Asbestos Licensing
Minutes
THE ASBESTOS LIAISON GROUP WEDNESDAY 27 JUNE 2001 AT 10.00AM
CONFERENCE ROOM 202, ST DUNSTAN'S HOUSE, 201-211 BOROUGH HIGH ST., LONDON
SE1
0 Present
1 Introductions, apologies and welcome
Stewart Campbell
2 Minutes of last meeting (22.3.2001) Stewart
Campbell
3 Matters arising from the minutes Stewart
Campbell to lead
4 ALU update: Jim Skilling
/ June Cairns
4.1 Licensed
scaffolders;
4.2 Lending
of employees;
4.3 2000/01
statistics;
4.4 Laundering
of asbestos contaminated clothing/towels project
5 Clearance testing and the appointment
of the analyst (contractor or client) Mike Wilkes to lead
6 ARCA/ACAD Joint Technical
Committee issues: ARCA Terry Jago to lead
6.1 HSE view
on clearance sampling in vans used to transport asbestos waste;
6.2 HSE protocol
for checking moisture levels in asbestos (including validation of protimeters);
6.3 HSE policy
on audits of contractors/future feature of licence requirements;
6.4 Clarification
on notification requirements;
6.5 Asbestos
Essentials — inaccuracies and better future liaison between HSE, ACAD
and ARCA
7 Health Records and Medical Surveillance Jim
Skilling
8 Supply of training and face fit test
certificates Jim Skilling
9 Health Directorate update: Bill
Macdonald / Tracy Phillips
(a) Proposed duty to manage
regulations;
(b) Accreditation and personal
certification issues including clarification on requirements for
'competence' of surveyors;
(c) Risk perception project (ALG
Memo 6/01)
10 Date, Time, Location of Next Meeting(s)
Present
| HSE | TAs/TUs |
|---|---|
| Stewart Campbell, Chair, Health Unit, FOD | Terry Jago, ARCA |
| Jim Skilling, ALU | Peter Dolan, ARCA |
| June Cairns, ALU | Rob Blackburn, ARCA (ATaC) |
| Martin Gibson, Scotland Specialist Group | David Hayes, ACAD |
| Robbert Hermanns, Scotland Specialist Group | Mike Wilkes, ACAD |
| Tracey Boyle, TD3 | Jean Prentice, ACAD |
| Bill Macdonald, HDC | Tony Tynan, NFDC |
| Tracy Phillips, HDC | Nigel Bryson, GMB |
| Neil Moore, GMB | |
| Sara Marsden, TGWU |
Introduction, apologies, welcome etc
1.1 Mr Campbell welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced Mr Moore, GMB and Dr Hermanns, HSE, who were attending for the first time. Apologies for absence were tendered on behalf of Mr McKay, HSE. Mr Macdonald and Ms Phillips joined the meeting later.
Minutes of the meeting held on 22.3.01
2.1 The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed. Mr Campbell explained that the draft minutes were cleared in HSE before being sent to the TAs/TUs for comment, thereby slowing down the process a little.
Matters Arising
3.1 (3.1) Mr Jago reported that the first joint meeting of the ARCA and ACAD
technical committees had taken place. Meetings would be held quarterly, 2
weeks before the ALG meeting and would alternate between London (ARCA) and
Luton (ACAD). At this stage representation from HSE was not required and would
be sought later once the joint committee was more established.
Item discharged
3.2 (3.6) Mr Wilkes had supplied case studies as requested. The meeting with
NASC and ALU had still to take place. Further discussion on scaffolding issues
was remitted to the substantive agenda item 4(i).
Item discharged
3.2 (3.7 and 3.8) The items, concerning scaffolding issues, were remitted
to the substantive agenda item mentioned above.
Items discharged
3.3 (3.14) Mr Skilling reported that he had been unable to secure the agreement
of the ALPIs to relax the requirement for top copies of medical and face fit
certificates to be available on site. He agreed to discuss the issue again
at the ALPI conference in September. In the meantime, Mr Campbell invited
the TAs/TUs to provide HSE with any other related points on this matter in
time for the ALPI conference.
