Asbestos Licensing
Minutes
THE ASBESTOS LIAISON GROUP TUESDAY 21 MAY 2002 AT 10.00AM
CONFERENCE ROOM, 1st FLOOR, BELFORD HOUSE, EDINBURGH
(24 September 2002, Rose Court, London; w/c 20 or 27 January 2003, Edinburgh)
Present
| HSE | TAs/TUs |
|---|---|
| Stewart Campbell, HSE Director, Scotland | David Hayes, ACAD |
| Jim Skilling, T/Head Health Unit | Mike Wilkes, ACAD |
| June Cairns, ALU | Jean Prentice, ACAD |
| Liz Standen, ALU | Steve Sadley, ARCA |
| Martin Gibson, Scotland Specialist Group | Peter Dolan, ARCA |
| John Claxton, FOD Operations, Norwich | Rob Blackburn, ARCA (ATaC) |
| Martin Stear, TD3 | Nigel Bryson, GMB |
| Tracy Phillips, HDC | Neil Moore, GMB |
| Bill Macdonald, HDC | |
| Iris Forrest, ALU (observer) | |
| Paula Coopland, SEPA (item 5) |
Introduction, apologies, welcome etc
1.1 Mr Campbell welcomed everyone and explained that he was chairing this meeting because of the temporary staffing situation in Health Unit. He welcomed Iris Forrest, ALU and Steve Sadley, ARCA who was attending for Terry Jago. Apologies for absence were also tendered on behalf of Robbert Hermanns, HSE, Tony Tynan, NFDC and George Wilmshurst, TGWU. Congratulations were extended to Tracey Boyle, who since the last meeting had given birth to a boy.
Minutes of the meeting held on 23 January 2002
2.1 The minutes were agreed.
Matters Arising
3.1 (3.2) Mr Bryson had forwarded information about inappropriate protection
for workers using substitute materials. The matter was now with HSE
to pursue.
Item discharged
3.2 (3.3) In relation to "interim" clearance certificates,
Mrs Phillips reported that UKAS had agreed to strengthen the LAB 30
guidance and the guidance to UKAS assessors in an attempt to make it
clearer and avoid misinterpretation.
Item discharged
3.3 (3.4) Ms Cairns reported that since the last meeting ALU had written
to the list of "unlicensed" agencies provided by the Trade
Associations. As a result, two more agencies were now licensed (bringing
the total to three), with a further licence application pending. HSE
were also considering possible prosecution action against an "unlicensed"
agency.
Item discharged
3.4 (3.5) Ms Cairns reported that the laundering project was very close
to completion, and that HSL were undertaking a final piece of work in
connection with it. ALG would be informed of the findings.
Action: Ms Cairns
3.5 (3.7) Dr Gibson said that since the last meeting, he had had discussions
with HSL and Protimeter and that the former had now drawn up the preliminary
programme for the project. Emerging findings should be available in
time for the September ALG meeting.
Action: Dr Gibson
3.6 (3.9) Ms Cairns thanked Mr Blackburn for the comments he had submitted
on the ALG Memo 8/01 on Supervisory Licence Holders, following the last
meeting. As a result, a revised version of the memo was issued to ALG
members at the meeting, for their consideration. Although the principle
was unchanged, the revised memo attempted to take cognisance of the
concerns raised by him. Members were asked to respond to the revised
draft (ALG 8/01 rev 1) within 2 weeks.
Action: All (by 4.6.02)
3.7 (3.11) The item on the Asbestos Licence Assessment Guide was remitted
to substantive item 6(i).
Item discharged
3.8 (3.12) There was another general discussion about the need for
asbestos workers to have mandatory chest X-rays (CXR) every 2 years,
that the guidance to appointed doctors went further than what was required
by the regulations, and the fact that the guidance was at odds with
the Ionising Radiations (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2000. Some members
felt that the way forward should be to give individuals a choice about
having a CXR, having first explained the risk. Others felt that individuals
could be lulled into a false sense of security if the CXR was clear,
and that it might be better for the medical examination to check the
fitness of the individual to undertake work with asbestos and their
compatibility for wearing RPE. Mr Campbell invited comments on this
issue as he felt a much wider debate was necessary for HSE to consider
the issues fully.
