Asbestos in schools ‘CLASP’ Working Group meeting held 16 July 2007

Asbestos in schools ‘CLASP’ Working Group
Health and Safety Executive
Hope Room, Rose Court,
2 Southwark Bridge,
London SE1 9HS

Attending:

• Rosalind Roberts – Chair – HSE, Head of Public Services
• Lorraine Shepherd – HSE, Public Services Sector, Education
• Richard Broughton – HSE – Public Services Sector, Education
• Simon Longbottom – HSE – Public Service Sector
• Kevin Walkin – HSE, Asbestos Policy
• Phil Singleton – Institute of Clerks of Works
• Richard Daniels – DCSF, Building Services
• Bob Johnson – NASUWT
• Simon Morley – Nottingham County Council - Surveyor
• Steven Sumner – LGE
• David Mackness – SCAPE
• Francis Lee – UNISON

Apologies

• Martin Gibson – HSE, Specialist Group, Scotland
• Nick Ratty – HSE, Head of Operations, West Midlands
• Gary Burdett – Health and Safety Laboratory
  Fiona Fanning – DCSF
• Donald Finlay – CoSLA
• Jonathan Lloyd – WLGA

1. Welcome and Introductions

Rosalind welcomed everybody and noted apologies from those members unable to attend.

2. Actions from meeting held 26 February 2007 and matters arising

(i) (2.2) The TOR had been amended in line with comments made at the last meeting and posted on the HSE website

(ii) (2.3) The CoSLA survey results had been distributed to members with the notes of the last meeting

(iii) (2.4) A statement regarding the purpose of the WG was not issued as this is now covered by the TOR, which are available.

(iv) (4.1) The information note for duty holders had been amended in light of comments made at the last meeting, and has been distributed.

(v) (4.1) HSE wrote to the design manager at Partnership for Schools (PfS), to request information about their role as duty holder in relation to the Building Schools for the Future programme. They have responded to say that PfS is a strategic organisation that manages the overall process but the procurement of all contracts is between the local authorities and the individual bidders. In each case, the local authority has responsibility for asbestos removal in schools. Asbestos is covered in the PfS guidance and standard documents dealing with responsibilities between LA and Service provider/contractor. PfS only asks that the LAs undertake a level 2 asbestos survey before engaging bidders.

(vi) (5.1) The Inspection initiative would be covered under Agenda Item 4 of this meeting. Thanks were expressed to SCAPE for providing further information about the owners of system buildings.

(vii) (6.2) The Communications Plan would be covered under Agenda Item 5 of this meeting.

3. Sampling Strategy – latest findings  

3.1 Kevin Walkin (in Gary Burdett’s absence) presented the latest HSL findings and main conclusions from sampling fibre levels during the removal of ceiling tiles and inspection/disturbance of ceiling voids, and the associated assessment of the risk to maintenance workers and from remediated buildings.

3.2 A summary of the main findings are this work are:

• Noting that asbestos fibre background in asbestos-containing buildings is approx 0.0005 PCME f/ml, pooled average PCME asbestos fibres of 0.000007 f/ml and a an upper 95% confidence value of <0.000046 f/ml were found in CLASP 4 offices after continuous monitoring from 8am to 6pm for 5 weeks.
• This is an order of magnitude lower than the average background for asbestos containing buildings.
• Two occupied school classrooms were sampled over one day. The pooled result was equal to analytical sensitivity (0.00005 f/ml) with an upper 95% confidence value of <0.0003 f/ml.
• Week 3 of office sampling saw very high winds and gales across the UK resulting in considerable damage. No increase in fibre concentration was detected.
• 31 individual samples were taken from 8 occupied schools that had been fully or partially remediated. An overall analytical sensitivity of 0.000016 f/ml was achieved. The average level in remediated schools was below the limit of detection < 0.000048 f/ml, an order of magnitude lower than the average previously found in UK asbestos-containing buildings.
• Taking into account earlier samples, reported in the first report, the average asbestos concentration was 0.000014 f/ml, with a limit of detection of <0.000068 f/ml.
• These are averages at least an order of magnitude lower than the general background, even allowing for a sampling strategy designed to maximise the air sampled onto the filters.
• Simulated maintenance activity was carried out in schools, to assess potential exposure to personnel. Lifting 14 tiles resulted in 0.01 – 0.02 f/ml; shaking cables resulted in 0.02 f/ml; lifting tiles and shaking cables resulted in 0.01 – 0.02 f/ml; and brushing dust in the ceiling void resulted in 0.18 f/ml in one school, 0.08 f/ml in another.
• Caution is necessary for assessing the results of maintenance above ceilings, as it not unusual for asbestos debris to be left in areas around the tops of columns. Situations and amounts of asbestos debris may vary and precautions – such as wearing PPE – should be taken.
• Data also shows that partial remediation reduces releases to < 0.01 f/ml in the classroom.
• Three unsealed columns when mechanically disturbed, gave low releases of asbestos fibres into the classroom, with an average fibre concentration of approx. 0.008 f/ml. Samples taken concurrently in the ceiling void adjacent to the open top of a column, gave a slightly higher concentration on 0.011 f/ml.
• Unremediated columns in good condition do not release substantial levels of fibres when disturbed.

