challenge, but also because in most cases, managing it in place has been thought to be an effective safeguard.
However, despite strict rules, lapses and disturbances are common, and both workers and members of the public are still exposed to deadly fibres. There have been calls for asbestos to be removed altogether from the built environment, but such large-scale removal would inevitably involve challenges, not least of which would be the sheer cost of safely extracting and processing millions of tonnes of highly carcinogenic materials.
Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral which we’ve used extensively: the two together mean that there’s a background atmospheric level. It raises the question: Is an asbestos-free world possible? Would it be worth the effort? Who would foot the bill? We spoke to industry experts.
The UK banned the use and import of all asbestos under the Asbestos (Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 1999. Under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, parliament created a legal ‘duty to manage’ asbestos in all non-domestic premises. Duty holders must:
There’s no explicit legal requirement to remove asbestos-containing material (ACM) if it can be safely managed and contained.
The current controls – backed up by Health and Safety Executive (HSE) enforcement – have been working to reduce asbestos exposure, but it hasn’t been eliminated.
In the light of ongoing incidents, in 2013 the European Parliament called for the removal of asbestos from all European public buildings by 2028. Two years later, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Occupational Safety and Health said that UK workplaces should be made asbestos-free by 2035.
Despite this, UK and European law remains unchanged. To explain why, industry experts point to what we’ve already learned in more than 30 years of removing ACMs: it’s a risky, expensive business. Jon Chambers, QSHE compliance manager at Interserve Environmental Services, explains that the cost of removing all asbestos from all UK public buildings would run to many billions of pounds. But there are other fundamental concerns.
“The asbestos industry would not be able to cope at its current size and scope,” says Chambers. “The current UK industry standards are very high, but with increased workloads and short timescales, it’s foreseeable that standards of work would drop, [and this would directly] affect the safety of those involved in the works, and building users.”
These concerns are shared by many in the industry, including Martin Stear, a chartered occupational hygienist and fellow of the British Occupational Hygiene Society (BOHS) Faculty of Occupational Hygiene. “Removal would need to be done properly,” he says, “otherwise we would have massive problems, and years later find out that the standards [of work] were shoddy.”
There is, however, another major problem. With up to six million tonnes of asbestos thought to remain in UK buildings, removing it all would clearly overwhelm the current landfill system’s capacity to cope.
“If we remove all the asbestos, where are we going to leave it all?” asks Dr Yvonne Waterman, founder and president of the European Asbestos Forum. “Asbestos fibres do not degrade, so putting it back into the ground and covering it up is not a long-term solution.”
For Dr Waterman, the wholesale removal of asbestos would require “the policy and regulations, the manpower, the designated areas for storing asbestos, and many innovations to remove asbestos more effectively and cheaply.”
“In this context,” she warns, “2028 is practically tomorrow.”
Dr Martin Gibson, principal specialist inspector (Occupational Hygiene) at the HSE, has underlined the problem faced by the UK specifically. Speaking at the October 2017 BOHS asbestos roadshow, he noted that the UK’s industrial revolution was the world’s first. The UK was the first country to start importing asbestos on a large scale, and it imported the most: in the 1960s and 70s the UK imported 40% of the world’s capacity to produce amosite asbestos. The UK has so much asbestos that removing it all would be uniquely difficult, perhaps impossible – that’s why it has had to become so good at managing the problem.
Clearly, the safe removal of asbestos on this scale is a considerable challenge, which begs the question of whether it’s necessary. In the UK, around 5,000 people die each year from asbestos-related illness, but it’s forecast that the incidence of mesothelioma will halve between 2014 and 2035 as the UK’s 1999 ban begins to finally impact the disease.
The HSE position relies heavily on this analysis, which plots the weight of asbestos imported against the incidence of mesothelioma over time. If it’s correct, we’re at or near the peak for mesothelioma deaths, which will begin to fall in the next few years.
However, if we look at previous versions of this chart, we find that the peak has been repeatedly pushed back as death rates continued rising. Worldwide, mesothelioma mortality is showing the same kind of stubbornness, which some argue is due to increased environmental exposure despite increasingly widespread bans.
Despite effective management, continuing environmental, occupational and accidental exposure is likely to have consequences, and removing asbestos from buildings will only have an impact on the latter two. Generally, experts agree that removal is the ideal option, but only where the process is thorough, and safe for those undertaking the work.
In Europe many countries are actively pursuing ambitious programmes of removal from the built environment. In 2009, Poland embarked on a 23-year programme of asbestos abatement which includes widespread removal. In the Netherlands, the government is moving to ban – and require the removal of – all asbestos roofs by 2024. Meanwhile, the regional government of Flanders, Belgium, is implementing an ‘accelerated asbestos elimination policy’ to remove an estimated 2.09 million tonnes of high-risk ACMs by 2040.
Although none of these quite aim for ‘asbestos free’, it could be argued that they’re the necessary precursors to more widespread and complete action. In particular, despite the earlier European Parliament call, the EU is unlikely to act for some time.
“In the near future, more efforts are to be expected from individual countries than the European Union,” thinks Dr Yvonne Waterman. “The EU will, I expect, not regulate further on asbestos until its newest members have had a chance to catch up on the existing asbestos regulations – that’s a big job already.”
As pioneering and ambitious programmes, it’s not surprising that the Dutch, Belgian and Polish schemes described above face hurdles. In Poland, environmental organisations have already criticised the slow pace of asbestos removal, complaining that inventorying was incomplete and claiming that removal – theoretically due by 2032 – would drag on until 2080 at the earliest.
Even the Netherlands’ more modest scheme shows that the experts’ concerns are well-founded. Working flat-out, the Dutch asbestos removal industry lacks the necessary capacity to deal with all asbestos roofing by 2024. Not all homeowners can afford to replace their roofs, but grants are only available for roofs above a certain size – and many of these have run out already, way ahead of 2024. For others, the only option may be DIY-removal, which is permitted with some restrictions, but which may come with a counter-productive risk of greater contamination and exposure.
Holland has targeted asbestos cement roofs – because the erosion of the roofs has been found to allow asbestos fibers to be released into the air as the cement matrix deteriorates after thirty years. Also, over the years, weathering and water runoff leads to contamination of the surrounding soil. The Dutch scheme shows a potential pitfall of removal legislation: unintended consequences. Without adequate funding, this may lead to an increase in DIY roof replacement that may make the situation worse.
There are other key issues in any large-scale removal programme: cost, safety, the lack of capacity, and the need for safe disposal of ACMs. So, aside from the insights gained in these countries’ more narrowly focused attempts, what would be needed to support a national or international scheme?
For occupational hygienists like Martin Stear, it’s about setting appropriate risk-based surveying and removal standards, then ensuring they’re properly executed. “We’ve been removing asbestos on a large scale since the 1980s, but we keep going back to the areas we’ve stripped and re-cleaning them,” he says. “Areas are found to still be contaminated due to poor removal works – and sometimes even this is wrong. Sometimes an area is clean, but a surveyor has used an over-sensitive test and found some fibres.”
For compliance managers like Jon Chambers, any talk of a 10-year programme is completely unrealistic. He stresses that the industry would need guidelines and plans in place at an early stage to allow time for the necessary growth, and the required training and investment.
Addressing the problem properly would require a structured approach, he says: “I would suggest a risk-based programme where only hazardous materials are removed. Low-risk items can safely stay in situ for longer, and be removed further down the line.”
Unavoidably, any wide-ranging asbestos-removal programme would need to be enacted through legislation, and enforced and regulated by government bodies such as the HSE. As an example, Chambers suggests mandatory asbestos management plans for all public and private non-domestic buildings. “Make it a legal requirement that plans must specify the removal of all ACMs with a risk rating above a certain level, or any damaged or friable material,” he suggests.
Yvonne Waterman suggests that the key is to look at ways of making asbestos waste harmless – “We need a safe, effective and affordable denaturisation method. I am studying several quite different ones, because that is where the future of asbestos lies – being made into safe brick fillers in the circular economy. No more waste, no more dangers for future generations.
“The legislator and the asbestos-removal sector would need to work very closely together, each supporting the other. Additionally, we would need to find a safe, effective and affordable eradication method.”
In addition to the need for political will and the inherent complexity, there’s no getting away from the fact that removing all asbestos would be a colossal expense. “It is only money that could really make it work,” says Jon Chambers. “There would be a huge cost to any large-scale removal, and I have no idea where the money could come from.”
Yvonne Waterman agrees. “Eradication is hugely expensive, and we are hardly in a flush economic period. We would all like to have an asbestos-free country, but let’s be realistic: who will pay for it all?”
In a sense, however, we are – slowly – removing asbestos from the built environment. Managing in place is only possible for so long, and as ACMs reach the end of their life, or the buildings that contain them are refurbished, gradually they’re being removed. Older asbestos-containing properties are being demolished altogether. Provided the work is done with the proper controls, to the appropriate standards, the process is constantly reducing the amount of asbestos still ‘out there’, and lowering the risk of exposure. “Over the past decades, we can see that the air quality in terms of asbestos fibres in the Netherlands is improving considerably. This proves that the asbestos ban and regulations are effective.”, says Yvonne Waterman.
We’d all like to see faster progress, and perhaps in different times there will be the political will to pay for it. In the meantime, Jon Chambers reminds us of the simple, vital reason for the industry to carry on with its work: “The removal of asbestos safely will save lives in the long run.”
Header image by Flickr user Chilanga Cement, Creative Commons
Written by Nick Garland on Thursday November 29th 2018
The inaugural FAAM (Faculty of Asbestos Assessment and Management) conference on 8 – 9 November lived up to expectation. Not just a one day seminar, this was a rigorous academic conference with internationally recognised speakers.
The asbestos conference opened with the inspiring Mavis Nye, the first mesothelioma patient to enter remission and the founder of the Mavis Nye Foundation. Her and her husband Ray, and others just like them, are the reason we do what we do and they certainly keep me going.
The keynote speaker on Friday, Dr John Moore-Gillon, shared the other side of that same story, the diseases and their treatment. He talked about his 42 years as a doctor: the first 37 years saw incremental change in treatment but the last five have seen extraordinary progress. ‘Today, there is no point in writing a textbook on cancer treatment’, he said. ‘It will be out of date before it gets to the publisher’. This was one of the stand out moments for me at conference.
We were all plunged early into a fascinating talk on how to understand raw data and translate it to actual risk. As professionals, we may believe that we can do that already – but the reality is typically that we go from the readings to an assessment via opinion and experience. Some of us may go back to WHO figures – but there is a great deal of ‘us’ in the end result. Andrey Korchevskiy and Andrew Darnton brought us back to published research. They presented a simplified method of using this data to produce lifetime risk answers and the probable extra cancer cases that would result from that exposure.
Next came three related presentations:
All three had enormous detail and on the surface were very different, but they had a common thread running through them.
Talc.
The scandal in the US has, ridiculously when we think about it, seemed so far away, almost not real. But running through all of these talks was the fact that the mineral talc is formed by exactly the same geological conditions as asbestos is. This means that most, if not all talc mines, also contain asbestos to a greater or lesser degree. The risk is recognised to an extent by the mines and quality control put in place to eliminate the contaminant. However, the techniques used are woefully inadequate resulting in an erroneous clean bill of health.
If we look as Sean Fitzgerald does with transmission electron microscopy (TEM), or scanning electron microscopy (SEM) the story is very, very different. He illustrated that with a modified preparation technique, the very fine fibres that are invisible to the standard technique are revealed.
All three talks discussed the global nature of the talc mining industry and consequently how much of the talcum powder in the world is contaminated with asbestos.
David De Vreede talked about his campaign to highlight the dangers of asbestos in talc. He was instrumental in alerting the EU to asbestos found in some of Claire’s products. The EU subsequently sent out a recall of those products back in April.
Yvonne Waterman and Jasper Kosters continued the theme of the inadequacy of standards and testing of talc used in Europe.
I guarantee everyone there was thinking about the cosmetics in their hotel room and back home.