Action: All
3.9 (3.13) The ALG Memo 4/02 on scaffolding had been issued. The current
list of licence holders (35 as at 21.5.02) restricted to undertake scaffolding
and associated work was distributed to members. It was agreed that in
future the updated list would be provided at each meeting.
Item discharged
3.10 (4.1.1) The item on the personnel certification of surveyors was
remitted to substantive item 4(ii).
Item discharged
3.11 (4.2.2) Mr Skilling thanked Mr Hayes for the comments he had received
re the Trade Associations' concerns about the written P402 examination.
Unfortunately he had been unable to discuss the matter at the Committee
for Fibre Measurement meeting as intended, as the BIOH representative
had not attended. He would raise the issue at the September meeting.
Action: Mr Skilling
3.12 (4.3.2) Mrs Standen reported that since the last meeting, she had spoken to representatives from the Main Contractors Group (MCG) and the Construction Skills Certification Scheme (CSCS). It appeared that all the routes into the scheme required the cardholder to have obtained or signed up to some sort of NVQ within a given timescale. As such, the use of NVQs as a means of improving training standards could be considered as part of the Asbestos Training Providers project. Mr Dolan felt that whilst the CSCS wasn't particularly applicable to the asbestos industry, it was important that the industry was able to participate in it, albeit it with more detailed information/requirements for asbestos workers.
3.13 Mr Campbell accepted that there was a will from all sides to take
this issue further and asked Mrs Standen to liaise with the Trade Associations
and Trades Unions.
Action: Mrs Standen
3.14 (4.4.2) Mr Skilling reported that ALU had still to review its
disclosure procedures.
Action: ALU
3.15 (4.5.2) Mr Skilling had looked into the matter, which was unusual
in that it had resulted in an individual being served an Improvement
Notice because they were self employed and working without an asbestos
licence. Normally self employed personnel would be hired by a "licensed"
agency or by the licence contractor.
Item discharged
3.16 (5.1) The item on the Asbestos Management Guidance was remitted
to substantive item 7.
Item discharged
3.17 (6.2.1) Mr Skilling thanked members for their comments. ALG Memo
3/02 on carbon monoxide poisoning within enclosures had now been issued.
Item discharged
3.18 (6.3.2) The Trade Association representatives had made enquiries
of their members about provision of RPE and charging a fee, deposit
etc for their use but had received no feedback.
Item discharged
3.19 (6.4.2) Mr Stear would explore whether some work on establishing a basic standard for overalls might be taken forward under the HSL project on the effectiveness of decontamination arrangements and PPE.
(*Post meeting note - it has been agreed that the issue of asbestos
penetration through different types of disposable coveralls will be
considered as part of the HSL project)
Action: Mr Stear
3.20 (6.5.2) Dr Gibson thanked members for the responses he had received regarding removal of AIB soffits. The issue had also been raised by HSE inspectors as well as home improvement companies who had an interest. He had now acquired a lot of information about systems, practices, concerns etc about how work should be carried out and would now review this information. Ideally he would attempt to produce draft guidance for circulation to ALG prior to the next ALG meeting. In the meantime, Mr Dolan agreed to forward further information on this topic from ARCA's Governing Council.
Post meeting note - Dr Gibson has informed Trade Association reps of
an HSE meeting with the Glass and Glazing Federation on the 21 June
when they will be informed of ALG's interest in the topic. A meeting
of interested parties will be proposed to discuss practical and operational
issues, and guidance.
Action: Dr Gibson
3.21 (6.6.2) The item on asbestos training providers project was remitted
to substantive item 6(ii).
Item discharged
3.22 (8.1.1) The item on waste management issues and the Environment
Agency/SEPA was remitted to substantive item 5.
