hammar sw: bath october 2016 asbestos pitfalls, key aspects +...

savills.com

HAMMAR SW: Bath

October 2016

Asbestos – Pitfalls, key aspects + future

guidance

Julian Ransom – Director, Savills

What we are going to cover

• Asbestos regulatory requirement

• Role of the client

• Data management (accountability + audit trail)

• Pitfalls (from personal experience)

• Future Guidance (+ crystal ball)

• Examples / Cases Studies (if time)

Regulation/ Guidance Framework/ AMP

Approved Codes of Practice (eg ACOP L143 .... Interpret Legislation)

British Standards

Legislation (eg. CAR 2012 + HSW 1974 + CDM 2015)

Published Guidance (eg HSG 264 / 227 / 248 / Asbestos Essentials / Task Sheets)

Best Practice Publications (asbestos retail guide ....)

Web Information (eg HSE Web Site + Asbestos App)

Professional Associations (ARCA / UKAS)

Case Law (drives interpretation eg Dianne Willmore vs Mosley)

Significant Events (RP Prosecutions ..... HSE + Regulator intervention ...... HCA)

Management Plan (Your Own .... Specific + aligned processes/ systems to reflect)

Asbestos: Regulatory Requirement

The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 (CAR)

• Regulation 4: ‘Duty Holder’ DTM Obligation:

• Non-Domestic (corporate + common parts):

• Identification/ location/ condition of ACMs

• Undertake Risk Assessment (guidance how)

• Written Management Plan

• Prevent harm - anyone occupying/ working on

• ACMs Identified (or presumed):

• Safely Maintain or Remove

• Monitor Condition

• Provide Info to anyone who may disturb it

• Review MP + ensure implemented


Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HSWA) +

Man of Health & Safety at Work Regs (MHSWR):

• Extends ‘Duty Holder’ Obligations:

• Non-Domestic and Domestic areas

• Section 2 – Employees

• Section 3 – Non Employees (Duty of Care)

• Procurement and Commissioning:

• Client cannot delegate H and S duties

• Incorporate H and S management at all stages

• Clear roles and responsibilities

• Competent to carry out their functions


Construction Design Management Regulations

(CDMR 2015):

• CDMC Role Removed (why ....)

• Strengthened Client role – in best place to set standards

• Principal Designer and Principal Contractor (new)

• If > one contractor, client to appoint PD and PC

• Skills, experience, training, knowledge

• Aligns with ACOPL143 (Man + Work with Asbestos) Req:

• Pre Construction Phase Plans

• RAMS review

• Monitoring

• H & S File information (air testing/ consignment etc)

• M&S Prosecution case

Asbestos Data Management:

Strategic Framework and Maintenance/Refurbishment

Build up data

on property groups

Take info into

account

Suspicious

material

Technical Team

Trained

Staff

Establish

Property portfolio

Groups Void properties

R+D Survey

No infoInspection/

Check/ R+D

STOP

Progressive

survey

of property

Groups/types

Other info/

Records/Plans Check register

before work

Inspection/

check

WORK

Data Management

Headline Principles (the digital age):

• Requirement - Fit for Purpose (Guidance Compliant )

• Strategic View (comprehensive .....all tenures / property types)

• Desk Top Risk Review ..... Survey Rationale

• Reflect / align with AMP (e.g. re-inspections)

• Maintain control of data (chase/ capture/ / update / monitor)

• Routine Management Reporting + QC (demonstrable)

• Consistency of RA + Man Actions (work flow + survey formats)

• Access to Data (24/7? auditable?)

• Easily Understood (ACOPL143) + searchable

• One Stop Shop (all associated data/ certs/ RAMS/ photos)

• Work Flow (Resp/ Planned/ Voids/ DFG/ TOA/ Audit Data/ etc)

• Electronic Updating (Generic Interfacing + UDC to HMIS)

Pitfalls (personal experience)

What does a ‘Competent’ compliance regime look like?