Action: Mr Skilling/TAs/TUs
3.4 (3.15) The item on loaning of employees was remitted to substantive agenda
item 4.2.
Item discharged
3.5 (3.21) Mr Wilkes reported that he was in the process of compiling all
of the required information and would forward complete details on air line
fed RPE and "iceblast" method (11.5 of previous mins) to Dr Gibson
as soon as possible.
Action: Mr Wilkes
3.6 (3.22) Mr Campbell reported that this issue was ongoing. The French report
on their use of air line fed RPE was not yet available for ALG members, as
the Asbestos Working Session report had not yet been presented to the Senior
Labour Inspectors' Committee (SLIC) in May as anticipated. The delay had been
due to delayed contributions from two of the member states and the report
was now likely to be presented to the autumn meeting of SLIC.
Action: Mr Campbell
3.7 (3.23) Mr Bryson was still waiting on information from colleagues on
inappropriate protection for workers using asbestos substitute materials and
hoped to send this to ALU shortly.
Action: Mr Bryson
3.8 (5.2) Mr Blackburn confirmed that he had fed back the comments from the
last ALG meeting to ATaC colleagues - viz that it was acceptable to issue
a clearance certificate if asbestos, which was in good condition, but outwith
the scope of the original work, remained in the enclosure. He reported that
ATaC members said they complied with this.
Item discharged
3.9 Wider discussion then continued outside the actual action point when
Mr Blackburn referred to situations where a clearance certificate couldn't
be issued because the clearance sample didn't meet the required standard and
a written statement or "certificate" (not a clearance certificate)
was provided, qualifying why the test had failed. Dr Gibson thought that it
was inappropriate to issue such a "qualified statement" and that
it could lead to confusion - either a clearance certificate was issued or
it was not. If the conditions for clearance were not met, then no certificate
should be issued. Following further discussion, Mr Campbell requested that
the TA delegates liaise together to clarify the issues and that these be submitted
to Dr Gibson by the end of July. If necessary, Dr Gibson would initiate a
meeting of interested parties in August, so that issues could be fed into
the HSE sub group charged with the task of revising the ACoP guidance.
Action:Mr Blackburn/ACAD/
Dr Gibson
3.10 (5.4) Ms Phillips reported that some of the concerns regarding clearance,
raised at the previous meeting, had been discussed with UKAS. Their approach
was that whilst they did not advocate the issue of an "interim certificate"
there were some cases where they felt this might be appropriate eg when another
count was required. In view of the discussions that had taken place (see 3.9)
earlier in the meeting, Mr Skilling expressed concern about UKAS's response
and felt the position as stated by Dr Gibson was the correct line to take.
He requested that this be raised again with UKAS.
Action: Ms Phillips
3.11 (5.5) The issue of whether the client or the contractor should appoint
the analyst was remitted to substantive agenda item 5.
Item discharged
3.12 (9.4) The issue of adequate disposable overalls for licensed scaffolding
work was remitted to substantive agenda item 4(i).
Item discharged
3.13 (11.1) Mr Tynan confirmed that he had received the information concerning
contaminated hypodermic needles from Ms Cairns and that no further action
was necessary.
Item discharged
3.14 (11.2) Mr Campbell reported that ALU had considered the items raised
in the letter received from an external enquirer. The issues remitted to ALG
were at items 8 and 9 of the agenda.
Item discharged
3.15 (11.4) Mr Skilling reported that he had yet to finalise the memo to
ALPIs clarifying the role of a supervisory asbestos licence holder.
Action: Mr Skilling
3.16 (11.5) Mr Wilkes reported earlier that information on the "iceblast"
method would follow. Mr Bryson reported that he would re-send the information
about a water based product used to remove Artex, which ALU had not received.
Action: Mr Bryson
ALU Update
4.1.1 Mr Skilling reported that since the last ALG meeting, ALU had tried
to move the issue forward, by hosting a meeting of available ALPIs in April
to thrash out the issues, go through the case studies received and reach agreement.