Item discharged
3.23 (8.2.2) Trade Associations would submit any comments regarding
the frequency of face fit testing in response to CD 181, by 22 May 2002.
Item discharged
Health Directorate Update
4.1.1 Mr Macdonald referred to the recent media and parliamentary campaign which suggested chrysotile was harmless and should be removed from the forthcoming new duty to manage regulation. HSE had issued a press release to the contrary and had met with the Federation of Small Businesses, who had been particularly critical of HSE's position. However, the debate appeared to be moving away from these aspects and the real concern was about overselling the need to survey premises and consequentially remove asbestos. HSE were also concerned about this, and were keen to avoid a repeat of the COSHH experience, where consultants had been often used, unnecessarily and at considerable expense. A joint HSE/Federation of Small Business press release would be issued soon which would confirm that the new duty to manage regulation was essential, but that a reasonable approach was required. The Trade Associations were invited to do all they could to encourage and influence their members to adopt such an approach. Mr Bryson stated that GMB supported HSE's line, and had already issued a statement confirming the risks from white asbestos. GMB planned further activities in July to refute the media view that white asbestos was harmless.
4.2 Accreditation/personnel certification
4.2.1 Mr Macdonald reported that since December, 25 companies had become accredited to undertake asbestos surveys, with a further 25-30 in the pipeline. Progress with personnel certification had been slower, but the two working groups had been set up (one to define a standard for asbestos surveys; the other to determine a mechanism for the assessment of surveyors against the standard) and HSE would review their work in due course, prior to consultation.
4.3 Duty to manage/CAWR 2002
4.3.1 The main issue to arise from the refining consultation, Mr Macdonald reported, was defining the duty holder. Previously this had been the employer in occupation, but that had meant that building owners, for example, were excluded. The regulation had now been redrafted so that the duty fell to those who had repair and maintenance responsibilities for the premises. This might be the owner or the employer in occupation. If the building was empty, the duty defaulted to the person in control. A duty of co-operation had also been introduced. The regulations and supporting ACoP were in the final stages of preparation for HSC's approval at their meeting on 16 July. If all went according to plan, the Minister would sign the regulations in August, for implementation in early September, followed by a formal launch later that month. It was still intended that there should be an 18 month lead in period.
*Post meeting note - the formal launch has now been arranged for 3 October 2002.
4.4 CD 181 - L27/L28 ACoPs
4.4.1 Mrs Phillips confirmed that the consultation period would end on 22 May and that 20 responses had been received so far. The emerging issues included concerns re the layout; clarity re who could undertake which stage(s) in the clearance procedure; the fact that not all of the stages were supported by accreditation (eg the visual inspection went beyond the procedures in LAB 30); maintenance of RPE; support for the enhanced training requirements but questions re the possibility of a lead in period etc. An internal HSE meeting was scheduled for 12 June to review the responses. Thereafter, the revised ACoPs would be submitted to the HSC in August for approval, with publication planned for mid October ie a few weeks after the launch of CAWR 2002.
4.4.2 There were some differences of opinion regarding the layout of the ACoPs, with some members expressing a preference for it to follow the work process rather than regulation by regulation. Other members commented that some fundamental information was missing. Members were reminded that the ACoP was intended to interpret the regulations and that other more detailed guidance was available on specific topics in other HSE publications. Mr Macdonald thanked members for their comments, which would be considered. However, in view of the extremely tight time scales involved, he would need to weigh up very carefully the number of further amendments that could be accommodated.
Asbestos Waste Issues
5.1 Mr Campbell welcomed Paula Coopland from the Policy Development Section of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) for this specific agenda item. Roy Watkinson from the Environment Agency (EA) had been expected to attend too, but did not.