Pitfalls

(typically found at compliance review)

Asbestos Management Plan / Procedures:

• Primary intentions but interpretation missing

• Out of date (HSG 264 / staff structure?)

• Not adopted (Board/ownership/input)

• Contradictory / Non specific / Irrelevant sections

• No Review (HSG 227 + ACoP L143 – 12 monthly)

No Defensible Survey Strategy:

• Ad Hoc / driven by works / voids / budget constraints

Pitfalls


Specialist Surveys Not Fit For Purpose

• Quality Control poor / non existent (no mechanism)

• Scope of surveys never properly rehearsed (client knowledge)

• Deviation from standard guidance (terms/method/risk rating)

• Risk Assessments on Material Risk Assessment (MRA)

• Priority Risk Assessment (PRA) left to ‘Duty Holder’

Poor Coms. Between survey Co and RSL:

• 'Pulling together’ or in different direction (shared objective?)

• Many different survey companies (inconsistency)

• Surveys not commissioned by RSL (suitable for register?)

• Differing interpretation of guidance (Actions/Banding/Time)

• Poor contracts – No Partnering / VFM / SO’s

Surveys by those undertaking removal works

Pitfalls


Asbestos Registers:

• Not current (incl. the stock list + removal data)

• No ‘Management Reporting’ Capability

• Limited Access / No links to HMIS (works orders)

• Inconsistent Risk Evaluations applied (for ACMs)

• Non-compliant algorithms / terminology embedded

• Data not made available or consulted (auditing)

• Emergency Services not advised (CAR Reg 4/ ACoP L143)

Appropriate docs. not requested / retained / chased

Processes falling outside compliance processes:

• DIY approvals / Disabled adaptations / Voids procedure

Insufficient controls for un-licensed work (DLO?)

Pitfalls


No Re-Inspection Surveys undertaken

Deliberate / accidental / on own register?

ACoP L143. Non-Domestic: ACMs identified or suspected must be

inspected and condition assessed periodically. Frequency of

inspection will depend on location + other factors which may affect

condition. (So how often? ....... and Domestic too?.....Protocol)

No or insufficient ‘Refurbishment’ surveys undertaken (prior to

refurbishment works). How many are enough?

HSG 264 - Refurbishment surveys:

67 Refurbishment and demolition surveys should also be carried out on a proportion of

properties in the work programme. The ratio again will depend on asbestos variability

within the housing stock and may be high where there is substantial variation. A

proportion should be surveyed until the results demonstrate as far as reasonably

practicable that there is consistency in the range of ACMs in the property type and there

is an accurate picture of asbestos presence. The refurbishment and demolition survey will

only be necessary in the specific area/location where the works will take place, e.g

cupboard, part of a room, kitchen/bathroom.

Pitfalls


Insufficient or infrequent asbestos training (ACoP L143 explicit)

• RL based staff (technical / non technical)

• DLO / External Contractors

• How is AMP + register system knowledge provided?

Residents not formally advised:

• Of known/ suspected asbestos in their home

• General “do’s + don’ts”

• Inconsistent - only some told (at void/ new residents?)

• HCA increased focus (+ HSE expectation)

Potential Solutions

(Key components of a better approach?)

Management Plan / Policy and Procedures:

• Review format + relevance (against guidance 227 + L143)

• Specific roles / named persons (ownership)

• Get it endorsed (formally)

• Training / ownership (staff and partners)

Set up specific ‘Asbestos Steering Group’

• Delegated authority (for Group and/or Board)

• Relevant stakeholders + clear TOR (tasks + timescale)

• Asbestos Action Plan (SMART/ discrete) + Monitor Progress

Clarify basis of On-going Survey Programme:

• Robust/ justified or accidental?

• Desk Top Study: establish ‘asbestos relevant‘ property groups

•Prioritise + target surveys (explicit protocol: HSG264 + L143)

•Review programme priority against findings (dynamic)

•Validate existing / historic data (is it helpful?)