All ALPIs were consulted on the outcomes from the meeting. As a result of
this exercise, a significant issue was raised by an ALPI that required a view
from HSE's Solicitor. The issue was that if it was foreseeable that any of
the three licensable forms of asbestos was likely to be disturbed in scaffolding
erection, even if there was no intention of doing work with asbestos from
the scaffolding, then the scaffolding company required a licence. The resulting
legal response supported the view of the ALPI who raised the issue and meant
that the previous information needed to be reviewed and re-submittted to ALPIs.
As soon as the latest round of consultation was over, and the final version
of the document was agreed within HSE, Mr Skilling would arrange for the information
to be issued to members as a draft ALG memo.
Action: Mr Skilling
4.1.2 The meeting was advised that there were now 19 licensed scaffolding
companies (ie with a 4th licence condition restricting their work with asbestos
to ancillary scaffolding activities) with a further 3 awaiting assessment.
In response to the request from Mr Jago, Mr Campbell agreed that ALU would
arrange to supply details of these companies to the TAs/TUs free of charge.
Action: Ms Cairns
4.1.2 Mr Wilkes requested ALU's interpretation over the notification requirements
for a licensed scaffolding job his company (Cape) were involved with at a
power station in East Scotland. Another licensed contractor was to encapsulate
the asbestos, whilst Cape were required to erect the scaffolding. As the scaffolding
was liable to disturb the asbestos, Cape had notified the job but were questioned
by HSE locally, who advised notification was not necessary. Mr Jago added
that he had received similar queries from licensed scaffolding members of
ARCA, who also advised that HSE inspectors had told them they did not need
to notify. Mr Skilling replied that Cape had taken the correct action in notifying
the work and would discuss the matter with the HSE office concerned.
Action: Mr Skilling
4.1.3 Re item 3.8 of the previous minutes regarding notification, Mr Skilling
confirmed that the scaffolding contractor was required to give at least 14
days notification before commencing work and that they could not piggy back
on the notification supplied by the licensed removal contractor. This would
require better planning on the part of the asbestos removal contractor and
was no different from what was required of supervisory licence holders. It
was confirmed that the same criteria for granting waivers would apply to scaffolding
and that these could not be relaxed.
Item discharged
4.1.4 Re item 9.4 of the previous minutes regarding disposable PPE for scaffolders,
Mr Skilling reported that he had spoken to suppliers who alleged that there
were good quality disposable overalls, able to withstand wear and tear from
safety harnesses, available on the market. He agreed to provide the TAs with
supplier details.
Action: Mr Skilling
4.2.1 Mr Skilling reported that HSE Solicitor's Office had responded to the
effect that "agencies" who supplied trained, face fit tested, medicalled
etc asbestos operatives to other licensed contractors should be licensed,
with appropriate licence conditions restricting their activity to the supply
of labour. Although, ALPIs were not unanimous in their support of this venture,
ALU would confirm the operating details with them and then write out to the
"agencies" concerned. ALG would be provided with the details in
due course. Mr Bryson expressed some concerns with this initiative, although
he accepted the legality of the arrangements and acknowledged that at least
the "agency" would be assessed by HSE before it was granted a licence
and looked forward to seeing the licence conditions when these were available.
Action: Mr Skilling
4.3 2000/01 Statistics ALG Memo 5/01
4.3.1 Ms Cairns presented the information contained in ALG Memo 5/01, already issued to ALG members and appended to the minutes. Mr Jago drew attention to the high number of prosecutions and was concerned that this might be as a result of slipping standards within the industry. Mr Skilling replied that there could be a number of reasons for this - more inspectors had been trained in asbestos operations; the standard of HSE training was improving; and there was a stronger emphasis on enforcement. He pointed out that the prosecutions included local authorities, individuals and unlicensed companies, as well as 5 licensed contractors.
4.3.2 Mr Campbell explained that it was difficult to establish trends from the enforcement figures and that to bear in mind that not every prohibition notice would lead to a prosecution. Further, many prosecutions did not involve any prohibition notices. Also, the figures were for the number of prosecutions heard in 2000/01 - the incidents leading to the cases would have occurred in preceding years. He added that details of individual cases were now available on the HSE website.