John Addison (the John Addison) came next with his talk on amphiboles. This left me with more questions than answers – as a 30 minute talk on such a broad subject will inevitably do. Rather than there only being five amphibole species – there are in fact over 100 – and these are just the ones catalogued by Mindat.com. All of these can cleave, causing elongated fibres in the respirable range. But does this make them asbestos?
Asbestos or ‘asbestiform’ is a term we use to describe the capacity to produce hazardous fibres. The definition is as follows:
Then comes birefringence. Summarised brutally – when we pass light through a mineral suspended in special fluids, we see different colours depending on the direction that light passes through it. When specific colours are observed this is the final evidence we need for identification. Here would be a ‘positive result’ for chrysotile (Taken from HSG248).
John argues that the key test that is not always performed in the lab is durability – can the fibres be bent without breaking them – or does it splinter like bamboo? If it can’t, then even if the birefringence indicates ‘asbestos’ then John would argue that it isn’t.
However regular analytical laboratories would not have the skills, never mind the accreditation, to positively identify these rare species.
He also added that most of the soil in the midwestern states of the US contain amphibole minerals (from the last ice age). John posed the question – if they all qualified as asbestos,- where are the bodies?’
I’m not sure where that leaves us, but I am certainly going to look further.
The morning of the second day ran through analytical techniques – Phase Contrast Light Microscopy (PLM), Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and it’s big brother Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM). In talk after talk we had been told how inferior PLM was to either of the two electron methods. But, the speed of the test and the relative cheapness means that many more instant tests can be made.
Building on this, Jean Prentice reminded us all of why PLM was selected in the first place and where it sits in the analyst’s toolbox. I started my career in the early 90s. My mentor at the time still referred to visual inspections as being relatively new, before that the analyst only had an air test to pass or fail some work. Unsurprisingly, as all enclosures were dripping wet, many filthy enclosures (in the absence of a visual) would pass first time. The HSE’s position is that the most important part of the Four Stage Clearance (4SC) is the visual. Get that 100% right and the air test will probably be OK. A key feature of the airtest is therefore the speed of response. Within an hour or two of starting a PLM test, the analyst knows whether there is a problem or not. Being secondary, it is merely a final indicator on whether something has been missed in the cleaning process.
What is the purpose of the 4SC? Jean reminded us that it is in reality a quality control check on the LARCs cleaning. It is not intended as an absolute measure of how much asbestos has been left in the area – there should be none. She asked the question – would increasing the sensitivity of the air test improve standards? Would lavishing more time and money by moving to SEM analysis help? Or would this distract us from the more important stage – the visual? Something I had lost track of and represented a moment of clarity for me.
Dr John Moore-Gillon, the keynote speaker, who closed this asbestos conference, was truly inspirational. He built up his presentation, giving us real insights into the various asbestos-related diseases and the seemingly insurmountable challenges they present. The sheer scale of a developed mesothelioma tumour is daunting.
Written by Nick Garland on Tuesday October 2nd 2018
It’s been a fortnight since Contamination Expo 2018, and those of us that attended, exhibited or spoke have had time to decompress. I say that because, for those who haven’t done an Expo yet, it is something to behold, and leaves you somewhat dazed.
The 2018 event was a big change on previous years. Relocated to the NEC in Birmingham, it was significantly larger, having been merged with the established RWM (Recycle and Waste Management) Expo. Both changes together meant we had to plan our visit a bit more carefully, and had me wondering – would Assure360 be invisible in such a large show?
I needn’t have worried. The whole event was a great success, with our Expo Fringe meet and greet session a particularly positive highlight. Here we got the chance to share drinks, nibbles and a Q&A with customers and new contacts, and the evening evolved into some free-flowing customer feedback. The fact that we’re now in discussions with some potential new customers is a welcome bonus.
We officially launched our new app and database solution, Assure360 Paperless, which addresses one of the industry’s biggest challenges. Asbestos removal is hazardous and highly regulated, so licensed contractors need to complete – and record – a vast number of safety-critical checks. Once a project is finished, checking the associated paperwork can take the admin team days or weeks.
The onsite admin consumes hours of valuable supervisor time, but until now the only alternatives have been expensive bespoke solutions usually built on ‘smart’ forms. And while these may save time on site, they’re effectively bits of electronic paper: they don’t reduce admin.
Assure360 Paperless is the Holy Grail for the asbestos industry, solving the admin problem by applying our granular, data-based approach. When any check is converted to data, we can instantly report on just that tiny element – not an entire form. Also, as it’s data, we can automatically sense-check it – massively reducing the admin time required afterwards.
Whilst we are a data company, I am asbestos and H&S, so when we create a solution it’s with a fundamental understanding of the industry. Assure360 Paperless applies our insight, freeing the supervisor to supervise, and increasing productivity throughout all aspects of your asbestos removal projects.
Interested? Discover more about going Paperless.
At the event itself there were numerous fascinating talks, but two that stood out for me were by Graham Warren from ACAD, and Yvonne Waterman and Jasper Koster of the European Asbestos Forum (EAF).
In their talk on hidden asbestos, Yvonne and Jasper presented frankly shocking revelations of just how much of the material still comes into Europe, despite national prohibitions.The list of sources went on and on, and included items such as children’s toys, electrical goods and jewellery. My jaw dropped at the revelation that China permits products to be described as ‘asbestos free’ if they contain less than 10% asbestos.
If you get any chance to hear Yvonne and Jasper speak, you should take it. I’ll be sure to highlight any future events they’re attending in our events calendar – roll on the next EAF conference, in 2019!
In his talk, ACAD’s Graham Warren had some startling figures for the ‘average’ licensed contractor. By dividing the number of supervisors and operatives in the industry by the number of licence holders, he revealed that the average LARC has about 14 operatives, and seven supervisors. If we accept that NVQs are the industry’s baseline competence qualification, and that going through the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) costs about £1,000 per operative and £2,000 per supervisor, the average qualifications bill works out at a minimum £28,000 per company.
But ACAD has driven through changes in how NVQs are delivered – first and foremost by creating a dedicated training centre, open to all. ACAD provides the centre and the internal QA, but anyone suitably qualified can take candidates through. The new structure looks like this:
This egalitarian structure is a striking change, and it should address the fears of traditional training providers that the big boys will steal their lunch. It also introduces another interesting angle: there is nothing to stop a LARC getting suitably qualified at a local college and taking its own folk through the process. For this to be practical, of course, that LARC would need a detailed and comprehensive competence assessment system – all Assure360 users have this by default.
If an average LARC takes its own staff through the ACAD centre, that scary £28,000 training cost comes tumbling down to only about £7,000. And if that company is a CITB levy payer, it could benefit from grants to the tune of £15,000 – potentially netting an £8,000 ‘profit’ on the process.
All in all, then, the Expo was exhausting, useful and very interesting. We’ve booked again for 2019 – see you there!
Written by Nick Garland on Wednesday July 18th 2018
The Grenfell disaster was, among many other things, a failure of building regulations to protect residents. It’s clear to me that the Hackitt Review had to re-learn the lessons of work health and safety, and with Dame Judith a previous head of the HSE, I awaited her review with some optimism. Here’s why I believe she has grasped the opportunity. (more…)
Written by Nick Garland on Friday February 2nd 2018
In 2014 / 2015, the HSE carried out their Analyst Project – or to give it its full name ‘TheAsbestos Analyst Inspection Programme’. Its aim was to examine the performance of analysts in the removal process. At the BOHS roadshow last month, the HSE’s Martin Gibson revealed the initial findings and the first conclusions – perhaps the most surprising is how it might impact on the licensed contractor.
The HSE contacted all UKAS accredited labs and asked them to complete a questionnaire – the results were extremely enlightening.
Of the 145 UKAS accredited labs not everyone responded (obviously) – more than a third of them in fact. But if they thought they would stay under the radar, they were mistaken and the team targeted them for visits just the same.
Twenty 4SC visits were planned and in all cases the analysts were told to expect the HSE. Whilst this solved the issue of turning up when nothing is happening, it did mean that the analysts would be on their best behaviour.
I have broadly split the findings into the four stages of the process. I have also tried to highlight areas in the draft analysts’ guide that is intended to correct this. A copy of my white paper summarising the guide can be obtained on the Assure360 website.
One general point to be made is that wherever I mention photos – each has to be digital and date and time stamped to prevent forgery. And as usual there is a health warning with this post – this time from Martin Gibson – he stressed that the findings did not apply to all the analysts!
Whilst the analysts were checking that the asbestos had been removed, a detailed review of the surrounding area was a different matter. Whether the general site conditions were fit to start the inspection was often ignored. The worst example was this transit route – strewn with rubble and other non-asbestos material. It should have prevented failed at Stage 1.
The new draft guide has detailed the key inspection areas for the first stage of the process (including the transit routes and the areas surrounding the enclosure). Photographs are now required to demonstrate the adequacy of the situation.
The HSE’s view is that this is the critical part of the whole process, and raised the most number of issues in the investigation.
Analysts were observed moving randomly around the enclosure. Guidance (and logic) has always had it that a methodical pattern will help avoid missing something.
20% of the analysts wore domestic clothes underneath their overalls. This would have prevented them from decontaminating properly in case of a failure. Any of my regular readers will know that I believe that full decontamination via the DCU should be followed with every enclosure entry.
Formal failure certs were not always issued when an enclosure was rejected by the analyst. Whilst I can understand the instinct not to create paperwork, these failed certs are critical for addressing the root cause – that the LARC didn’t clean it sufficiently and the Supervisor failed to identify the issue. Clearer guidance on when to formally fail an enclosure is included in the new guide.
Two analysts arrived without overalls and two were unshaven. I don’t know whether these were the same individuals, but when you remember that the analysts were expecting HSE attendance – this kind of sloppiness is shocking.
What PPE and what to wear underneath is also detailed extensively in the new guide – the handy table is reproduced in my white paper on page 44.
There were also some startling implications over the amount of cleaning that analysts do – but I will leave that till later in the piece.
There were incidents that raised questions over basic competence namely calculating fibre concentrations incorrectly (decimal point wrong). This may just be the nerves of being overlooked.
More significant, in my eyes, is that one of the analysts forgot the brush for the disturbance test. Again, when you recall that the analyst knew the HSE would be in attendance, wouldn’t the instinct be to double and triple check your equipment? A photograph of the brush is now needed in the new look Certificate for Reoccupation.
Generally, the HSE found insufficient time was spent on reading the slides – one took just nine minutes to read three slides. This compares with the 10-15 minutes per slide in the current draft analysts guide and the 10-25 minutes in the old version! Just as I was forgiving to the analyst that got the decimal place wrong, to race through this phase of the process when observed by the authorities makes you wonder ‘what normally happens?’. The new look certificate with time and date stamped photos and time declaration at the signature stage should help this.
This is where the final checks are conducted post dismantling the enclosure, but I also include decontamination and PPE.
Frequently the analysts did not wear overalls when conducting the final checks. This is obviously unwise as dismantling the enclosure can reveal hidden problems. Mostly the analysts were entirely unprepared for these unpleasant surprises including not carrying RPE. Whilst the guidance is a little clearer in the new guide – Stage 4 is missed off the handy summary table, and the reader must go hunting in the Appendix. Hopefully the final draft will be amended.
The HQ visits established that practical training for decontamination was lacking. On site this was evidenced by analysts being unsure when to decontaminate and following the incorrect DCU entry/exit procedures when they did. Much more detailed guidance on decontamination procedures is included in the new guide – including training as a core skill.
No apologies for this section, though my regular readers might think that I am a broken record. The project established what we have been seeing with the Assure360 data. Most personals air tests were very short term and usually only 10 minutes. Further, they included no contextual information – just ‘removal works’. To compound this, the analysts often reported the calculated results which were below their own Limit of Quantification (LoQ). This is next to useless to the LARC who is attempting to improve their methods. They need long duration tests, with decent (low) LoQs and detailed information over what was happening during the test. Assure360 has analysed over 5000 personal air tests and even here we are finding that approximately 10% are for only 10 minutes.
This is what I hinted at earlier – something that all analysts will already know – analysts do quite a bit of cleaning as part of the visual. What makes it startling is the implications.