5.2 Ms Coopland referred to the Special Waste Regulations 1996 and explained that since devolution, England and Wales had issued amendment regulations, whereas Scotland had not. As such there were dual systems in operation. Since the Hazardous Waste Directive had not been fully implemented in the UK, the Special Waste Regulations would be amended this year and a second consultation period would begin soon. There was a lot of debate about what the amendments would consist of and these were likely to be different for Scotland and for England/Wales. For England/Wales, the Regulations were expected to be laid in September 2002; for Scotland the timetable had yet to be decided. The consultative document should be available on the SE/DEFRA web sites in due course and ALG members were encouraged to read the proposals and comment.
5.3 Ms Coopland then went on to answer specific queries that had been raised by Trade Association members. These details are appended to the minutes. ALG members were very appreciative that Ms Coopland had attended the meeting. Trade Association members were concerned about any potential inconsistencies of approach between SEPA and EA and would write to EA separately. (Steve Lee, Head of Waste, EA). In their view there should be a separate EA/SEPA asbestos industry liaison committee to deal with waste issues. Mr Skilling requested copies of any correspondence exchanged between members and SEPA/EA.
ALU Update
6.1 Asbestos Licence Assessment Guide (ALAG)6.1.2 Ms Cairns delivered a brief presentation on the ALAG, copies of which had been issued to ALG members at the January meeting. In general, members welcomed the more systematic approach being taken to towards licence assessments.
6.2 Asbestos Training Providers Project Update
6.2.1 Mrs Standen reported that the project was on track and that she would be meeting HSL on 13 June to discuss the emerging findings. It was still hoped that the report would be available by the end of June. So far, HSL had interviewed 24 training providers, and 22 employees from 8 companies trained by these 24 companies. The emerging findings included issues about how thoroughly the EH50 topics were covered; different perceptions about what practical training consisted of; the repetitive nature of much of the refresher training, etc. It was planned to hold a meeting with the training providers involved in the project and other interested parties later in the year.
(*Post meeting note - the report is now likely to be completed by mid July. The meeting for training providers etc will take place on 4 September).
6.3 Waiver Policy
6.3.1 Mr Claxton confirmed HSE's policy to waive the 14 day notification
period in emergencies. As this had last been distributed to asbestos
licence holders almost 4 years ago, he wondered if it would be helpful
to produce the waiver policy as an ALG memo, which members might find
useful in their dealings with clients. The meeting agreed with this
proposal.
Action: ALU
6.4 2001/02 Statistics
6.4.1 The meeting noted ALG Memo 5/02, which contained information about the number of HSE visits to notified asbestos work, enforcement activity, and licensing activity in support of HSE field operations undertaken in 2001/02 work year.
6.5 Storage of records
6.5.1 Mr Claxton confirmed that as the main requirement was for records to be securely stored and easily retrievable, it was acceptable for licence holders to retain them electronically. To do so, would also mean that electronic copies could be easily made, which if stored elsewhere as a backup, was an additional safeguard in the event records being accidentally destroyed.
Asbestos guidance update
7.1 Mr Stear reminded members that comments on the second draft of the Asbestos Management Guidance, which had been amended in the light of comments from the first round of consultation, was due by 31 May. This guidance was aimed at larger businesses, whereas the free leaflet (Managing Asbestos in Premises, due for revision later this year) was aimed at smaller organisations.
7.2 The first draft of the consolidated guidance for licensed contractors was planned for early 2003, with publication scheduled for next summer. The consolidated guidance for analysts (EH10/MDHS 39/4) was also planned for next year. He also confirmed that the "asbestos house" would be launched as an HSE (priced) poster.
ARCA/ACAD Joint Technical Committee Issues
8.1 Supervisor refresher training
8.1.1 In response to the question posed by Mr Dolan, Mr Skilling confirmed that supervisors should have their supervisory training refreshed each year, in the same way that operatives and managers should have their specific training refreshed annually.
8.2 Clarification of changing and transit procedures
8.2.1 Mr Wilkes had been asked by employees on refresher training why they couldn't remove their working overalls/boots in the stage 1 airlock and use stage 2 as a walk through zone, then put on transit overalls in stage 3, instead of as stated in the guidance (viz stage 1 decontamination; stage 2 remove working overalls/boots; stage 3 put on transit overalls).
