Submission of the. New Zealand Demolition and Asbestos Association. Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment

Transcription

1 Submission of the New Zealand Demolition and Asbestos Association to the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment on Developing Regulations to Support the New Health and Safety at Work Act Chapter 4: Asbestos

2 CONTENTS Introduction... 3 Background... 3 NZDAA Recommendations:... 5 Response to Specific Questions

3 INTRODUCTION This submission is made on behalf of the New Zealand Demolition and Asbestos Association. The association is made up of around 35 companies who work in or around the asbestos industry in New Zealand. The association produced the guidelines for work with asbestos in New Zealand that currently are the only recognised reference for standards of work with asbestos. BACKGROUND Asbestos is the biggest workplace killer in New Zealand and worldwide. MBIE has acknowledged epidemiological studies suggest that more than 300 people will die per annum as exposures from the 1960s and 1970s take effect. Asbestos causes cancer and other serious and fatal diseases and no level of exposure is without some risk. The International Association for Research into Cancer (IARC) has determined it as a known carcinogen. The longer the period of exposure and the greater amount of asbestos fibres inhaled, the higher the risk of asbestosis, although mesothelioma and other cancers are not believed to exhibit the same dose/response relationship. The risks have been known about for several decades with progressivley tighter regulations being imposed internationally as the scale of the asbestos problem became better understood. The NZDAA is concerned about any exposure to asbestos but our members recent experience in Christchurch demonstrates how poorly the risks are understood and hence demolition workers, tradespeople, carpenters and householders may have been needlessly exposed to asbestos fibres. Whilst improvements have occurred there as a result of the level of public, media and politicial attention; the situation in other parts of New Zealand is still poor with many, if not most, construction and other tradespeople largely unaware of where asbestos was used, its current prevalence and how to keep themsleves and others safe. We strongly believe that whilst the current proposals are sensible and appropriate, they need to sit within a national asbestos policy framework where all parts of central and local government are working together to a common end the eventual eradication of all forms of asbestos containing materials from commerical, industrial and residential buildings. This will be a long term strategic goal-perhaps taking years, but we think it is appropriate to set out clearly as a starting point the desire to see this dangerous substance removed from our environment in the same way that lead in paint and petrol and more recently smoking are being tackled as public health issues, albeit with a strong workplace focus. New Zealand is out of step with many other countries around the world as we have not banned imports of asbestos containing products, which has to be the first step towards elimination. The Government has a goal of reducing workplace accidents by 25 percent by It must also have a goal to reduce the high rate of occupational lung diseases caused by asbestos exposure. This can only be measured in the short term by reducing exposures as low as reasonably practicable as we will not see the results of actions taken now for many years to come. Also of great concern from a public health perspective is the amount of fibre being released into the environment from run off from the acres of degrading asbestos roofing that is prevalent throughout New Zealand. Though this is not a workplace issue in some instances, it is going to be an ongoing serious issue for years to come for everyone as the ground and environment get a further burden of free asbestos fibre contamination. A Pilot study to determine if asbestos fibre is released into the environment from corrugated asbestos roofing using the medium of rainwater undertaken in by Jim Bowler, then of the School of Engineering and Construction at Massey University at Wellingtons College of Sciences, and Brian Caughley of the Institute of 3

4 Food, Nutrition and Human Health, showed that seriously large amounts of free asbestos fibre are being released into the environment off asbestos roofing. This is shown in the following table Site A is an Asbestos roof. (Encapsulated) Site B Control roof (iron) Site C asbestos roof (Un-encapsulated) 4

5 If this runoff does not go into storm water but sits and dries on pavement or turf it can accumulate into a significant problem. Sampling of lawn clippings from situations where the soil is known to contain asbestos roof contamination have tested positive for the presence of asbestos. The same area when mowed with a ride on mower produced a high airborne level of asbestos fibres (analysed by Scanning Electron Microscope and confirmed as Amosite). These lawns had been 5 years free from asbestos runoff as the roofs that had caused the problem had been removed. NZDAA RECOMMENDATIONS: NZDAA supports MBIE s proposals; The regulations should be based on the Australian approach which includes a presumption that asbestos is present in the built environment and therefore workplaces; and Lowering the exposure limits which are out of line with international standards. NZDAA also recommends; A more prescriptive approach to all work with asbestos containing materials. Mandatory licensing and training for those working with asbestos (both maintenance and demolition). Removal of the arbitrary and difficult to apply distinction between friable and non-friable asbestos. The distinction is inappropriate given the possible deterioration and disturbance of previously nonfriable asbestos. A complete ban on the importation of asbestos-containing products. Development of a National Plan to eliminate all asbestos containing material from the built environment by a certain date ( ?). All work with asbestos should be notifiable The Government take urgent steps to implement a National Health Surveillance scheme. Employers (or PCBUs) should arrange health monitoring of current and past asbestos workers but the records should be held in a central registry for 40 years to ensure they remain available to allow tracking of long latency diseases. This should subsume the current asbestos exposure register. All identified asbestos should be registered. If a building contains asbestos materials, the priority should be to remove it, where it is dsafe to do so. If asbestos is identified in a building it should be required to be notified in LIM reports. Lung cancer should be registered and recorded in more detail as it relates to asbestos exposure. Including a system of notification by medical practitioners of all potential asbestos related conditions/exposures including, lung cancer and pleural plaques [asbestosis and mesothelioma are currently recorded]. 5