I am very aware that the LARCs have views on analysts and the ‘helpful’ ones are those that pitch in to get the enclosure through the clearance. I counted myself as one of those. In the Project, many analysts stated that they conducted minor cleaning. But what constitutes ‘minor’? Well in one case it was cleaning for over an hour!
The HSE’s view of this is that >15 mins cleaning constitutes licensable work and must not be done by the analyst. What’s more – any such breach is considered, at least in part, the LARC’s fault:
HASAWA
36. (1) Where the commission by any person of an offence under any of the relevant statutory provisions is due to the act or default of some other person, that other person shall be guilty of the offence, and a person may be charged with and convicted of the offence by virtue of this subsection whether or not proceedings are taken against the first-mentioned person.
Whilst the new analysts’ guide (still draft) has been written in such a way as to take some of these findings into account (get a copy of my white paper here), some last-minute changes have found their way in.
The new Licenced Contractor Guide which I understand was complete – just awaiting a slot in the HSE schedule to publish it – will now need a re-draft. Further guidance will be included on
“It is very rare that site supervisors carry out an inspection before the analyst arrives.” Analyst – Anon
My experience however is that the good supervisors take their role seriously and complete these visual inspections. However, the required declaration by the supervisor ‘time taken on visual’ may come as a bit of a shock.
The HSE’s view is that the visual inspection is by far the most important part of the whole clearance process. If the responsibility is primarily the LARC’s – a light touch / brief visual by the supervisor won’t be acceptable. The draft analyst guide gives us very detailed suggested times for these visuals.
This table indicates that a small boiler room should be inspected by the supervisor for 2-4 hours before the analyst can start stage 1 of the process. It also begs the question if the Supervisor is conducting a visual and therefore not supervising the rest of the team – does all activity stop?
There will have to be a sea change in expectations.
Written by Nick Garland on Monday October 23rd 2017
Essential reading to help you unpick the significance of the changes coming our way by Nick Garland, CEO of Assure360.
Here’s my summary of the draft of the new Asbestos Analysts’ Guide from the HSE. I’ve been publishing blog posts on this over the last six months, and this white paper is the complete set of articles on this with some updated additional analysis.
Download the Asbestos Analysts’ Guide White Paper [PDF]
The HSE’s new Asbestos Analysts’ Guide is coming soon or so we have been confidently told for the past year. When we do get it, it is designed to help both Analysts and their clients comply with the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 and its ACoP.
It’s the client I am particularly aiming this summary at, but those with technical backgrounds should also find it useful. It is also for this reason that I largely don’t cover the appendices – in of themselves a whopping 178 pages long!
This is obviously a summary and clearly not intended to replace the guide. In particular, the appendices contain a lot of important detail and should still be studied to gain the fullest picture. A further note of caution, this is a review of the ‘draft for consultation’ – there may well be changes before final publication. Publication of the consultation paper was a surprise when it was issued over Christmas, so stand by your beds.
I regularly write about this and other topics relating to safety and asbestos management. I’ve been working in the industry for over 20 years, so I have a fair bit of experience to share – the good, the bad and the ugly.
Why not connect with me at LinkedIn if you’d like to talk more about this. I’d be delighted to hear from you.
Written by Nick Garland on Monday October 23rd 2017
In the fourth part of my summary of the new draft Asbestos Analyst’s Guide from the HSE – I’m concentrating on soils.
For those of you who have read either of my other summaries – this stand-alone article is a continuation.
If you want to read the first three instalments:
Part 1 – Appointing the right asbestos analyst
Part 3 – Reoccupation certificates and clearances
You can download a PDF of the complete white paper on the new analyst guidance here.
This time I am concentrating on the age old, but simultaneously new issue of asbestos in soils.
It should be remembered the HSE’s interest starts and ends with protection of the worker and others directly affected by the project. There is a very real difference between HSE and Environment Agency take on asbestos in soils. Another much more ambitious and targeted document on this other angle is:
‘Asbestos in soil and made ground: a guide to understanding and managing risk’.
CIRIA 733 must be read to gain any proper understanding of the subject.
My usual health warning – this is obviously a summary and clearly not intended to replace the Guide. The appendices contain a lot of important detail and should still be studied to gain the fullest picture. Finally, this is a review of the ‘draft for consultation’ – there may well be changes before final publication.
Asbestos surveys are required under the duty to manage and the current Construction Design and Management (CDM) Regulations. Where there is ‘a reasonable expectation that asbestos would be, present and could present a risk to workers’– surveys must be completed. This is no different for the ground.
This is an area of asbestos analytical work that has been too long ignored, but growing dramatically. Historically – poor surveys and removal projects have failed to identify or remove asbestos containing materials (ACMs). Subsequent demolition would therefore create contaminated rubble to enter the aggregate supply chain. QED. Other than poor practices, there are other reasons:
The guide specifically states that speculative sampling should not be undertaken. We’re told only complete soil investigation if other (desktop) analysis indicates that there is a risk:
However, as I said in the introduction, the potential source of contamination is very broad and could be totally unrelated to the list given us in the guide. I agree – don’t do speculative sampling, but if there is planned ground works – asbestos surveys should be mandatory.
ACMs present in contaminated land can vary from whole sheets of asbestos or sections of pipe insulation to smaller fragments. Clearly, condition will deteriorate over time, leading to the presence of fibre bundles. When lying close to the surface and especially when the ground conditions are dry, fibres can be readily disturbed and released to the air. It is this interface with the air that brings the risk to the worker.
The desktop study and subsequent survey (if deemed necessary) should determine the risk to workers doing the digging. The risk assessment should establish the locations(s) of asbestos in the ground and identify the type, product, condition and amount (e.g. areas/depths). Soil type and moisture content are also key. Adequate controls can then be designed and implemented. Clearly discoveries during the project may require us to revisit the assessment.
The guide suggests a targeted approach.
Careful examination and picking of the area *. This would allow the surveyor to present the lab with larger pieces of ACMs (about 3-5cm2) and smaller pieces of debris and fibre bundles as distinct samples.
*Sieving may also help to separate the coarse fraction (stones etc.). Detailed procedures on decontaminating the sieve to prevent cross contamination of samples is needed.
The team’s task is to hunt out asbestos and only present suspect materials to the lab. To get any type of risk assessment, there would have to be an adjustment factor (suggested at ‘x 0.1’) – this would allow for the fact that the ACMs were collected over a much larger area.
This method has the advantage that a large area of the site can be covered more quickly. Its principal use is to establish if a main survey is needed. It will also allow a main survey to be better planned.
A note of caution – the naked eye, in site conditions, is especially vulnerable to fatigue. When you add the likely requirement for wearing safety glasses – the potential for missing ACMs must be acknowledged.
The guide indicates in the appendix that the targeted method is suited to the Preliminary Survey, but the Main Survey (if needed) would employ the traditional approach.
Select the sample points and carefully map the area (including depth).
The normal approach is to reduce (using coning and quartering) a 1m2 area of soil down to a 1-2 litre or 1-2kg sample. This is a method to reduce the sample size without creating a systematic bias. The technique involves mixing the sample, pouring it into a conical shape, flattening it out into a cake and dividing the sample.
Image courtesy of Eija Alakangas, Technical Research Centre of Finland VTT Ltd.
The exercise should be repeated to get to the end sample size of approximately 1kg.
The soil type at the depth should be detailed to allow greater understanding (i.e. made ground, sandy, clay etc. will all have an influence on the final risk assessment). All should be logged on a site plan. This will allow not only a register of what has been identified – but can also be compared with previous site plans to better target further investigations. E.g. an old site plan indicates that a boiler room used to stand where a few positive samples were taken.
Whichever method is used, the guide highlights an important safety issue in that the activity should be done at the surface and the surveyor should not enter trenches or holes, unless properly shored up.
Laboratory identification of asbestos is obtained using the standard analytical methods. However, there is significantly more preparation required. Concentrations of dispersed fibres down to approximately 0.001% can be identified using the standard method – but I have found that this is very dependent on how long the analyst is prepared to look (20 minutes is suggested).
Quantification is critical to develop an assessment of risk; an appropriately accredited lab must therefore be selected. In such cases, results would be reported as a weight for weight (w/w) percentage of the matrix. Note the current rules for hazardous waste is 0.1% w/w, or (crucially) if any visible fragments of ACM are in of themselves >0.1%. This would mean (taken to extreme) a single 10p sized piece of AIB or cement in an otherwise clean load would render it hazardous waste.
I am not detailing too much that appears in the appendices in this summary – however, there is a table in appendix 2 which seems to contradict this:
The presence of ‘XXX’ indicates it is unfinished, but the guide seems to be adrift of what I understand is the hazardous waste rules.
These surveys, coupled with ‘near source’ and ‘far source’ air testing (see my second summary here), should be used to assess the risk and design the control measures.
As with all asbestos controls, the starting point is don’t disturb it, but as the land is due for remediation this is unlikely to be a solution. The guide states that where there is mostly bound asbestos in soils below 0.1% w/w, airborne levels are unlikely to exceed 0.001f/ml. However, where this is free fibre and especially in dry soils – the fibre release can be greater. Just like with standard asbestos removal suppression is a key element of any designed control.
The guide produces a flow chart to clarify the decision-making process, but I think it will get reworked before final publication. I will not reproduce it here, but the chart indicates that if samples identify asbestos that is buried and unlikely to be disturbed – it should be reported as ‘no asbestos found’ – certainly a typo. The principle will likely be that if the asbestos is buried and unlikely to be disturbed it will present no risk to the workers and therefore as the guide is only interested in these workers – we’re back to where I started – leave it alone.
Because of our historic failures, this whole area of remediation is where the future of the industry lies – as we strive for an asbestos free world.
Written by Nick Garland on Monday October 23rd 2017
With the shock of the Grenfell Tower fire still raw in our minds, Nick Garland look to echoes of the past for lessons to relearn.
“Grenfell Tower met all required building regulations – as well as fire regulations.” This is the statement from the contractor responsible for installing the cladding. The thing is, it might very well be true – but does that make it right?
In 1974, the year that the Health and Safety at Work Act (HASAWA) became law, the number of fatal injuries in British industry was 651, over six times higher than today. Pre-1974, the H&S framework had not been slack – in fact it had been highly proscriptive. The regulators set a list of targets, which industry would strive to achieve.
Simple.
The inevitable problem with this kind of approach to safety regulation comes where regulation is not drafted perfectly, so compliance to the letter of the law falls well short of what is needed. Problems that the regulator did not foresee will be missing from the guidance and therefore never complied with.
The Aberfan disaster in 1966 was a clear and horrific example of this. A previously unknown underground spring found the surface under the dramatically increasing slag heaps. The spring turned the foundations of the heap to an unstable slurry, and the whole lot slid down the hillsides killing 144 people, 116 of whom were children. The Coal Board had complied with the 1966 regulations because there had been no mention of what was required if underground springs appeared under your workplace.
Now take a look at the building regulations of today.
“External walls are elements of structure and the relevant period of fire resistance (specified in Appendix A) depends on the use, height and size of the building concerned. If the wall is 1000mm or more from the relevant boundary, a reduced standard of fire resistance is accepted in most cases and the wall only needs fire resistance from the inside.”
and
“… it is possible for some or all of the walls to have no fire resistance, except for any parts which are loadbearing.”
The Building Regulations 2010
It may be the case that the infamous cladding at Grenfell Tower was not approved as a fire proof panel. But it seems that the regulations are drafted in such a way as to suggest it doesn’t need to be. I am sure that it is more complicated than that and the height of the tower has a big influence – but the fact that cladding on dozens of tower blocks is now failing fire safety tests suggests that the regulations are at the very least easy to misinterpret.
Lord Robens, the much-criticised chairman of the Coal Board at the time of the Aberfan disaster, used this experience to revolutionise how we think about H&S. His report in 1972 directly led to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the creation of the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive.
This didn’t stop him from continuing to be unpopular. His most controversial idea was that those that own the hazards are best placed to assess them. This therefore is the core of the Health & Safety at Work Act (HASAWA): the simple goal to ‘create a safe place of work’. I believe this idea is ingenious because this twist harnesses the imagination and expertise of the hazard creator (the employer), allowing the regulator to stay ahead of the game.
