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