8.2.2 Dr Gibson stated that the most important aspect was the need to remove heavy contamination in the enclosure prior to entering the airlock. He foresaw storage problems if stage 1 of the airlock was to be used as suggested, as it would have to accommodate cleaning equipment and people as well as the working overalls. The overall result of this would be less effective decontamination being done in stage 1. As the air lock was under negative pressure and the operatives were still wearing RPE, he couldn't support a departure from the guidance, which had been in place since 1990.
8.3 Clarification of DCU location
8.3.1 Mr Dolan asked for clarification on whether the decontamination unit should be attached to the air lock wherever possible or whether HSE preferred transiting arrangements. This issue had been raised by members who alleged being inconsistently treated by HSE inspectors on this matter. Dr Gibson referred to EH47 guidance on this. He confirmed that HSE's preferred choice was for the DCU to be positioned as close to the work area as possible so that transiting was not required, thereby avoiding the potential spread of asbestos. Only when this arrangement was impractical should transit facilities be put in place.
8.4 Criteria for inspection of scaffold which forms part of the enclosure
8.4.1 Mr Wilkes explained that given that some of the scaffold would be inside the enclosure and that some components would be wrapped, the custom and practice that had developed was that the person undertaking the 7-day scaffold inspection inspected the outside and relied on feedback from asbestos operatives inside the enclosure. He asked whether this was acceptable to HSE and what HSE's criteria was for inspecting scaffolding that formed part of an enclosure.
8.4.2 Mr Claxton confirmed that the law required the scaffolding to be inspected:- before it was handed over; then 7 days after erection; and if any alterations had been made to it. In the situation described, a competent person (likely to be a scaffolder) could do the inspection from the outside. When inspections within the enclosure were necessary, these could be performed by a scaffolder trained in asbestos work or (depending on the type of scaffold eg birdcage or tower scaffold) an asbestos operative, trained in scaffold examination. He explained that much would depend on the circumstances and the complexity of the scaffolding - in some situations, only a trained scaffolder would be competent to undertake the examination. It was noted that in general scaffolding for asbestos work was less open to misuse than on a traditional construction site.
8.5 Clarification of asbestos detection limits and ASLIC
8.5.1 Mr Wilkes explained that laboratories often reported "trace" asbestos in their analysis reports but would not quantify the definition of "trace". He asked whether this meant the percentage of asbestos content was so low that the material need not be treated as licensable. Dr Gibson stated that ASLIC referred to different materials (AIB, insulation, and coating) with no reference to the percentage content of asbestos. The different asbestos materials usually had a known asbestos content range eg AIB usually contained between 16 - 40% asbestos (reference: "Asbestos and man-made mineral fibres in buildings", DETR, ISBN 0 7277 2835 0). If a suspect board material was analysed as having less than 1% asbestos, then it would not be typical AIB (it might be, for example, board with a paper coating). However the guidance on the asbestos definitions in ASLIC stated that "any mixture which contains one or more of these (asbestos) minerals, no matter how small the quantity, is within the definition". This essentially meant that, irrespective of the amount of asbestos in AIB, the board had to be regarded as AIB and licensable (unless it could be shown that the board was another asbestos material eg asbestos cement, by carrying out a density or other checks).
8.5.2 In later correspondence, Mr Blackburn referred to the definition of 'asbestos insulating board' under Reg 2 of ASLIC ('...means any sheet, tile or building board consisting of a mixture of asbestos and other material except - (a) asbestos cement: or (b) any article of bitumen, plastic, resin or rubber which contains asbestos and the thermal or acoustic properties of which are incidental to its main purpose') which he considered clear and unambiguous although the L11 Guide went on to describe AIB as ... "a lightly compressed board made from asbestos fibre and hydrated Portland cement or calcium silicate with other filler materials. .. ...". He had taken the former as the definition and treated the second as a common description of typical AIB and had never used any percentage asbestos content as a basis for assessing whether the product was licensable.