6 RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS Question 56: Is the approach of a general prohibition with exceptions the best means of restricting work with asbestos in New Zealand workplaces? Do you consider it would be more effective than the current New Zealand system? What would be the implications of this approach for people that currently deal with asbestos? The NZDAA supports the approach to having a general prohibition with exceptions as the best means to restricting work with asbestos. This will be a vast improvement to the current situation where there are very few notifications of work with asbestos. The low number of notifications seems very disproportionate to the number that would be expected considering the amount of asbestos contained in New Zealand s built environment, and the number of ongoing demolition and construction projects. Question 57: Is the definition of work involving asbestos comprehensive and consistent with the definition in the current regulations? The NZDAA submits that the definition of work involving asbestos could be expanded to include the maintenance of and service work on non-friable asbestos, as this work should be prohibited if it is not done in accordance with the regulations. Question 58: Is the list of exempt activities contained in the Australian model regulations appropriate for New Zealand? The NZDAA supports the adoption of the list of exemptions from the Australian Model Regulations. Question 59: Is there a date from which it can be assumed that asbestos is not present in workplaces and from which plant or structures installed after that date could be exempted from the regulations? As New Zealand has continued to allow the importation of asbestos containing products, the NZDAA submits that there is no date that it can be assumed that asbestos containing products are not present in the New Zealand environment. Question 60: What are the foreseeable situations where WorkSafe NZ could approve methods adopted for managing risk associated with asbestos? The NZDAA is concerned about the proposal that allows WorkSafe discretion to grant approved methods that do not adhere to the regulations. The NZDAA is concerned that WorkSafe could be pressured to approve methods adopted for managing risk associated with asbestos that may be motivated by cost rather than practicality. The flood gates will need to be tightly closed if a discretionary regulation is included. Question 61: Do you support the imposition of a broad duty on all PCBUs at a workplace to eliminate the exposure of persons at the workplace to asbestos, and where this is not reasonably practicable to not exceed a workplace exposure standard? What would be the practical effect of introducing this duty? The NZDAA submits that the first priority should be to eliminate all asbestos from the environment where it is reasonably practicable to do so. For example where a building is undergoing refurbishement then the presumption should be in favour of removing all ACMs at one time. Asbestos is a known hazard, and to prevent future exposures the regulations should prescribe its elimination as a first step. 6

7 The NZDAA submits that the assumption (that asbestos will be present) contained in Part 8.3 of the Australian Regulations at paragraph 422 (1) needs to be included in the new regulations. The evidence suggests that the prevalence of asbestos in New Zealand buildings and therefore workplaces is comparable to Australia. The duty for PCBUs to provide a safe working environment needs to be clear in relation to asbestos. Workers should be informed of the presences of the substance and be involved in decisions relating to the elimination and/or control of the substance in their workplace. The entire Part 8.3 of the Australian regulations are transferable to New Zealand as the provisions around monitoring, registers and information sharing are essential for workers. Question 62: Should the same standard be adopted for chrysotile (white asbestos) as for crocidolite and Actinolite (? Amosite) and the exposure standard brought into line with those of the Australian and United Kingdom jurisdictions? The NZDAA submits that the same standard is adopted for Chrysotile as for Crocidolite and Amosite. The exposure standards need to be brought into line with Australia and the UK. Question 63: Should the exposure standard be specified in the new regulations themselves, or in an approved code or other instrument? The exposure standards should be in regulation. It should be made clear that these standards apply to people who work with asbestos and not to people who work in buildings that contain asbestos. Work environments should have no detectable asbestos fibres present. Time Weighted Averages should not be applied to the ambient air exposure standard and this should be made clear in regulation. Presently the WES applies to any one such as an office worker who happens to be working in contaminated workplaces but are not working with asbestos. The public health standard of 0.01f/ml should apply to anyone whether at work or not, who is incidentally exposed to asbestos through being in a contaminated workplace. Question 64: Should the distinction between friable and non-friable asbestos in the current regulations be removed and the Australian approach of requiring the same processes for all asbestos or asbestoscontaining materials be adopted for New Zealand? The NZDAA recommends strongly that the distinction between friable and non-friable asbestos should be removed as it is an arbitrary distinction with no objective basis for making a judgement as to what is or is not friable. Non-friable asbestos can easily become friable if handled incorrectly and can deteriorate with age and become extremely hazardous. Question 65: How should the new regulations define a competent person to determine/assess whether or not asbestos or asbestos-containing material is present in a workplace? The NZDAA submits that a competent person under the regulations must have sufficient knowledge, skills and practical work experiences. Appropriate knowledge is built up over time and this needs to be reflected properly in the regulations. Question 66: Should an asbestos register, or statement of the non-existence of asbestos, be required for every workplace or potential workplace (including residential properties under the management or control of PCBUs) in New Zealand? What is the burden of compliance likely to be, and is the compliance burden justified? The NZDAA submits that an asbestos register should be required to be kept at all workplaces and workers should be involved in, and informed of, its contents. If there is no asbestos present, a statement of the nonexistence of asbestos should be required. By including these requirements we ensure that people are 7