Potential Solutions

(Key components of a robust approach?)

Registers:

• Evaluate – fit for purpose (future proof/ options?)

• Harmonise data + risk assessments / actions / re-inspection cycles

• PRA’s – agree protocols + add retrospectively?

• Align ‘risk banding’ / Man. Actions (consistency with recommendations)

• Clarify + record underlying algorithms / criteria / pick lists

• Insist on guidance compliant approach

• Add back removal data (validated) → how to organise? (new Regs!)

• Hyper-link to photos / plans / certification

• Want: management tools (reporting suite) / search engine

• Want Web enablement (secure password) 24/7

• Use audit trail (protocol) + UDC link to HMIS?

• Work Flow (pilot first)

• Exceptions reporting (identify errors ....... North Devon)

Potential Solutions


Institute a Communications Strategy (resident Endorsed ):

• Clear objectives + Resident editorial panel (3*)

• Consider RTB/ Leasehold exchange requests (misrepresentation)

Audit Framework:

• Approach like gas servicing (difference = 20-40 yrs)

• Independent 4 stage ACT / air re-assurance (volume = DH choices)

• Method statements + Risk Assess (DLO?) + CDMR 2015 roles?

• General Contractors (vetting/ training/ records/ test use of data)

• Who joins the dots (for client side ...... similar property/ no access?)

Potential Solutions


Procurement / Contracts:

• Consistency: 1 surveying, 1 removing

• Partnering (more important than other contracts?)

• Shared protocols (mobilisation/ piloting the key)

• Electronic data submission (exact templates agreed for alignment)

• VFM testing (SoRs / value engineering)

• Retained advices / UKTA training (matrix)

• Co-ownership of AMP/ compliance approach?

• Resident friendly focus (E&D / advice)

• Process Mapping (timelines / ownership)

• Auditing and data collection (incl. post removal/ re-inspections)

• Rehearse disaster scenarios (agree testing regime)

Potential Solutions


Re-inspection Protocols:

•Practical but defensible approach (HSE view)

•All now risk based (see previous consistency aspects)

•Agree with surveying Co and Register provider (MRA + PRA)

•Actively review if ‘fit for purpose’ (ASG/ Man. Body)

•Site inspection protocol (who / training / P Map/ HSG264

compliant)

•Check Register system can handle (not corrupt/ overburden)

Survey Formats:

• Essential to scope + Pilot (Man/ RFD/ Non-Dom/ Garages)

• File paths for linked photos/ floor plans/ certification/ pdf etc

• Test exact outputs (hard copy/ interface templates/ attachments/

timelines)

• RDF surveys require most work to establish:• Phasing + individual scoping (with contractor/ work stream/ archetypes)

• How many is enough (who records when enough ..... CDMR?)

Headlines to Remember .......

If vague, you are likely to be presumed to carry the responsibility

anyway;

If you state you will do something, this is what will be used to judge

you (HSE/ Barrister/ Court);

If wrong, better to have been clear about it and have a defensible

reason why that approach was adopted. Dynamic auditing?

Rehearse the ‘what if’ worst case scenarios before they happen ......

Including your partner contractors/ specialists/ consultants/ resdents

Accountability + Audit Trail

Objectives + Principles:

• An HSE /HCA expectation (‘assurance’ + defensibility)

• The ‘What if it goes wrong’ perspective ...... (ultimate DH)

• Clarity: Roles + Responsibilities (in-house vs external)

• Protocols / P Maps (remove uncertainty ...... Gorbochev)

• Competency + Training (in house + contractor Reg10)

• Specific duties

• Embed within routine processes/ systems (or fail)

• Strategic Duty to Manage (via delegated group?):

• Survey Strategy / Gap Analysis / AMP Appendix

• Work Phases (HASAW + ACOPS):

• Who makes decisions (RFDs/ RAMs/ ....)