8.5.3 It was agreed that this issue required further consideration
and would be remitted for further discussion at the next meeting.
Action: ALU
8.6 Asbestos insurance premiums
8.6.1 Mr Dolan reported that since last September, asbestos removal
companies were finding it increasingly difficult to obtain insurance.
There appeared to be only one insurance underwriter prepared to take
new companies onto their books and the cost of insurance had increased
dramatically. Although this wasn't a problem for HSE per se, it would
become one, if licence holders worked without proper insurance cover
- or cut corners elsewhere in order to fund insurance premiums. It was
felt that the insurance market did not appreciate how well regulated
the industry was. Mr Bryson agreed to discuss this issue with the Trade
Associations, as he was anxious to avoid a situation whereby individuals
had self insurance. In the meantime, HSE would consider referring the
matter to DTLR.
Action: TAs/TUs/ALU
8.7 RPE and higher APF
8.7.1 Ms Prentice asked that in view of the forthcoming change to WHO
counting methods for asbestos fibres and the proposals to reduce the
control limit under the Asbestos Worker Protection Directive, whether
RPE that could be demonstrated to have a higher assigned protection
factor could be used for work where other RPE was not appropriate. Otherwise
she could not see how in some situations it would be possible to undertake
the work. Dr Gibson responded that the introduction of the new counting
method did not mean that the actual fibre-in-air-levels would change
or indeed that the risk to health would be altered. However, it would
mean that more fibres would fall within the counting criteria and therefore
higher levels would be reported. Dr Gibson also explained that the WHO
and EC changes would not modify HSE's approach, which was to work to
reduce fibre levels before using RPE. He also pointed out that it was
undesirable, whether now or after the changes, to have respirators operating
towards the limit of their assigned protection factors (eg people working
in 8 f/ml (mixed fibres) with their powered respirators). These situations
placed undue reliance on the RPE and allowed limited margins of safety.
However it was agreed that there should be discussion on this matter.
Mr Macdonald undertook to discuss Ms Prentice's concerns with Bob Rajan,
HSE's technical expert on RPE.
Action: Mr Macdonald
Any other business
9.1 Revised fee structure
9.1.1 Ms Cairns informed members that there would be a review of the
structure of licence fees. In addition to the flat rate fee for new
and renewal licences, the changes were likely to include flat fee charges
for reassessment interviews (ie those applicants who were conditionally
refused a licence and were reassessed within 4 months of the refusal);
for licence amendments (ie when licence conditions/length of term changed);
and for administrative changes (eg change of address, replacement of
lost licence, etc). As soon as more details were available, ALU would
write to ALG and licence holders.
Action: Ms Cairns
9.2 SLIC 2000
9.2.1 Mr Campbell reported that the SLIC 2000 asbestos report had now been submitted for translation and printing and that a European wide asbestos meeting was being planned in May 2003 in Dresden. The meeting would involve existing member states, candidate states and ILO member states. At this stage it wasn't clear whether this was a governmental event or whether social partners would also be involved. The funding for the event had also to be secured.
9.3 Supervisory Licence Holders
9.3.1 Mr Dolan asked whether personnel who entered enclosures to undertake audits were required to hold a supervisory licence. Members were referred to the revised draft ALG memo on Supervisory Licence Holders - if the auditors were merely collecting information to feedback to the client and were not engaged in directing the work activities on site, then a licence was not required.
9.4 Method Statement aide memoire
9.4.1 On behalf of ALU, Mr Claxton proposed to redraft the ALU aide
memoire on method statements, which would eventually be circulated for
comment to ALG members.
Action: Mr Claxton
9.5 European Asbestos Worker Protection Directive
9.5.1 Mr Macdonald gave a brief update on progress with the Asbestos Worker Protection directive, which was now close to agreement. Whilst the UK had secured some required changes to the draft directive, not all of these had been achieved.