4.3.3 Mr Bryson remarked on the figures ie as notifications went up, the number of HSE inspections went down as did the number of notices issued and wondered whether there was any co-relation between them. Mr Skilling explained that there was a finite resource to deal with asbestos work and that the staff engaged on this work usually covered construction inspection too. A more robust enforcement line meant more prosecutions, which were time consuming and could lead to less time for inspections. He added that the final figure for visits might be a little higher than the 933 visits quoted in the report as some late ASB6 inspection reports were still being received, but noted that with the increased number of notifications due to the inclusion of AIB as licensable work, HSE was only visiting 3% of notifications compared with 10% previously. Visits conducted by Local Authority inspectors were not included in the figures provided.
4.3.4 In response to Ms Marsden's question about whether HSE might be putting more resources into its construction work, Mr Campbell replied that in its draft Strategic Plan, the HSC had identified construction as one of the priority sectors and as such appropriate resources would need to be directed there. The plan however had yet to be signed off at ministerial level.
4.4 Laundering of asbestos contaminated clothing/towels project
4.4.1 Ms Cairns reported that although the HSL project had started, it was
at an early stage. One laundry had been visited and they had agreed to co-operate;
other laundries were in the process of being contacted and HSL were preparing
control samples for test comparisons. She hoped to have more to report at
the next ALG meeting.
Action: Ms Cairns
4.4.2 Whilst on this subject, Mr Wilkes asked whether ALU had a list of "approved" laundries that accepted asbestos contaminated clothing and towels and whether there was a check list of requirements available to assist laundries in doing this work, aside from the passing references in ACoPs L27 and L28. Ms Cairns reported that HSE didn't approve laundries to work with asbestos contaminated articles and that ALU didn't have a list of commercial laundries doing this work. Commercial laundries were inspected by HSE, but not by those inspectors normally engaged on asbestos work. With regard to a check list or better guidance, the forthcoming revision to the ACoPs would afford an opportunity to include better information and this had already been flagged up with members of the Review of Asbestos Guidance Working Group.
4.4.3 Mr Campbell pointed out that HSE would have no means of compiling a
list of commercial laundries and invited the Trade Associations to ask their
members for this information, which would provide a good basis from which
to work. In the meantime it was agreed to include this as a specific agenda
item for the next meeting. Mr Skilling agreed to take up the issue raised
by Mr Dolan, whereby it was alleged that HSE inspectors were insisting that
towels only used in the clean end of DCUs be treated as contaminated. This
was contrary to the information supplied by ALU viz that towels used solely
in the clean area be deemed as uncontaminated and washed with normal laundry.
Action:TAs/MsCairns /Mr Skilling
Clearance testing and the appointment of the analyst
5.1 Mr Wilkes said that in the majority of cases, the licensed contractor employed the laboratory to undertake clearance testing. Whilst it was right and proper for the laboratory doing this work to be independent of the removal contractor, he felt that in order to avoid any hint of collusion, it would be more appropriate for the client to engage the laboratory - not the removal contractor, although he acknowledged that the majority of clients did not want this responsibility. Other TA delegates endorsed this view - and felt that there should be further responsibilities placed on analysts from a legislative stance. Mr Bryson said that GMB sought to separate the analyst/contractor relationship and saw the proposal to place this responsibility on the client as a means of solving this.
5.2 Mr Campbell thanked delegates for these views and would arrange for ALU
to raise the issue with the policy section responsible.
Action: Mr Skilling
ARCA/ACAD Joint Technical Committee Issues
6.1 Clearance sampling in vans used to transport asbestos waste
6.1.1 Mr Jago referred to a letter which the ALPI for HSE's London office had sent to licensed contractors in his area. Amongst other things this letter had highlighted the problem of transporting asbestos waste in vans which did not have separate sealed compartments for driver and passengers. Mr Jago referred to a situation in the Midlands some time ago when HSE had served prohibition notices because of contamination remaining in vans after waste had been transported and asked for HSE's policy on whether vans needed to be clearance tested after use.