Now comes the next touch of genius. ‘So far as reasonably practicable’ (SFARP). But what is ‘reasonable’? There is guidance to help the decision, but to a large extent it is down to the employer. But woe betide them if they fall short of SFARP, because the regulator checks, carry warrant cards and severely punish those not doing enough.
I loathe this phrase, it is lazy and misinformed. Billy Brag posted on Facebook recently – remember Grenfell Tower the next time you hear someone complaining about health and safety. Well done Billy.
‘So far as reasonably practicable’ is by contrast inspired. This clever phrase completes the circle:
1. Create a safe place of work;
2. Do all you can to achieve this and critically …
3. We will check that you do.
This harnesses the employers’ imagination, and in this age of private litigation – their fear too. ‘Is this far enough? … let’s just do that bit more…’.
The reality is – all the examples of seeming ‘H&S gone mad’ (including the famous conker ban), was the employer choosing to go the extra mile or two (rightly or wrongly). The legislation was written specifically to get this extra mile because ‘not far enough’ is just that.
If legislation can be beautiful – this is.
Dial forward to the 2014/2015 stats and the impact of the remarkable legislation can be seen. Fatal injuries in British industry have dropped by 85% and reported non-fatal injuries are down by 77% since the HSAWA became law.
This is the rub; the revolutionary legislation is the Health and Safety at WORK Act and has no bearing on domestic situations or appropriateness of design – unless it is to be a place of work. The main supporting regulation for construction that sits under HASAWA is the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015. The main duty for designers in this document is:
…so far as reasonably practicable, eliminate foreseeable risks to:
Again, a gaping hole for us to slip through.
There are two saving graces: firstly common parts (areas of a building used in common – so the fire escape, foyer, lifts etc…) all count as workplaces. Secondly there are very detailed building regulations which everyone must comply with.
But now we are back to the shadow of Aberfan – if the regulators do not spot a problem and allow for it, then it is effectively invisible.
Today’s building regulations are just as, if not more, proscriptive than the legislation predating HASAWA. For those that are calling for the regulations to be reviewed – I could not agree more. The regulations should be entirely re-written, with Lord Robens’ vision at the heart – so that it is the employer, the developer – those that make the money out of our toil that have a duty to ensure that what they do is without risk – so far as reasonably practicable.
Written by Nick Garland on Monday August 28th 2017
In the third part of my summary of the new draft Asbestos Analyst’s Guide from the HSE – I’m concentrating on reoccupation certificates and clearances.
For those of you who have read either of my first two summaries – this stand-alone article is a continuation. If you want to read the first two instalments:
Part 1 – Appointing the right asbestos analyst
This time I am concentrating on the critical issue of reoccupation certificates, or for the layman – the final validation that an asbestos enclosure has been cleaned well enough.
The HSE have been running a well-publicised investigation into analysts and clearance practices, the findings have clearly informed Martin Gibson’s work here. Ordinarily I tackle bigger sections of the draft guide, but this area has so many changes and is of such significance that I thought it best to concentrate.
The latest heads-up on a release date for the finished guide, is that it should be back with Martin Gibson (the author) in September. Not sure how that translates to publication – but clearly the tanker is being manoeuvred.
Whilst I am still writing for the layman – this instalment reviews some dramatic changes that all professionals will need to prepare for.
My usual health warning – this is obviously a summary and clearly not intended to replace the Guide. The appendices contain a lot of important detail and should still be studied to gain the fullest picture. Finally, this is a review of the ‘draft for consultation’ – there may well be changes before final publication.
This is the legal phrasing used to cover the duties imposed when returning an area back to normal use – after some asbestos removal.
You might recall from the previous posts that the guide gives some pointers on when not to test. The one I repeat here is during the 4-stage clearance for external works. A common example would be soffit removal. Historically, this was an area that often confuses removal companies and analysts. External asbestos removal (i.e. no enclosure) still requires a 4-stage clearance (4SC), just not the actual air test section (Stage 3). The Certificate for Reoccupation (CfR) should be completed as normal – but this part would be struck through as N/A.
As an aside – the guidance on roofless enclosures to tackle domestic enclosures is so onerous that it is almost a statement – ‘don’t do it’. The requirement to place tarpaulin on the ground under the scaffold is virtually impossible to comply with. This should extend 2-3m beyond the footprint of the platform. It is a rare (possibly mythical) property that does not have bushes, trees, sheds or the neighbour’s property in the way of this. Guidance being guidance, you are not compelled to follow it exactly, but you must introduce something equivalent or better. Just because it’s hard to do – it can’t be ignored and the designer needs to get imaginative. I would suggest it is probably cheaper and easier to build a bigger scaffold and put a traditional enclosure on top.
The process by which an analyst passes off an asbestos enclosure is very familiar:
All 4 stages should be completed by a single analytical company (accredited to ISO 17020 and ISO 17025), and preferably the same analyst. To ensure the long since required independence it is now “strongly recommended” that the analytical company is employed directly by the building owner / occupier direct.
This is a much firmer stance on the issue and potentially marks time on the removal contractor rolling the clearance into the package and employing the analyst themselves. This has been the advice that all consultants have given for years (me included). I can hardly argue against it now – but it will have a cost impact – contractors always seemed to negotiate very competitive rates from analysts!
The requirement that all 4 stages must be completed and passed, with a failure at any point leading to the issue of an incomplete certificate remains. As does the requirement to carry out a separate inspection and clearance of the decontamination unit used by the asbestos removal workers.
The guide stresses that the analyst should plan the 4-stage clearance ideally at appointment stage, but certainly before work starts. This would involve specific conversations with the LARC about issues that could disrupt or impede the process. Sufficient time must be allowed for the 4-stage clearance and particularly the visual inspection. This last (for the layman) is the detailed hands-and-knees examination by the analyst that all asbestos and even visible dust has been removed.
There are some fundamental changes:
* With time and date stamp. The photographs required are quite extensive and would be a minimum of 12, plus one for the DCU. Substantially more for complex enclosures. The unspoken implication is that date and time stamped photos would prevent fraudulently forged certificates.
The guide includes a table in the appendices on suggested times for visual inspection:
If the difference between the estimated and actual visual inspection duration is >20% (longer or shorter), the reason should be recorded on the CfR. However, it does not state what should happen if the reason given is inadequate. I am aware that this was raised during the consultation process, so hopefully it will be clarified later.
The analytical company should build up a data set of estimated and actual times to enhance/improve their service in the future. This should also allow internal (or UKAS / HSE) investigation on the reasons stated for variance. Questions could be asked if significantly lower visual times are recorded. The date and time stamped photos would make massaging of these stats much harder.
Separate copies of the CfR should be provided to the building occupier / owner and to the LARC ‘promptly’ on completion of the process. This may cause issues for entirely electronic systems that do not produce completed certificates on site.
The clearance certificate for the DCU is a mandatory part of the process irrespective of who has employed the Analyst. i.e. if the contractor is not employing the analyst directly for the CfR, they do not have to pay separately for the DCU element of the test. Whilst this is a good improvement, it does raise some additional questions – there will be several variants, but I think this example sums it up:
** this number of clearances might not be possible anymore – see below.
Time spent on clearances has dramatically increased (a very good thing indeed!). When I started my career in Manchester in the early ‘90s, four and five visuals in a day were not uncommon. Given the recommended visual times – more than one would be unlikely.
The guide finally ends debate on correct use of PPE – more on this later, but as entry into enclosures for 4SC procedures:
carries a risk of exposure and contamination, the Analysts entering enclosure should only be wearing appropriate RPE and PPE. No other clothing should be worn.
It is not the analyst’s role to supervise or manage the above, but to validate that it has been completed successfully. Cleaning the enclosure therefore remains the responsibility of the contractor. The analyst should not start the 4-stage clearance until the contractor has conducted their own thorough visual inspection and is satisfied that:
Sealant / encapsulant should not have been applied at this stage.
I have heard talk that the time spent by the supervisor on this visual inspection should be the same as for the analyst. This was not detailed in the draft guide and I do not know whether this will be in the final version, inserted into the Contractor’s Guide when that comes out – or left out completely. If it is brought forward, it would of course prove to be a dramatic change. Supervisor visual inspections can often be quite cursory – the suggestion that this should increase to 1-2 days for a large complex boiler room, will probably be met in some quarters with incomprehension. Guidance on this key element of the job has been a long time in coming. Clearly it would have a significant cost impact.
The guide makes a brief foray into defining “Environmental Cleans”. I understand that this was met with such opposition in the consultation process that it will be dropped. Martin Gibson (HSE author of the guide), clarified his thoughts at a BOHS seminar. Areas with the occasional tiny spec of suspected asbestos debris should not be considered licensed work, and therefore wouldn’t require a 4-stage clearance. As I say this whole section is likely to be dropped or heavily re-written.
Much, much longer clearances, possible transforming changes to the role of the asbestos supervisor and a courageous definition for environmental cleans. A shorter chapter this time, but I think you’ll agree possibly the one with the most dramatic implications.
Find out more about how Assure360 can help you with asbestos management – book a demo and you could win an iPad.
Written by Nick Garland on Tuesday August 1st 2017
In the second part of my summary of the Asbestos Analyst’s Guide from the HSE – I’m concentrating on asbestos testing (both bulks and air).
This is a stand-alone article, but you may also want to read the first instalment published earlier this year – New analyst guidance: appointing the right asbestos analyst.
This is a review of the ‘draft for consultation’ – there may well be changes before final publication. We still don’t have a release date for the final publication of the guidance, and we are already at the end of the promised June. However, the consultation was a surprise when it was issued over Christmas, so stand by your beds.
Whilst I am writing this for the layman – this instalment reviews some dramatic changes that all professionals will need to prepare for. It comes with my usual health warning – this is obviously a summary and clearly not intended to replace the Guide. The appendices contain a lot of important detail and should still be studied to gain the fullest picture.
The first section I will deal with in this instalment is analysis in bulk materials – or ‘bulks’ for short.
Simply put, this is where a small amount of a suspect material is collected on site and taken to a laboratory. Powerful microscopes are used along with special techniques to investigate the sample. This is the only sure fire way of determining whether a material contains asbestos and ultimately what risk it presents.
Bulk Sampling and asbestos surveys are required under the duty to manage (CAR 2012, Regulation 4) and under the current Construction Design and Management (CDM) Regulations.
Whilst HSG264 – Asbestos: the survey guide remains the best practice manual, the new analyst guide overlaps and takes things further in some areas. Both will need to be understood to remain compliant.
The guidance on single surveyor working has been significantly altered. It is now ‘strongly recommended’. The guide goes further by stating that some situations make it essential:
We should take note – as this is much more forceful phrasing than the ‘ideally’ in the Survey Guide. The need to work from height in most or all surveys would seem to preclude solo working completely. Clearly, if single ‘man’ teams are now officially frowned upon, it will have an impact on prices.
The guide gives specific direction on sampling strategy for some ACM types. Mostly the advice is consistent with HSG264, but again with some exceptions. The first significant change is in the recommended strategy for pipe insulation.
HSG264 tells us:
“In general, one sample should be taken per 3m run of pipe with particular attention paid to different layers and functional items (valves etc). ”
Whereas the Analyst Guide says:
“Valves or hatches or repaired areas near access routes are less likely to contain asbestos but discretionary sampling may be necessary.”
Clearly a totally different approach, which I am not convinced about. Only the other week I attended a site where all the asbestos had been removed, except near the valves.
Another key change in guidance is in dust sampling, which should be avoided except in ‘rare and specific occasions’. Dust sampling should not form a routine method or approach when surveying. Low numbers of asbestos fibres in dust are to be expected in buildings which contain or have contained ACMs. Due to the sensitivity of the method, very low levels of fibres can be detected. However, the guide tells us the random presence of low numbers of asbestos fibres in dust is not significant and represents “inconsequential risk”. It also tells us – in the absence of any ‘visible’ suspicious asbestos debris and fragments, extensive cleaning or abatement works will not be necessary
This is very welcome guidance indeed. Asbestos occurs naturally in the air of all our industrial cities. The sensitivity of the bulk analysis process is likely to find even the smallest trace. Because such testing merely determines presence and not risk, it is too blunt a tool. Random swab samples, where there is no visible evidence of contamination have caused no end of issues to clients. A report containing such information can cause considerable alarm and remediation costs, where the reality might be a single isolated fibre posing little or no risk. See the section towards the end of this article on SEM and ‘Real Risk Assessments’.