Date, time, location of next meetings
10.1 The dates etc of meetings were confirmed as follows:-
- 10.00am, Tuesday 24 September 2002, Rose Court, London
Either week commencing 20 or 27 January 2003, Edinburgh - members to
notify their availability to Ms Cairns by 4 June.
Action: All
Annex
Asbestos Waste Issues - Response from SEPA
Q1: What requirements do you have for the transporting of asbestos
cement sheets, particularly on flatbed lorries?
A1: SEPA do not have the power to dictate how waste is contained during
transportation.
Section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as amended, imposes
a duty of care on persons concerned with controlled waste. Those subject
to the duty must try to prevent any other person committing an offence
under waste management legislation; to prevent the escape of waste (it
must be contained); to ensure that it is only transferred to a person
who is authorized to take it and when it is transferred, to make sure
a written description of the waste is transferred with it. The duty
applies to any person who produces, imports, carries, keeps, treats
or disposes of controlled waste, or as a broker has control of such
waste.
Q2: Should all waste be bagged or is it OK to have it loose in a covered
or sealed skip?
A2: Again, the duty of care applies as in A1 above. Operators of the
sites to which the asbestos waste is being taken should be contacted
to check what their acceptance requirements are. These may vary from
site to site.
Q3: Should skips be lined, and if so with what material?
A3: SEPA do not require skips to be lined, but the duty of care again
applies as in A1 above. That is, the holder of the waste must ensure
that it does not escape their control.
Q4: Do you accept bagged waste transported in a closed van?
A4: Yes, SEPA accept this, so long as it is transported by a registered
waste carrier. There is no de minimus limit for this.
Samples that are collected from a site that are not waste do not have to be transported by a registered waste carrier. You do not have to be a registered waste carrier to transport waste you produce (inspectors transporting used wipes, PPE, etc), unless the waste is classified as industrial waste.
2. Storage of waste
Q5: Can contractors store asbestos waste in a locked skip or van at
their premises and if so what security measures would you expect them
to take?
A5: No - they can only transport the waste to an appropriately licensed
facility.
No licence is required to temporarily store waste, pending its collection, on the site where it is produced. This also applies in certain circumstances, to special waste if it is stored on the site where it is produced. Full details of this exemption can be found in paragraph 41 of Schedule 3 of the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994, as amended.
Q6: Can waste be transferred between vehicles on unlicensed premises
or on the road or is this illegal?
A6: Legally, at the present time, there is nothing to stop transfer
of waste between vehicles as long as the carriers are authorized to
transport the waste and the consignment note procedure is followed for
each transfer. Again, the duty of care still applies and the parties
transferring the waste must ensure that none of it escapes their control.
3. Documentation
Q7: Should contractors supply Carriers' Schedules with prenotification
consignment notes?
A7: Before the first carrier's round, the carrier should submit a list
of all the consignors and their addresses (this does not have to be
on a carriers schedule), together with a consignment note (parts A and
B completed), to the regulator at least 72 hours prior to collecting
the waste. Second or subsequent carriers rounds in a succession of such
rounds do not need to be pre-notified, so long as all subsequent removals
are within 12 months of the first. Additional consignors details may
be added to the list, but their details must be submitted to the regulator
at least 72 hours before the collection is made.
4. Special Waste Regulations
Q8: What will be the impact of the current review of these regulations
on asbestos waste?
A8: Difficult to say - there is likely still to be a system of consignment
notes, but how this will operate has yet to be determined. Watch out
for the consultations!
Q9: Asbestos waste is defined as any waste containing more than 0.1%
weight for weight asbestos in the waste. What's to stop someone adding
non asbestos weight to the waste so that it no longer becomes special
waste?
A9: It is illegal to do this - under the Regulations, it is an offence
to "dilute" special waste.
/ Arabic
/ Bengali
/ Chinese
/ Farsi
/ Gujarati
/ Hindi
/ Kurdish
/ Pashto
/ Punjabi
/ Tamil
/ Urdu