• Who monitors/ audits/ collects data (air tests/ consignment)

• Defined Audit Procedure (append to AMP + use Register?)

‘Crystal Ball’ Time?

Future Direction of Asbestos Compliance

More pieces in the jigsaw!

Future Direction of Compliance:

New Analyst Guide 2016 (HSG248)

Due: 2 November 2016

Main changes:

Licensed work: 4-Stage Clearance: Photographic evidence required

Dust sampling to be avoided

Objective to provide:

Occupier with greater reassurance/

confidence the process has been

thorough and complete

Photos expected in 4-SC:

(Licensed Work)

Stage 1:

1. Skip area and waste route are free from

obvious asbestos debris and waste sacks

2. Transit route is free from obvious asbestos

debris and waste sacks

3. The DCU is free from obvious asbestos debris

and waste sacks. Photos should be taken of the

clean end, shower and dirty end.

4. The areas surrounding the enclosure/work area

are free from obvious asbestos debris and waste

sacks.

Stage 2:

1. The airlock and baglock are free of waste bags,

materials and unnecessary equipment

2. All ACMs have been completely removed from

the underlying surfaces. Sufficient photos should

be provided to cover the removal work areas

3. The interior surfaces inside the enclosure are

free from debris and fine settled dust. Sufficient

photos should be provided of the enclosure

including high level surfaces.

Stage 3:

1 The areas are dry. Sufficient photos should be

provided to cover the relevant area(s)

2. The NPUs are sealed

3. The sampling pumps in each of the sampling

locations

4. The brush used for the air disturbance

Stage 4:

1. The former enclosure area. Sufficient photos

should be provided to cover the relevant area(s)

Photo evidence that 4-Stage Clearance has been

Conducted (new HSG248):

Transit Route Pre + Post Work


HSE + Gov Office for Science: Workshop

Stakeholder Workshop Aug 2015:

• Growing Concerns re ‘Asbestos in The Built Environment’

• 42 Industry specialists/ workshops upon:

• Asbestos disease in UK (amosite specifically)

• Improved analytical/ laboratory techniques

• Dutch research (lower exposure recommendations)

• Australian asbestos management/ research

Priority Ranking Output (evidence gaps):

1. Risk of leaving vs. removing ACMs in buildings

2. Measuring asbestos concentrations at lower levels (Dutch H Council rec)

3. Effectiveness of managing ACMs in place -

Problems with accuracy of surveys relied upon by Dutyholders

+ Specific concerns regarding Amosite risk.

*Views will be used to inform the HSE asbestos programme.

HSE Workshop: Wittenoom Central Australia

Blue Asbestos

Crocidolite mine


A Practitioners Personal Observations

Trends/ direction of travel:

Improved Compliance Management Structures Expected

• HCA + HSE investigation driven (prosecution?)

• Directors of Compliance (trend to remove group silos)

• The need to evidence adequate control (audit function .. HSG248)

• Consistency of approach (surveys + RA/ actions) expected

• Construction Ind. call for mandatory surveys/ info to tenants +

contractors (Ucatt ‘name and shame’ motion)

• UK Parliamentary group call for:

• ACM removal in UK by 2035 (+ public bldgs by 2028)

• Registered surveys with HSE (public/ com/ rented domestic bldgs)

• CDM Regulation lead changes 2015:

• Remove previous ‘over reliance’ on nominal CDMC role?

• Principal Designer + Contractor TOR (clarity needed)

Practical Scenario 1:What went wrong ..... who’s to blame?

Enough RFDs?

Previous incidents

CDMC:

Monthly report

Site Visits

RAMS eval?

TENANT:

Appropriate

Response?

Daughter

The Cat!


1970’s

3 blocks

40+ flats each

ALMO


Bedroom cupboard cheeks

unsealed from date of

construction


Holes made when re-plumbing


More than just asbestos risk?

[email protected]

07807 999853

hammar sw: bath october 2016 asbestos pitfalls, key aspects +...

Documents