In traditional surveys, the number of samples taken will depend on:
The guide states that the number of samples should not be restricted by cost or contractual arrangements as this could lead to poor choices and false assumptions. This is much stronger guidance than previously published. I must stress that I fully support the increased emphasis, but it should be recognised that it will have an impact on costs.
Help can be obtained from original architect drawings, but will depend a lot on experience. The guide suggests ‘tells’ that will give a clue to a change in material:
None of the above can be used for positive identification, but they can give a strong indication as to when to take additional samples.
Consideration should be made where access makes sampling or post sampling clean-up impractical or hazardous. These areas should be discussed with the client. This is a continuation of the plan, plan, plan mantra of the survey guide.
On the sealing of the sampling point, the guide raises some important considerations. Specifically, it recommends that the chosen technique should be agreed with the client. Some issues to bear in mind:
Safety alert!
On this last issue, there was a serious safety alert on the asbestos forum where some foam sealant used in an enclosure spontaneously ignited via static electricity.
Spray coatings The guide suggests pre-injected with surfactant around the sampling area. It cautions against sampling damaged areas that show evidence of previous repair – whilst easier and safer, it may not be representative.
Pipe/thermal Full depth samples using a core sampler, but placing a wipe inside the tube before sampling and withdrawing the sampler through another wet wipe. This creates a plug at either end.
Insulating board/tiles The guide warns of proximity to live electrics, where pre-spraying might be hazardous. It also warns that a large sample is needed if the water absorption test is planned to determine AIB or cement (see below).
Asbestos cement Large samples are recommended (at least 5cm2) or where the water absorption test is required (9cm2). Asbestos cement is defined by CAR 2012 as a material, which is predominantly a mixture of cement and chrysotile and which when in a dry state, absorbs less than 30% water by weight. This leads to the Water Absorption test which is detailed in Appendix 3 of the draft guide.
Textured coatings Again large samples are recommended as asbestos is typically non-uniform (at least 20cm2). Areas of thicker material and/or ridges should be targeted. Two samples per surface or one per 25m2.*
Dust samples Avoid, but where they are taken to assess spread of a specific incident a minimum of one tablespoon of dust (not debris) should be collected. Scraping the dust layer into a pile and transferring into a suitable labelled container. Wipes, adhesive tape and filters should not be used.
* I have served my time in the bulk lab and can testify to how irritating small samples of textured coating are. However, I am not sure how a client would take to two 20cm2 sample from every ceiling. Certainly, something to discuss in the pre-survey planning.
In layman’s terms, air testing. For asbestos, it is the collection of a measured volume of air (litres) through a filter. A specific area is examined (number of ‘graticules’ – see below), and the number fibres counted. This allows the calculation of the concentration of respirable (again see below) fibres in the air.
As the guide was intended for the use of clients as well as analysts and the above is likely to mean nothing to most readers – I will start by explaining a few terms:
Respirable
In this case means not only breathable, but small enough that they can reach the lowest levels of the lungs where they can do the most harm.
Volume
Results are quoted in one of two ways – the first is by far the more dominant. f/ml or f/cm3 – i.e. number of respirable fibres counted for every millilitre or cubic centimetre of air drawn through the pump. 1ml is the same volume of air as 1 cm3.
Limit of Quantification (LoQ)
This is an oft used phrase that is little understood outside the analytical world. Results are often stated as less than the LoQ (e.g. <0.01f/ml). LoQ is a statistical way of determining what would be “fair to say”. E.g. if a given room had 100 fibres floating about and you sampled a small amount of the air – it would be pot luck whether you captured any of the fibres, but it wouldn’t be ‘fair’ to say that the air was asbestos free – just you didn’t detect anything. Similarly, if there were 1 million fibres floating about – you would be near certain of catching some. Therefore, LoQ is a statement that:
we don’t really know exactly how much asbestos is in the air, but it is less than ‘this’
Any clearer?
Graticules
This is the round ‘target’ that the analyst can see when analysing the filter through the microscope. The target is moved randomly a set number of times and the number of fibres falling within that target are counted. The graticule is a specific area, and so if we know how many targets have been inspected, we know the precise area of the filter that has been analysed. Clearance tests would include 200 of these random movements, personals can have less. Therefore, if only 100 graticules are used this means ½ the time to analyse the sample but double the LoQ.
The guide details the two main types of air testing – personal and static.
Where we test the fibre levels near to an individual’s face. The asbestos approved code of practice tells us what we should use this type of test for.
Whilst measurement against the control limit requires a 4-hour sample, there is allowance for shorter activities. It must be noted that when the time to access the enclosure and decontaminate following completion of a morning’s shift is factored in, a 4-hour task is a rare beast indeed.
In my opinion, all the above are important, but the last three have the most practical use. The removal contractor should be aiming for higher standards than the control limit to help drive performance. But only a test with a low LoQ can have any real utility. Therefore, the 10-minute test should be avoided in favour of one that can give a LoQ of 0.05f/ml or better.
My Assure360 database is designed specifically to deal with these three critical areas.
Clearly high risk activities should be prioritised – this may be related to the ACM, its condition or the individual’s role in the method. So, if a single test is to be completed it should be the operative scraping the pipe, not the one doing general spraying duties.
The analyst must record detailed observations about the operative during the testing:
The guide specifically states that if any of this information is missing, the sampling will be deemed inadequate. Now this is a very strong statement indeed. I think it is intended to compel analytical companies to comply, rather than suggest to a contractor to ignore them.
Just like any asbestos worker, the analyst themselves should have personal monitoring conducted on them particularly:
A ‘summary’ of personal sampling should be kept for 5 years. There is no guidance on what this summary should contain. But the data should form part of the health records, which must be kept for 40 years.
My Assure360 database tracks the exposure, compares it against the anticipated level and allows the employer to review methods on a regular basis to improve standards. Whenever the anticipated levels are exceeded, this is treated just like any safety incident spawning an investigation and root cause analysis. These new-look certificates would come into their own at this stage – perfect evidence for the investigation. Upload them as a permanent link to the record. With nearly 4000 personals on the system now – it gives users a great deal confidence when setting and reviewing levels.
This is the large traditional air test, where we establish the fibre levels in a general area. Used in several different situations:
There is no specified flow rate for static tests, but total volume of air tested should 480litres or more. The number of graticules (targets) counted must be 200+. However, the recommendation is that high flow rates (e.g. 16L / min for 30 minutes be used to limit the effect of settling and increase accuracy. The exceptions to this are background and perimeter monitoring – where low flow rates and very long durations are preferred.
The guide gives some pointers on when not to test.
I have my doubts over the wisdom of the last two. We are mandated to reduce exposure so far as reasonably practical, therefore not testing because we don’t think exposure will be too high – or we already use good RPE – seems to miss the point. You should always conduct the test to ‘support current and future risk assessments’ and ‘check the effectiveness of control measure’.
This is the name of the standard technique used to calculate airborne fibre concentrations. Paragraphs 5.10 & 5.11 give a great deal of detail on this, which I do not intend to reproduce here.
The technique has its advantages and disadvantages. Probably the key plus is that the test is quick (within an hour or two when conducted on site) and by comparison to the alternatives – inexpensive. Disadvantages are that high dust environments (e.g. wire-brushing, ‘blasting’ or removal of ceilings) can overload the filter making it unreadable (occluded). As it can’t easily differentiate between asbestos and non-asbestos fibres, it can overstate asbestos concentration.
These must be recognised and factored in when designing the sampling strategy. Careful selection of sampling periods/volumes or sequential samples (i.e. multiple tests run after each other, adding the results) should be considered. Another important strategy (where results may be skewed by non-asbestos fibres) would be the retention of half the filter prior to standard analysis. In the case of a ‘high’ result from the first half, the duplicate can be sent for a much more accurate Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) test – see below.
Caution should also be observed when interpreting the results from post incident air tests. The time gap between the incident and the test will be affected by natural dilution.
Whilst the guide details the option of using SEM analysis. It does not suggest it as a first option, but only as a check if PCM fails. However, in the case of blasting, where occluded filters are near certain, or very low LoQs are desirable, SEM testing should be considered. SEM can obtain LoQs as low as 0.0005f/ml and are much less vulnerable to overloaded filters.
One interesting service that is beginning to be available is ‘Real Risk Assessment’. The phrase was coined by Charles Pickles of Lucion referring to long duration air tests in normal (occupied) areas. Analysis by SEM would give very low limits of detection. Results could then be directly comparable to the World Health Organisation lifetime risk levels. This would finally measure chronic low level exposure and allow a genuine understanding of the long-term risks. Such accurate results could validate existing management techniques and prove that occupants are not being exposed, or, used to improve the plan.
In the case of 4-Stage Clearances (4SC), the guide indicates that the original floor surface should not be covered at the time of the air test. It does say that there are exceptions, but the only examples given is scaffolding or when the floor is an ‘intrinsically dusty surface’. This could be interpreted as meaning – floors sheeted out before removal must be uncovered for the 4SC air test. Hopefully clarification will be in the final version as many simple projects may become more complex and costly if this is the case.
The guide states that daily leak testing is required where there are other personnel near the asbestos work. Key areas to be tested are:
Testing should be a combination of short and long duration – short just after removal commences, with longer duration following on after.
This is very clear direction that was lacking in the original 2006 analyst guide. Currently leak testing (certainly daily ones) is considered an optional extra. The new emphasis is unarguably a good idea – but the cost impact on projects will be significant.
Other than the PCM and SEM, two other sampling techniques are discussed in the guide:
In my next feature I’ll be looking at how we can start preparing for new legislation.
Written by Nick Garland on Thursday May 25th 2017
Here’s Nick Garland’s summary of the draft of the new Asbestos Analyst’s Guide from the HSE and what it suggests for hiring the right analyst.
The HSE’s new Asbestos Analysts Guide is coming soon or so we have been confidently told for the past year. The current tentative publication date is June 2017, but I have heard that even this is likely to slip. When we do get it, it is designed to help both Analysts and their clients comply with the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 and its ACoP.
It’s the client I am particularly aiming this summary at, but those with technical backgrounds should also find it useful. It is also for this reason that I largely don’t cover the appendices – in of themselves a whopping 178 pages’ long!
This is obviously a summary and clearly not intended to replace the Guide. In particular, the appendices contain a lot of important detail and should still be studied to gain the fullest picture. A note of caution, this is a review of the ‘draft for consultation’ – there may well be changes before final publication.
The early stages of the guide cover the critical areas of how to appoint an analyst and what quality control measures should be implemented by the consultancy.
This is the first time we have been given strong guidance on this subject, though it has long been the perceived best practice. This contractual relationship is critical to ensure independence and the control you will need
With this starting point, the HSE then require you to discuss the project in detail with the consultancy. The aim is to ensure that the consultancy understands what you the client wants and for you understand what you are going to get.
Areas to address:
The wording for this last point is particularly interesting. Reports should be designed to satisfy the client’s needs, not just perceived UKAS requirements. The frustrating ‘our reports have to look like this, it is part of our UKAS accreditation’ or ‘no we can’t give the data in that format, because…’ should all be a thing of the past.
The whole appointment and subsequent planning phase is intended to mimic the changes first introduced in the Surveying Guide in 2012. Planning (especially between the client and the surveyor) has become the major route to success. It is intended to get around the issue of “why do I never get what I asked for?” – the answer normally being “you didn’t ask for it…”
Underlying everything in CDM15. Asbestos removal projects are covered by CDM, this is a long-accepted fact. However, the analysts guide gives us a new twist. Contrary to the wording in CDM15, the guide specifically states that the analyst will be treated as a separate contractor. This has dramatic implications, as all asbestos removal projects – even the smallest ones – will therefore require the appointment of a Principal Contractor (PC) and a Principal Designer (PD).