6.1.2 Mr Skilling explained that if people, equipment and asbestos waste
were to be transported in the same vehicle, then there needed to be a separate
sealed compartment for the driver and passengers. In the Midlands situation
referred to, the inspectors had insisted that the van was cleaned, checked
and clearance tested before it was used again. Mr Blackburn commented that
it was not possible to obtain clearance levels on a van - to do so would require
it to be dissembled, which would be unfeasible. Mr Skilling mentioned that
he hoped to have discussions with the Environment Agency about related waste
disposal issues and in the meantime undertook to look into this issue and
respond.
Action: Mr Skilling
6.2 HSE protocol for checking moisture levels in asbestos
6.2.1 Mr Jago referred to the same letter mentioned above, which highlighted another problem encountered by inspectors on site viz that there was no means of checking the effectiveness of the wetting agent. He wondered how this could be achieved - many contractors used moisture meters to monitor saturation but there was no HSE protocol for checking moisture levels. He asked whether the effectiveness of moisture meters had been validated. It was also felt that in some parts of the industry there was a lack of knowledge about the existence of moisture meters and their use.
6.2.2 Dr Gibson reported that HSL had undertaken work to evaluate two types of protimeter - the Mini III and the Surveymaster, neither were specifically for asbestos. Both types had been calibrated for wood and had 10mm probes to penetrate material. The Surveymaster had a second feature viz a radio frequency probe which was more flexible and allowed non-intrusive surveys and could be used to check the contents of bags etc. Both types tended to over estimate moisture but gave results that were consistent with the drying test set by HSL. The test showed that the meters were a good guide and useful indicator as to moisture content in material. However if metal (eg pipework, chicken wire mesh) was present, the readings were spurious. Whilst this might not be a problem if working with known pipework which could be planned for, it could be more difficult with the chicken wire scenario. There was no HSE guidance on this at present.
6.2.3 Dr Gibson said that HSL had information about moisture content which
led to good suppression. Unfortunately however, there was no co-relation between
the readings from the probe and HSL's data on moisture suppression levels
and this information needed to be linked. The distribution of saturation,
an assessment of the size of the area, and number of samples to be taken were
all aspects that needed to be taken into account too. In response to Ms Prentice's
query, Dr Gibson confirmed that it was possible for the size of the probe
to be increased. Mr Campbell acknowledged the problem presented by the TAs
and agreed to have the matter looked into.
Action: Dr Gibson
6.3 HSE policy on audits of contractors
6.3.1 Mr Jago asked whether it was HSE policy for licensed contractors to arrange for their work to be audited. He was aware that an ARCA member had a licence condition to this effect and the issue had also been included in the letter from the London ALPI to contractors.
6.3.2 Mr Skilling pointed out the guidance contained in HS(G)65 Successful Health and Safety Management included auditing as part of the process. Employers were required by law to supervise and monitor their work and inspectors would ask licensees about how they monitored, reviewed and audited their performance. With regard to the licence condition, Mr Skilling confirmed that this had been agreed for an individual licensee where problems had arisen regarding their performance across the country and it was agreed between the MD of the company and the ALPI that independent audits took place to restore confidence.
6.4 Clarification of notification requirements
6.4.1 In response to Mr Jago's query, Mr Skilling confirmed that full notification
consisted of the completed ASB5, accompanied by a suitable and sufficient
method statement. These documents were required to reach the enforcing authority
at least 14 days before work was due to start. If the ASB5 was sent on its
own, the notification was incomplete - the 14 day clock would not start ticking
until both documents were received. Contractors therefore needed to allow
for the time taken to mail the papers and assume that use of 1st class post
would mean next day delivery. Mr Skilling undertook to remind inspectors of
the notification requirements.
Action: Mr Skilling
6.4.2 Mr Campbell confirmed that HSE did not acknowledge notifications. In response to Ms Prentice's query, he said that there wasn't a deadline by which contractors might expect to find out from HSE whether their method statements had been assessed, although this was a good point worthy of consideration in the future.