3.2 The following points were made in discussion:

• The guidance note needs to be amended in light of these findings.
• The default position of schools is that they should close when remedial work is being carried out, however the report suggests this should not necessarily be the case.
• Instructions to schools needs to be clear, with no room for ambiguity in their responsibilities and controls, including when licensed contractors are required and whether it is necessary to seal column tops.
• ‘Building Schools for the Future’ is a programme that supports remediation and renovation, as well as new build and so the report has relevance to this initiative.

Action

1. The guidance note would be revised but as this was likely not to be done until September, and early e-mail would be sent out containing the latest findings; a stronger message that asbestos management extends further than CLASP buildings; a stronger message about not screwing objects into column casings; the need for PPE when entering roof spaces; and a link to HSE guidance on health effects of inadvertent exposure.
2. The guidance plus e-mail will be redistributed to duty holders via the WG members, following revision over the summer.
3. The presentation of the findings would be distributed to WG member post-meeting, inviting further comment.
4. A summary report of the findings would be prepared.
5. HSE Construction would be informed of the work and its impact on the ‘Building Schools for the Future’ programme.

4.0 HSE Inspection Initiative

4.1 Rosalind Roberts noted that the initiative was progressing, with regions at different stages. Some feedback from regions had been received, which had highlighted issues such as training for maintenance operatives, and the importance of a risk-based approach.

4.2 The following points were made in discussion

• Inspection gives a mixed picture – some areas are doing more than others
• A survey of 56% of CLASP 4 buildings in one area as of June, had showed 68% do not have metal casings, rising to 92% in schools. A ‘low/medium/high’ risk-based assessment was made based on any gap in the column.
• The general advice on HSE’s website should be followed for those rare occasions where release was above clearance levels, and consequent exposure to individuals had occurred.

 

Action

1. A link would be added to the guidance produced under the auspices of this group to the HSE website.

5.0 Communications

5.1 Rosalind noted a number of issues. HSE Communications Directorate had asked that the draft communications plan be linked to the wider asbestos programme, and that activity is primarily press based – such as an article in the Times Educational supplement. HSE’s disease reduction programme had commented on the draft plan and were keen to take advantage of joining up on the ‘duty to manage’ aspects.

5.2 The following points were made in discussion:

1. The wider asbestos campaign is likely to be tactical – addressing for example specific groups such as electricians. It is unlikely that this campaign would be the best conduit for communications from this group.
2. There is a need to build on the inspection initiative, using this as a multiplier for action country-wide. HSE Communications should be able to advise here.
3. The ‘Guidance for Governors’ publication is due to be revised next year, and provides an opportunity for impressing on one group of school leaders their ‘duty to manage’ responsibilities. Other school leaders have similar training needs.

Action

• Further discussions to be held with HSE Communications to agree on best approach to communications.
• Simon Morley to forward copy of an article published in the newsletter of the Chief Building Surveyors Society to HSE.
• HSE to draft an article on the outcomes of the inspection initiative for members to promulgate.
• Messages are to be included on health and safety training as well as duty to manage requirements on heads and school governors.

6 Formal closure of the working group

6.1 Rosalind noted that the group’s TOR stated that the work of the group would be completed by June 2007. Members agreed that this should be the last formal meeting and that residual issues would be dealt with via e-mail. The group would however, reconvene should there be a need in the future. Rosalind thanked the group for bringing their resource and expertise to bear.