Many of the asbestos consultancies have upskilled to take on the PD role, but the smaller ones may not accept the additional liabilities. This then is another duty for the client – appoint a PC and a PD to the project – and be confident that they have the skills to do it. This could be an asbestos consultancy that can accept the wider duties or a specialised PD that has the expertise in asbestos.
A key client responsibility in CDM15 is to ensure that the project is being run safely. Without this engagement and contractual control, ensuring safety would be largely impossible. Even then, without some expertise, you replace ‘ensure’ with ‘hope’.
The advice I always give clients is simple – become an educated one. Either train someone in your organisation or appoint a consultant independent of the asbestos project teams to be your expert advocate.
Employers must prevent or minimise exposure and as with all guidance, the phrase ‘so far as reasonably practicable’ is used. It also suggests that ‘live’ enclosure entry should be avoided – as this could lead to exposure above the Control Limit and with it, mandatory asbestos medicals.
I take two things from this: firstly, the pre-visual, much loved by contractors, is being officially frowned upon, and secondly the guide is suggesting that not all analysts need medicals. In my experience, site analytical work (clearances, leak air testing and so on), inevitably leads to exposure above the Control Limit at some point. I have two examples from my past, both seemingly very low risk that led to high personal exposure. The first, a contractor was removing a cement flue with hidden pure fibre in the flanges – a surprise failure at stage 3. The second was a straightforward Asbestos Insulating Board (AIB) job, where the High Efficiency Particle Air (HEPA) filter failed in the Negative Pressure Unit (NPU). Consequently, I believe all analysts should have medicals.
The guide makes clear that two copies of the Certificate for Reoccupation (CfR) must be issued – the building controller and the licensed contractor.
Personal exposure for analysts should be air tested (personals rather than static). The purpose of personal monitoring is not ‘merely’ duty of care and the data must be used for:
It gives direct guidance that personal monitoring should be performed in ~10% of case, targeting:
Whilst the control limit is highlighted, I find the other element more interesting. Minimise so far as reasonably practicable, risk assessment and effectiveness of controls drives the responsibilities of the employer much, much lower than just the control limit. There is therefore no ‘good enough’ and we should be striving for ever lower exposure. This has an impact on how long we run the tests for and what Limit of Quantification / Detection we set.
Whilst the number of required audits has stayed roughly the same, other checks to be recorded and studied have increased:
Approximately 5% should either be shadowed or blind inspected immediately afterwards:
During the consultation period, I know that there was some call for making the audits more specific – i.e. what type of clearance was it? This would bring it into line with survey audits.
The last bullet will be new to those that have not read the draft guide. The new 4-stage clearance process must include photographic evidence to support the decisions taken along the way. These will include such things as proof that the enclosure was free from gross contamination and dry before the visual inspection took place. The time and date stamp on the photos is intended to evidence the stated durations of each stage.
Maintain individual logs of all work completed by your analysts. These logs should record:
Six monthly auditing of Analysts’ performance (including a review of the above detailed logs).
Essentially the guide is calling for audits to record significantly more detail. Once we are collecting more we will have to do more with it. This will drive assessment of competence and training to new levels.
The difficulty is that a huge amount of data can be very time consuming to process. Just as the removal contractors found with the drive for competence on their side of the fence – the consultancies will have to develop new sophisticated systems to collect, analyse and present the data in meaningful ways.
The guide immediately highlights something that has been clear to me for a long time. What we ask of our analysts often strays from the standard UKAS requirements into other areas:
The guide also highlights the need for H&S training, in my opinion – critical basic training for any analyst.
We must also recognise that the very act of passing or failing a 4-stage clearance is a potentially stressful and intimidating situation. Consultancies should therefore provide support mechanisms and procedures to mitigate or eliminate. This will help ensure that analysts’ actions and decisions are impartial and independent. Personal qualities of ‘resilience’, ‘determination’ and ‘integrity’ will be required.
The guide covers the UKAS recognised proficiency training modules. Also highlighted is the requirement for sign-off by senior manager before any unsupervised work. However, the regulations tell us that Competence is not just a matter of a training certificate – we must ensure an employee is competent to do the job. But as I cover in my competence blog pieces – we can’t just leave it at that – just because I was signed off as competent last year doesn’t mean I still am.
The required participation of the client in the plan, plan, plan process is likely to expose a longstanding industry misunderstanding. When a client hears ‘Project Management’ they expect:
Initiating, planning, executing, controlling, and closing the work of a team to achieve specific goals and meet specific success criteria. The primary challenge of project management is to achieve all the project goals within the given constraints.
However, in most cases, Analytical Consultants mean:
Specify the project, review the method, supply an analyst to run air tests, provide a report after the clearance
The client sees the latter as a given, and assume that the asbestos consultancy’s definition of project management is the same as for other areas of construction. This disconnect from expectation and delivery leads to much of the dissatisfaction in the industry.
So how common are these skills:
It is a rare analytical company that even has these as categories on the skills matrix, never mind measures or audits them. They tend to be what we assume an analyst can do, without training. Managers have often described it to me as a ‘gut feeling’ about an analyst that leads them to promote them to a more senior role.
The guide’s focus on soft skills and project management presents a challenge to labs. Most companies currently do not even identify these soft skills in their competence matrix, never mind measure them.
The clear steer is that to be ‘competent’ (i.e. knowledge, skills and experience) an analyst needs to go far beyond just the ability to operate within a UKAS environment. We see far reaching implications for training and competence – a consultancy’s approach in this key area should form a key part of the selection process.
Get in touch with us to discuss how Assure360 can help with:
Written by Nick Garland on Monday June 27th 2016
The draft guidance that was doing the rounds last year on blasting techniques (whether that is Quill, Torbo or ice) has now been released as ALG meeting minutes, rather than a full ALG Memo. I am not too sure on where that places it in the regulatory framework, but it is clearly guidance that shouldn’t be ignored. There a few changes to the February 2015 draft that prompted my original summary.
The following piece is an update on the main points to be aware of.
The memo starts with the recognition that blasting may be required in a few rare occasions, but also declares that the process should only be considered as a last resort and not a go-to silver bullet. It also insists that the use of the process (above other more traditional approaches) must be fully justified by the licensed contractor, with evidence in support. What this translates to is that the method must not merely address and mitigate the significant additional hazards, but that the reasons for introducing them in the first place are declared and justified:
Clients are normally the main driver as to why blasting is being considered (“I want an asbestos free building”). It would therefore be wise to involve them in the decision process, explore whether the reasons for that desire outweigh the added hazards and ultimately justify why it is required. The guidance states that robust processes should be in place to ‘prevent misuse’. Or put another way – review of the justification and sign off by senior management. The technique must also be declared on the ASB5.
The guidance suggests the following controls:
** Wet Vacs may be problematic guidance as they do not typically have HEPA filters but the moisture in the ‘garnet’ will damage a standard vac.
These controls will considerably increase time, plant and materials and with them costs. It is difficult to imagine a client stomaching the substantial increase.
I can almost hear the echo of ‘It’s only guidance’, which it is, but the imperative is to implement something equivalent or better and the suggested controls are quite specific and difficult to argue against. As it must be declared on the ASB5, the likely increased chance of an enforcement visit will mean that Ignoring the document will be a high risk card game with your license as the stake.
Find out how we can help you with asbestos waste management – call us on 0845 226 4318
Written by Nick Garland on Tuesday November 17th 2015
This is a summary and critique of the brand new guidance produced by ARMI on Competence in the Asbestos Industry. I will try to reduce the 28 pages into something more concise and give my spin on the wording to help clarify. Reading this summary would hopefully allow you to fully implement ARMIs suggestions, and/or help navigate the full document if you want to read more (available at http://www.armi.org.uk/Download/ARMI_Competency_Guidance.pdf).
The guide starts with an explanation of what competence is and a statement that most contractors will be assessing it anyway. However this existing assessment may be entirely informal and subconscious (a vague understanding of – you wouldn’t ask John to do X because of Y).
‘The ability to perform a task to a specified standard’
‘The skills, abilities, knowledge and behaviours that lead to successful performance.
Understanding what skills are required, what skills are held by an employee and whether there is a gap between.
As the roles and duties you expect of an employee change, the skills (or Competencies) also change. Similarly Competencies also change if we change the way the job is to be done. Due to a variety of reasons, an employees’ Competence will change as time progresses – in either direction.
Consequently Competence assessment must be continuous to identify shortfall and inform training.
It must be remembered that training here does not mean set piece refresher courses, but a variety of tools to bridge the skills gap identified. It could be a formal training course, but equally it could be:
The guidance goes on to identify the clear regulatory basis that requires employers to conduct a structured Competence system. The document explains that you can get external assistance in performing some or all of these duties. However before you rush to an expensive external consultant – it states correctly that the duty can’t be delegated. Essentially what this means is that if a largely external system fails to deliver, it will be the employer in the dock.
As you are already at the Assure360 site – just click on Home tab to see how we can provide a simple, cost effective solution. Assure360 allows an employer to run an internal Competence system without creating extra work or recourse to expensive consultants.
Image taken from the ARMI Guide
Steps 1 & 2 establish the skill set required and agree the standards have almost certainly already been completed. Your company H&S Policy and Standard Procedures, if correctly written will be tailored to your precise circumstances, describing the precise duties you expect of those individuals.
The ARMI’s guidance document goes into some detail on what could be seen as a standard set of Competencies for the industry. However, unless we all rewrite our H&S Policy and Standard Procedure documents to match ARMI’s guidance they are unlikely to ever be the ‘standard’ Competencies. They do however broadly map out what you would expect.
The guidance raises two important points that I would wish to echo and highlight. Competencies are role based not title based, recognising the fact that employees are often a blend of roles. i.e. a senior Operative might have some Supervisory duties. Similarly in a small removal company a lead Supervisor might have key Management duties. This is a key point and useful to stress.
Secondly the guidance recognises how critical teamwork and communication is at all levels in the organisation, going some way to identifying what this looks like at different levels in the organisation:
Core duties – i.e. Competencies that everyone from the operative to the MD should have):
Supervisory duties – as above, plus:
Management duties:
This aspect of teamwork and communication as a Competency is largely overlooked by the majority of removal companies and could contribute enormously. Strategies on how to promote these should be sought, but the guidance does not help with this.
Step 3 (Collect Evidence) and to a lesser extend Step 4 (Produce Training Needs Analysis or TNA) are the ones that will cause most issues with Licence Holders. Unfortunately other than tell you of some sources for gathering the required information the guidance crucially falls short:
However, other than little more than these bullet points there are no clues on how to:
In fact just adding these tasks to an already full workload may be an ‘ask’ to far.
To be fair the guidance does repeatedly say, ‘many of these tasks are already being done by licence holders’, the problem is existing measures typically do not gather the kind of information needed to create a detailed understanding of an employee. The trick remains – to transform the tasks that are already being done into an exercise that automatically provides the competence assessment.
An employee must be deemed competent to do a task and until they are, they need to be supervised. This has most impact with new starters (including agency); whether this is an experienced supervisor/manager or someone fresh to the industry – they will have little idea on how you as an organisation do things and you will have no idea of their Competence. Induction into company H&S policies and procedures is therefore critical and a high level of supervision must follow.
Next on the cycle comes produce TNAs. TNAs are an old problem, and as most training organisations know actually getting a TNA for an employee is a rare event, getting one long enough in advance to plan appropriately has until recently been almost unheard of. Nowadays I do know of several companies that complete TNAs in advance and submit these to the training providers.
The guidance seems to suggest that creating TNAs is an additional exercise over and above Competence Assessments. It identifies who assessors should be and what competencies they should have. Essentially this comes down to Supervisors and Line Managers as the in-house experts best placed to do this. Having TNAs as an extra task, added to a busy workload, will have the almost inevitable result of it not happening at all.
Again the trick is to make the process automatic. Direct observation should produce a competence assessment, which by its nature (looked from the other side) is a TNA. But the guidance does not tell us this bit.
This is obviously the act of closing the gap. We’ve identified the strengths and weaknesses (competencies), we’ve developed the training requirements (TNA), and this is merely the delivery of that plan. What the guidance makes clear though is that training is not just the annual refresher and can take the form of toolbox talks, practical sessions and even informal chats.