6.4.3 Ms Prentice asked whether a new notification and method statement would be required if a contractor uncovered more asbestos in the course of doing a job. Mr Skilling thought that such circumstances might lead to a waiver situation and depending on the extent of work, the original method statement might suffice. Such situations, would require a statement from the client confirming that they were unaware of the asbestos.
6.5 Asbestos Essentials - inaccuracies and better future liaison
6.5.1 Mr Jago said that apart from being copied into early drafts of the documents, the Trade Associations had not been asked to comment on later versions. This had been disappointing as a number of inaccuracies were now present in the published version, which the TAs would have been able to point out had they been approached. Mr Jago had written to Mr Skilling with details of the errors.
6.5.2 Mr Skilling undertook to have the inaccuracies looked into and noted
the point about better involvement by the TAs, which should be easier to achieve
in future, now that the Asbestos Liaison Group had been set up.
Action: Mr Skilling
Health Records and Medical Surveillance
7.1 Ms Cairns referred to the letter received from an external enquirer requesting that the issue be raised at ALG. The issues for consideration concerned:-
a) a requirement for employers to forward to each past and current employee a copy of their own health records and medical surveillance files to enable them to either take on to future employers or retain for future use;
b) a requirement for all employers required to maintain such records to provide a full copy of the health surveillance file to all employees who leave their employment and
c) a requirement to be placed on all employers required to maintain such records for 40 years to transfer them to HSE or an appropriate third party in the event of company closure, sale liquidation etc and ensure that such records are either passed on to new owners or put in safe custody for any future employer to collect.
7.2 With regard to a) and b) above, Mr Dolan and Mr Wilkes commented that their companies were always willing to supply this information to a new employer. Mr Jago acknowledged that although this was true of some employers, there were others unwilling to do so. Mr Moore said that in his members' experience, this wasn't always as easy as contractors made out and that unless legislation was in place which required them to do so, employers would not pass on this information. One solution might be the introduction of a Skills Card scheme.
7.3 With regard to c), Ms Cairns reported that the current arrangements were that medical records should be offered to an HSE Appointed Doctor or EMAS to make further arrangements for retention. In 1998 HSE's Occupational Health and Advisory Committee had considered this issue and subsequently a survey was carried out into how many firms actually offered their records to HSE. It was found that the offers of health records were extremely rare and in most cases were declined by HSE because of storage constraints and inadequate resource to make use of the data. The general view was that the requirement should remain and each case be treated on its merits. It was worth noting that this issue involved many Government Departments as well as other organisations (TUC, CBI etc) and that a direct approach to ministers from interested parties outwith HSE might be one way of raising the profile of this issue.
Supply of training and face fit test certificates
8.1 Ms Cairns introduced this item as the other issue raised in the letter from the external enquirer. The issues for consideration concerned:-
a) clarification of the duties of employers in respect of supplying training and face fit test certificates to asbestos workers who left their employment (irrespective of their employment arrangements or their reasons for leaving) and
b) clarification of the duties of trainers and face fit testers in respect of supplying certificates to individuals or new employers, where the existing/past employer refused to release such certificates when employees left their employment.
8.2 Mr Campbell thought that under the Data Protection Act, employees might well have a right to this information. Mr Jago said that as far as b) was concerned, ARCA provided copies of certificates when requested and charged for this service. Mr Hayes reported that ACAD dealt with each case on its merits but were uncomfortable with supplying copies when someone else had paid for the training.
Health Directorate Update
9.1 Proposed duty to manage regulations
9.1.1 Mr Macdonald reported that the main reason for the delay was due to the proposed extension of the regulation to include the rented domestic sector. Many other Government Departments needed to be involved because of the amount of public money at stake (the cost benefit analysis and regulatory benefit assessment estimated the cost as being an additional £800 million) and DETR had just responded (unfavourably) to HSE's detailed submission. A meeting of HSE and DETR would now ensue. With regard to the timetable, it was difficult to be precise, but it was hoped that the 3 month consultation exercise would start in early September, with the regulations being signed in 2002.