Essentially what this means is that; once we know (in detail) what weaknesses an operative, supervisor or manager may have, we can be much more imaginative in addressing those needs:
Many of these are issues, which if we recognise them, can be dealt with internally.
A senior operative; if he excels in the skill to be imparted can deliver training. Supervisors can become key mentors, contracts managers can learn from each other.
Equally if you understand the weaknesses on site, you should know your strengths, the industry has an awful lot of expertise and this is by no means restricted to training organisations. Good ideas, innovation and excellent performance should be identified, reinforced and shared.
Increased supervision is effectively ‘on the job training’. An identified slip in performance in an experienced operative or a new starter can be tackled by mentoring. Just because a new employee comes to us qualified and experienced, we do not know their level of Competence. Equally we should be near certain of their lack of competence in our own company procedures. This support can be seen as simultaneous training and assessment.
Or rather – start again. It should be noted, though, that the guidance correctly identifies that ‘establish roles’, and ‘agree performance standards’, won’t normally need to be returned to on a regular basis. As the collection of evidence and consequent identification of training needs is continuous, the cycle should just keep rolling. The guidance document does note that infrequently completed tasks may need to be tested via simulations to ensure competence is maintained. A good example of this could be emergency procedures or fire drills.
There should also be a formal review (minimum annually) – or employee appraisal. The competence, and TNA assessments that have been completed throughout the year, should be used as part of this exercise. Events that should trigger reviews:
The guidance is an effective definition of what competence is and gives pointers to how Licence Holders (LHs) can design their own systems to fulfil the requirements. It also identifies many tasks typically already done by LHs that can provide evidence of Competence and therefore inform TNAs and training.
Essentially as a guide to creating a competence system it does work. However the process it describes is a colossal amount of work.
The ARMI guide starts by creating separate performance criteria and matrices for every role. In of itself, this could be a few weeks work. It then describes a host of evidence sources that (admittedly companies do at least some of). However it gives no guidance on how to streamline the process of analysing the ‘big data’ this would produce. All H&S managers in the asbestos industry know that a PDF audit report can be a dead end and is lucky to be closed out, never mind trends identified. iAuditor can produce Excel exports but these are incredibly labour intensive to analyse. Typically the ‘degree of granulation’ achievable is to supervisor level and no further, leaving the majority of the staff un-assessed. Essentially to administer the competence system as described would require a dedicated full time individual.
As I say the guidance does explain the concept, gives sound guidance on where to start. But it leaves us hanging with the slight echo of ‘pick the bones out of that’.
However, there is help beyond the guidance. New commercially available systems streamline this process into a ‘click-of-a-button’ solution – my assure360 database and app is one.
Written by Nick Garland on Monday September 28th 2015
Transiting is the simple process that operatives follow to exit an enclosure. It is the moment where they remove PPE and if they get it wrong, expose themselves to increased asbestos. It is therefore critical. However, when I audit removal projects in the UK, I often come across an almost wilful disregard of this guidance. The poor procedure is reinforced by large training providers (I am thinking of one in particular) that actively train incorrect procedure to delegates.
The guidance is clear:
So why do over 10% of audits completed by myself and others (using my Assure360 system), record instances of PPE removed in the dirty stage or even in the enclosure itself?
The reasons we hear from the individual operatives, supervisors and their management, typically include ‘well you wouldn’t want to take all that contamination to the outside’ or ‘well the middle stage is a buffer’ or most common of all ‘well I went on a training course last week and they told me…’. All of these demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding as to why the guidance was written as it was.
Correct risk assessment at the moment of transiting should tell us quite clearly who is most at risk – the operative. Therefore what is transiting for? The primary purpose is to ensure that an operative exits a hazardous environment safely. It has a secondary purpose – to ensure that in exiting, – that hazardous environment stays confined. The dirty stage (it’s nick name is such for a reasons) is the most hazardous part of the airlock system, so why should we be asking operatives to remove any PPE here? Removing PPE in the enclosure is clearly slightly insane.
If we lose sight of who is most at risk, it would allow us to think that the secondary purpose is the main one. On the shaky foundations of this ignorance and with the confidence that ‘well it’s only guidance’ brings, we get the poor procedures we so often see.
If the primary purpose was indeed keeping the hazardous environment confined, whilst allowing workers to exit – then a buffer zone or sacrificing PPE early to keep ‘us civilians’ safe, seems sensible.
My frustration, as a professional, comes when major training companies, who frankly should know better, actively teach removal of overalls in the dirty stage of the airlock, sometimes they even council throwing them back into the enclosure. This is directly apposed to guidance and demonstrates a lack of understanding and competence in the trainer. I know of several examples where the employer has designed the correct (guidance led) transit procedures – only to find that their employees have been de-trained at great expense. This misleading training undermines the company’s efforts to protect its workers and potentially induces enforcement action.
I therefore challenge the industry as a whole and training providers in particular to reconsider transiting in light of what it is actually for – protecting the employee.
Find out how we can help you with asbestos waste management – call us on 0845 226 4318
Written by Nick Garland on Tuesday June 16th 2015
First of all apologies for the title, it is intended to be a humorous one and I believe we can learn a lot from Europe. However, British H&S regulation has a not so secret weapon that gives it absolutely the right foundation and a huge advantage when it comes to the ‘league tables’.
So we must be doing something right.
At the recent European Asbestos Forum, Dr. Herm Zweerts of Arcadis presented a fascinating piece on the approaches to asbestos and the supporting legislation across Europe. His analysis showed that:
The control limits set for asbestos exposure across the continent varied dramatically.
The underlying regulatory controls also seemed to show differences in approach.
We in Britain should definitely learn from our European colleagues and in particular the areas of openness and transparency. France’s requirement for an asbestos survey to be conducted prior to any domestic property sale would in theory eliminate accidental asbestos exposure in the home. The fledgling NL mapping process that details known asbestos containing public buildings onto a cloud-based database with geographic map is also fascinating. In my experience it is often ignorance that leads to poor management of asbestos and ultimately exposure. Not knowing there is asbestos in the house, results in the artwork being positioned unwisely, or the ambitious removal of a wall leading to massive exposure. However, couple the French absolute requirement to survey domestic properties before they’re sold with the NL cloud database would give real transparency and the prospect for a roadmap to an asbestos free world.
Whilst we are still in this imperfect contaminated one though, ignorance remains our enemy. Asbestos is a scary subject, like the Plague or Anthrax just the word is often enough to strike terror. At best the world seems to know enough to be worried but not nearly enough to be considered knowledgeable. In this fertile ground of fear and ignorance, disreputable organisations can exploit us. I have heard of many projects large and small that are much much larger than the actual asbestos problem warranted. The German approach of independent experts may help this, but I believe we need to go further. Everyone that has any involvement in asbestos whether they are an asbestos operative, construction worker or property manager needs to understand asbestos better. Let me be clear – I am not attempting to minimise the problem, but calling for us, all of us to become educated clients.
Rigorous qualifications for the UK asbestos worker – like ACAD’s NVQ coupled with genuine competence and TNA assessments such as the ones that Assure360 can provide will transform the workforce into a professional one. Asbestos awareness courses for all (construction worker, tradesmen, teachers and even the general public) will give a level of knowledge that will dispel the fear. Those that commission asbestos removal projects or manage buildings should have advance courses in asbestos such as the UK’s P405 – shining a light on shady practice.
A central exposure database (like the Spanish one), could help fuel innovation. My Assure360 system centrally collates all exposure monitoring data in the cloud in an attempt to transform a duty of care task into this driver for innovation.
I started the piece asking ‘why are the Brits best at H&S?’, this was meant to be humorous, but there is a single reason for our practical regulation and my lack of concern over our high asbestos control limit. This is the foundation to all UK H&S regulation – The Health and Safety at Work Act (HASAWA). HASAWA came into force in 1974, is over 50 years old, and will in all likelihood be with us for at least another 50 – a near perfect piece of legislation. The authors understood that regulators do not have any hope of keeping pace with innovation. They will never be able to understand evolving industries sufficiently to implement adequate safety rules. So with a stroke of genius, they turned the whole framework on its head. The basic principles are:
The last phase is crucial – do what you can to eliminate or mitigate the risk. If we believe you could have done more, you WILL be prosecuted. Later guidance and regulation helps the employer in this task, but it remains their responsibility to assess the risk and eliminate it. The regulator no longer has to keep pace – all they have to do is make a qualitative judgement – “has the employer done enough?”.
The employer must constantly innovate to minimise the affect of his activities. This is the driver to the practical rules that Herm identified. The (embarrassingly high) figure set by the UK government for exposure is in reality a nominal one. As (due to HASAWA), the employer must reduce exposure as far as they can. The reality of UK asbestos worker exposure is somewhere between the French and German levels.
If legislation can be beautiful then HASAWA in its simplicity is just that.
The US legislative framework is very prescriptive, as is much of Europe. In essence if you can tick the requirements laid out for you, you’re in the clear. A graphic (and hopefully extreme) example of why this is a very poor approach is this:
Photograph kindly provided by Tony Rich of Asbestology LLC (in the USA)
It may take you a little while to work it out, but this is apparently a ‘technically compliant’ airlock in the US. It has three stages, separated by flaps. Ticks the boxes laid down in regs, but I’m sure you would agree – wholly inadequate. If the US had a Risk Assessment based approach like HASAWA, rather than a prescriptive one, an enforcer would be able to take one look and start building his / her prosecution.
It is because of HASAWA that we are very unlikely to see a Gulf of Mexico oil disaster in the North Sea. BP and it’s US subcontractors followed all of the rules, squeezing protocols and procedures until the relevant boxes could be ticked – with tragic and catastrophic results. In the North Sea, with a different approach, it would have been obvious that they could go a lot further than they did.
The one big weakness in the UK is that HASAWA is the Health and Safety at WORK Act, and therefore has no bearing on domestic situations. This is where I believe we can lean from France and NL, eliminating ignorance and fear.
Therefore my call is this one – the UK legislators should learn from the best in Europe. A good start to this would be by engaging in the European Asbestos Forum and in particular contribute to the 2016 conference. Secondly the world should recognise the fundamental flaw in trying to keep up with industry and lay the responsibility where it should be – with those that create the risk.
Find out how Assure360 can help you with asbestos health and safety compliance – call us today on 0845 226 4318
Written by Nick Garland on Monday April 20th 2015
This is the first of a series of short LinkedIn articles I will run identifying legislation that might have passed under the radar.
The Confined Space ACoP was amended in December last year and its impact on asbestos removal works is more than expected.
There are now two official triggers for categorising a work area as a confined space. The first is the obvious – is the area largely enclosed – is the access / egress restricted? These would be good examples:
However the ACoP now specifically adds asbestos enclosures to this list. Any such area will require a specific escape / evacuation procedure and a means of communicating.
What makes one of these ‘largely enclosed’ work areas a Confined Space is the addition of the foreseeable risk of one or more of the following proscribed hazards:
Confined spaces therefore represent varied and very hazardous working environments. However, for the asbestos project, it is no longer just stale or bad air within a subterranean duct that qualifies – the two others I wanted to highlight, increase the number of potential Confined Spaces dramatically:
Selecting grinders or burning pipes is, fumes aside, hot works and will therefore trigger the confined space regs because of fire. In addition that hospital boiler room where isolation is impossible will also qualify because of heat stress…
The following should be the approach taken in every case:
Is the area substantially enclosed (if it’s an asbestos enclosure – then yes).
What are the hazards? Are there any on the proscribed list? If so, does the job really need to be done? Can the hazard be removed (e.g. using recips, rather than grinders, isolating pipes etc…)
If the proscribed hazards are present and can’t be removed, then the Confined Space regs will apply.
If the enclosure does not involve one of the proscribed hazards, it is not a Confined Space, but it will still require a specific escape / evacuation procedure and a means of communicating.
Find out how we can help you with asbestos waste management – call us on 0845 226 4318
Written by Nick Garland on Monday March 16th 2015
Many in our industry mistakenly believe that the the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations do not apply to asbestos removal projects. Contradictorily, it is also often believed they only kick in when the notifiable triggers are exceeded. With CDM 2015 just round the corner, the following piece is a summary of the changes and how they pertain to the asbestos removal industry.
CDM either applies or it doesn’t. The extra duties imposed by notification, are just that – extra duties, for when the project is officially large. So the first question to answer is – do the new regulations apply to asbestos removal projects or not?
Regulation 2 states that:
“construction work” … includes:
(a) … de-commissioning, demolition or dismantling of a structure;
(d) the removal of a structure, or of any product or waste resulting from demolition or dismantling of a structure…’
These two clauses (incidentally also there in 2007), make it clear that asbestos removal projects are indeed covered and the duties it specifies flow from there.
CDM 2015 makes some sweeping changes, one role disappears, another arrives, client duties are expanded and some duties are taken on-board whether you like it or not.
There are five defined roles:
The main changes surround the Client and the new Principal Designer role. However, despite remaining largely unchanged the Designer might have the biggest impact on asbestos projects.
CDM 2015 takes implied responsibilities from the 2007 regs and adds liability significant phrases such as ‘must’ and ‘ensure’. The main changes are as follows:
With the exception of domestic clients**, the regs therefore no longer make the allowance that Clients don’t know what to do and now insist that they must, or employ competent advice so that they can.
** Note the duties of domestic clients are assumed by the Principal Contractor or in the case of very small jobs, the single Contractor.
Whilst this is not a new role and the duties are not tremendously different from before, it is worth understanding who a designer is and what duties they are committing to when they take it on. The regs tell us a Designer is an organisation or individual who
prepare or modify a design for a construction project (including the design of temporary works)
It goes on to say this includes, writing specifications, project management, drawings and anyone that design and modify work are included. It is therefore clear that the familiar role asbestos consultancies take on – is unarguably that of a designer.
The following key duty is therefore assumed by anyone in the role:
Must identify foreseeable risks to health and safety and apply the principles of prevention (avoid, reduce or where you can’t, control)
… identify foreseeable risks… this is where the problem comes in, whilst a good analytical consultant fully understands the issues presented by an asbestos job, our industry is often guilty of being blinkered to the host of other hazards that surround it. Therefore when specifying a removal technique, the Designer must consider if that manual handling issue can be tackled in any other way? Do the operatives really need to be exposed to vibration and noise to remove the last minuscule traces of asbestos (blasting techniques)? Does the average Asbestos Consultant have sufficiently broad H&S knowledge to identify all ‘foreseeable risks’ or the understanding of them to apply the principles of prevention? My guess is that most don’t even know what they are.
As an aside – an interesting sentence in the ACoP states that statutory bodies (e.g. the HSE?) who stipulate design changes outside of strict legal requirements, take on Designer duties.
Any project that involves more than one contractor e.g. LARC, Scaffolder, Electrician (for isolations) etc… must have both a Principal Contractor (PC) and a Principal Designer (PD). If the Client fails to appoint them, they assume the duties.
The two main changes for the PC is that the notification bar is higher. A project now needs to be notified if > 500 person days or if >30 working days AND >20 workers at any one time. The HSE believe this will halve the number of projects to be notified. However a Construction Phase Plan is now needed on ALL projects, not just notified ones. The significance of this on asbestos projects where the LARC is the PC or sole Contractor is that they must produce a Construction Phase Plan (CPP) as well as their method statement. For the small removal project most of the detail required in a CPP is already present in a good quality method Statement. But in any case the HSE are planning on providing a template.
Whilst the PC is largely unchanged, the PD is the new role on the block, replaces the old CDM Coordinator, takes on all of those duties and more. The duties are:
Remember, unlike the Designer where your can sleepwalk into the role, you can’t accidentally become a Principal Designer. Both a PC and a PD must be appointed in writing.
The role is essentially an organisational one, plus:
From experience I have found that next to nuclear, asbestos is by far the most complex hazard facing construction projects. It is therefore less of a challenge for a specialist in asbestos to up-skill in general H&S, than a generalist trying to master asbestos. In this, help and advice is available – the old CDM Coordinators are busily rebranding themselves as advisors to Designers. The asbestos consultant is therefore ideally placed to own this role. Rather than something to avoid, with the right skill set and advice this is genuine project management, which can be charged for appropriately.
In summary, it is not just the Contractor that should be concerned over high temperatures in a boiler house, or the introduction of unnecessary noise and vibration hazards (blasting techniques). We all need to become more educated and aware of areas outside our specialisms. Asbestos Consultants need to recognise the fact that they are Designers and the responsibilities that come with the role.
With Clients, the Designers have a duty that a project is completed without risk to those affected. They are mandated to get actively involved. Rather than just make design requirement, they must look at all of the implications. As this is the most liability significant duty and is automatically assumed by most consultants, the short hop to Principal Designer no longer seems onerous. But ignoring the issue will leave you badly exposed to regulatory and legal action.
Written by Nick Garland on Monday January 12th 2015
Last time, I laid out where the change was coming from and why; now for what form the change is taking – unless we’re very careful.
On the basis of these few nebulous ‘competence’ phrases, licence assessments now focus on a company’s ability to demonstrate the competence of its workforce. Some organisations are rushing in to fill the gap with “come to us and pay ~ £800+ per person and we will prove competence for you”. These are exams branded as competence schemes and none of the main offerings entirely fit the bill. In addition, some of these new offerings are marketed as replacements for traditional learning.
Regular readers will be familiar with the three pillars of a good scheme:
Critically you then train the weaknesses away, and repeat the process.
An NVQ (very expensive unless through ACAD) fulfils 1 and 3. The old Open College Network exam from IATP (inexpensive) would satisfy 1 and if delivered by a responsible trainer would also bridge the skill gap (3). Neither however say anything of the subsequent years of the employee’s career. ARICs (very expensive) tests the competence at an instance in time but doesn’t give guidance on precise training needs. If a scheme is missing one pillar (never mind two) – it will fall over.
If you rely on these offerings exclusively, at the extreme, you could double or triple your training outlay, and still not demonstrate compliance with Reg 10. So if not one of the new breed of set piece exams or traditional training, what does compliance with Reg 10 look like?
Genuine compliance is a detailed knowledge of your workforce and a corresponding bespoke approach to training. If Bob is great at enclosure building, removing AIB (etc…), but can’t get his head around taking the overalls off in the middle stage – then his training course should focus on that. Barry, however, can’t roll a cube to save his life, so his training course needs to focus on that. George (Supervisor) never seems to enforce correct transiting and in addition he is weak on the correct protocol for making changes to the POW – his training needs to nail that.
The good news is that this kind of knowledge is only built up by the employer. Paying someone to ‘sort out competence for you’ is both eye-wateringly expensive, and ultimately a waste of money. Any decent removal contractor is making these observations routinely, there will be an unconscious recognition of ‘don’t send Barry on the domestic job, where he needs to roll 6 cubes before lunchtime’. The trick is only to get a system that records and presents them in a useable way. Articulating this knowledge, IS a Training Needs Analysis, armed with this – training can actually change for the better.
Once you know the precise weaknesses (and strengths) of Bob, Barry and George – the off the peg approach becomes a waste of everyone’s time and money. What is required is an overall catch-up session of changes in the industry, followed by masterclasses for individuals covering their individual needs. Supervisor and Operative training could overlap if the skill gap dictates. If you have the ability in house, some of these practical sessions could be led by your star employees. Both IATP and ACAD would advocate this approach – genuine TNAs driving quality training.
The trainer for the next decade would therefore be one that designs bespoke modular courses. One that will work with you and your competence system to create a tailored approach. The set piece annual one day refresher would disappear, replaced by a several 1-2 hour sessions.
The challenge for the training industry is to move from the rigid large scale, pack them in approach, to a smaller individualised service. As mentioned earlier, some of the smaller independents seem to have an advantage here, with the ability to provide a personalised course. The larger providers who produce a single course for multiple employers have the most to do.
The danger of the trainers not changing is that traditional learning will still fail to fit the bill and the rush to ‘comply with competence’ will leave them behind. Without genuine TNAs the only way for misguided souls to fake compliance with Reg 10 will be the exams and an awful lot of money would have been spent without actually improving anything.
Written by Nick Garland on Tuesday January 6th 2015
The asbestos training architecture is fixed by legislation, but with the new year upon us, is this going to remain the case? For those of us with possibly too much time on our hands it is becoming increasingly obvious that huge changes are coming our way and it is all being done by stealth.
Everyone is familiar with how it is at the moment:
Three day New Operative/Supervisor course followed by an annual refresher every year. This is mandated by Regulation 10 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations and it has been ever thus. However the standards of the training courses are often less than we would like.
Single class refresher training by large providers for multiple clients can not possibly provide the tailored approach required and can degenerate into an off the peg approach that most can sleep through and still ‘pass’.
Then there are the corrupt organisations that we’ve all heard about – where if you turn up to collect your certificate you are the star pupil.
Some of the smaller independents make a good stab at a bespoke course, but are hampered because they are never provided with detailed Training Needs Analysis (TNAs) by the client.
With some considerable justification the HSE are dissatisfied with the quality of training that has been churned out over the years. Where do we go from this not very satisfactory state?
Whilst change is needed, the drive for change is producing unfocused solutions and a great deal of vested interest.
The method by which change is coming about is the root of the problem – the vexing phrase ‘competence’. This has been a commonly used but little understood phrase in the industry for a decade or more. It is now being used to sneak in the transformation with precious little consultation and less representation by those affected. And because it is little understood, the solutions could be missing the mark.
Lets first explore where the change is coming from.
The Approved Code of Practice (L143 – the ACoP) tells us:
Para 40
Any reference in this document to competence, competent persons or competent employees is a reference to a person or employee who has received adequate information, instruction and training for the task being
Innocuous enough.
However;
Para 226 extends this with the following:
… and can demonstrate an adequate and up-to-date understanding of the work, required control measures and appropriate law.
“And can demonstrate” – leads an employer to ask how can the employee demonstrate this, when must they demonstrate it – all of the time? Annually? … And how can we as employers be confident that they can demonstrate it?
Para 227 then hits us with – ‘A training course on its own will not make an employee competent’.
Where on earth does that leave us? A situation where the only guidance available is for formal set-piece training courses, but then the ACoP tells us that it isn’t good enough – and then doesn’t help us with how!
Big changes are coming that without careful planning may cost a lot of people a lot of money. Licensed Contractors, employees, clients and trainers themselves will all be affected. The shifting landscape may very well destroy the latter.
Next time – what form the change is taking – unless we’re very careful!
Written by Nick Garland on Thursday December 4th 2014
The Asbestos Liaison Group (ALG) have just released some draft guidance on how to design a competence scheme, and whilst it contains some sensible pointers, there are also several areas of inconsistency and blind allies. It also weighs in at a massive 24 pages, making accessibility difficult in our busy lives.
The document is still out for consultation for a little while longer, so in an attempt to improve it – here are some of the highlights:
It specifically casts doubt on the ability of the employer to conduct adequate competence assessments on temporary (agency) staff.
Rather than guiding us to all of the qualifications available, it only promotes two that are championed by the trade organisations.
In what appears to be a contradiction, it indicates both that there should not be degrees of competence and later that different levels of performance can exist (experienced vs newly qualified operatives).
The guidance states that competence is only achieved when ALL standards are met, partial competence – say excellent removal techniques but poor airlock construction would equate to ‘not yet competent’.
Despite it being a crucial part of the whole exercise, the guidance is very brief on actually how to produce and interpret Training Needs Analysis (TNAs).
Encouragingly it does recognise that the best assessments and assessors are first line managers or supervisors, conducting direct observation. Therefore internal continual monitoring systems are king and snapshot exams (e.g. ARICS) have a limited roll. The problem is how to do it. If you follow the guidance to the letter it leads inevitably to a new 100-200 page competence document that you would have to write.
There is hope however, competence schemes are available commercially and can be found either via ACAD, IATP or internet search engines (look for “asbestos Competence Scheme”). Good practical guidance on TNAs can be obtained at IATP, but the same commercially available competence systems by their nature produce TNA reports.
Find out how we can help you with asbestos waste management – call us on 0845 226 4318