9.1.2 Mr Blackburn sought clarification about whether the asbestos survey
should be conducted before the management plan was drawn up as there seemed
to be different views. Mr Macdonald explained that the regulations required
an assessment to take place first to find out the problems before a management
plan was prepared. However for large complex sites eg hospital trusts, it
would be appropriate to draw up a strategic plan first. Ms Phillips added
that MDHS 100 was currently with the printers and should be available in August.
As far as the revisions to the ACoPs L27 and L28 were concerned, TA/TU members
confirmed that they wished to be included in a limited external consultation
exercise (prior to proper full consultation) scheduled, which would occur
before the end of July.
Action: Ms Phillips
9.2 Asbestos Register
9.2.1 Mr Campbell raised the issue on behalf of Mr Bryson about Asbestos Register.com. GMB were supportive of this initiative and were concerned to learn that without HSE's commitment it looked likely that the company would fold. They viewed it as a useful tool to develop a national register of asbestos data and were interested to know HSE's position. Mr Blackburn on the other hand said that from a consultant's point of view, participation in the scheme involved tight and complex contractual conditions, which made it very difficult for consultants to sign up to. He added that there were no quality checks on the information being added to the system, which was a further concern.
9.2.2 Mr Macdonald said that HSE had taken a neutral stand on this. Whilst there were advantages to having a central register available on the internet, it was important to recognise that it wouldn't suit all duty holders. HSE had been pressed by the product developer to include reference to the product in the ACoP. As this would not meet HSC's criteria of acceptable ACoP material, this had not been done. For HSE, there was also the need not to be seen to promote commercial products. The ACoP would refer to internet systems, but in generic terms only.
9.3 Accreditation and personnel certification issues
9.3.1 Ms Phillips reported that the accreditation pilot was still running with completion anticipated for October. HSE would meet UKAS to review progress in early July. As far as the personnel certification schemes being drawn up by RICS (Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors) and BIOH (British Institute of Occupational Hygiene) were concerned, she said there had been an attempt to merge these two schemes but that RICS had now decided not to participate in the SAVA (Surveyors and Valuers Accreditation) scheme, so no-one was quite sure of the position on this . The Architecture Surveying Institute (ASI) had intimated that they might be interested in setting up a third scheme.
9.3.2 Mr Macdonald clarified the position viz that accreditation and personnel certification schemes were both trying to achieve the same standard of surveyor, but were doing so by different routes. It was likely that the revised ACoP would recommend that people chose surveyors who were accredited or certified.
9.4 Risk Perception Project ALG Memo 6/01
9.4.1 Ms Phillips presented the summary of the project contained in ALG Memo 6/01, already issued to ALG members and appended to the minutes. She reminded the meeting that the reason for the project had been to obtain information that would inform the Review of Asbestos Guidance Working Group. Mr Jago offered on behalf of ARCA to extend the sample size if required and made the point that Guidance Note GN50 (Training operatives and supervisors for work with asbestos insulation, asbestos coating and asbestos insulation board) should be revised to include assessment of training to address the issue of experienced workers not paying attention at refresher courses.
9.4.2 Mr Campbell also noted the point made by Mr Blackburn about the probable improvements of standards on site when a third party was present. He acknowledged that within the overall control and management regime on site, surveyors and analysts had an important role to play which HSE's guidance might not have acknowledged until now. He concluded that the findings were in line with other studies that HSE had undertaken and the information would usefully feed into the Review of Guidance work.
9.4.3 Mr Jago was concerned about the cost of some of HSE's publications eg Asbestos Essentials and asked about the possibilities of sponsorship for some of the guidance material. Mr Macdonald explained that policy on publications was a matter for HSE's Directorate of Information and Advisory Services and thanked Mr Jago for this offer, which he hoped to take up if possible.
Date, Time, Location of Next Meeting(s)
10.1 Future meetings would take place at 10.00am on 31 October 2001 (Edinburgh); 23 January 2002 (London) and 17 April 2002 (Edinburgh).
/ Arabic
/ Bengali
/ Chinese
/ Farsi
/ Gujarati
/ Hindi
/ Kurdish
/ Pashto
/ Punjabi
/ Tamil
/ Urdu