8 empowered to have a choice as to their own potential exposures. This will assist reasonable decision making and management plans. Question 68: Should the new regulations contain a requirement for a written Asbestos Management Plan in all cases? Are there some workplaces that could be dealt with by specific regulatory requirements or rules for types of work involving asbestos? The NZDAA agrees that there should be a requirement for a written asbestos management plan in all cases when work with asbestos is to be undertaken. Question 69: Is there additional guidance that New Zealand workplaces would need to develop their asbestos management plans that is not available from Australia, or are there significant differences in terms of risk or practices that should be considered in developing the new regulations? The two Approved Codes of Practice that support the Australian Regulations are transferrable to New Zealand with the regulations. NZDAA supports adopting the Australian CoP s. Question 70: Is the process for the management of asbestos and associated risks set out in part 8.4 of the Australian model regulations as described above appropriate in a New Zealand context? The NZDAA submits that the process for the management of asbestos set out in Part 8.4 of the Australian regulations is appropriate. The NZDAA agrees that the plan must include the identification, decisions and reasons for decisions, the procedures for dealing with incidents or emergencies and the workers carrying out the work. Question 71: What level of accreditation is required for New Zealand laboratories, and what expertise and infrastructure would need to be in place to support an appropriate level of accreditation? Does this currently exist? There needs to be a high level of accreditation for laboratories in New Zealand as test results are heavily relied on to keep workers safe. Incorrect results can lead to asbestos exposure, therefore lung cancers and occupational death. The NZDAA submits that personnel who undertake testing need to have adequate skills to test for fibres by the Membrane Filter Method. We further submit that the persons taking air samples for clearance work must be trained and approved for the taking of these samples. Question 72: New Zealand has limited naturally-occurring asbestos deposits. Are provisions concerning such deposits necessary in the new regulations? There are deposits of naturally occurring asbestos in New Zealand. Potentially these areas can be worked or disturbed in the future. The NZDAA is aware that asbestos occurs in Takaka, the King Country, Fiordland and Dunedin. With the view to keeping these sites and workers safe, the NZDAA submits that the provisions concerning asbestos deposits are necessary in new regulations for New Zealand. Question 73: Are the proposed health monitoring requirements for workers carrying out asbestos removal work or asbestos related work adequate? What changes, if any, will be needed to implement them in New Zealand? The NZDAA supports the proposed health monitoring requirements for asbestos workers as they are considered essential. Currently there is often no monitoring and therefore no information about exposures 8

9 recorded on individual employee files or medical files. Individual employee files should be kept by the employee and copies provided to an employee on request. Question 74: Are the proposed training requirements for workers carrying out asbestos removal work or asbestos related work adequate? What institutional and other resources, if any, will be needed to implement them in New Zealand? The NZDAA is aware that the capability to provide training at the level needed under the regulations exists in Australia as do the standards. These should be readily transferably with minor modifications to NZ. The NZDAA recommends that initially the Australian providers are used to train trainers in New Zealand to lift our capacity and capability. Asbestos awareness training is needed for the associated trades. Electricians plumbers and related sub trades need training as they are often the first people into asbestos containing areas. NZDAA feels that this training should be added to apprenticeship training for licenced building practitioners, Master plumbers and electricians. There is some capacity to deliver this training already in NZ Question 75: Is the proposed prohibition on the use of high pressure water sprays or compressed air equipment on asbestos or asbestos-containing material, and the requirement for controls on power tools, brooms and other implements used on asbestos appropriate? Do the new provisions reflect New Zealand practice? The proposed prohibition on the use of high pressure water sprays or compressed air equipment on asbestos or asbestos containing material is supported. This equipment disturbs the asbestos that is already in a friable state owing to the lichen or mould that is penetrating it. This creates asbestos dust which is unacceptable and should not be permitted. However we are aware of a few situations where more agreesive techniques such as scabbling may be needed to remove surface coatings. This may be an example of where specific exemption powers are required on a case by case basis. Question 76: Should the new regulations prescribe a mandatory process to identify and manage asbestos hazards in the demolition and refurbishment of all structures and plant? Is the process in the Australian model regulations and effective way of identifying and managing the risk? How much would this differ from current New Zealand practice? The NZDAA supports the proposal that new regulations prescribe a mandatory process to identify and manage asbestos hazards in the demolition and refurbishment of all structures and plant. Question 77: Should the duty to identify and remove asbestos in workplaces that are residential premises rest with the PCBU that has been commissioned to do the work? The NZDAA submits that the duty to identify asbestos in residential premises should rest with the PCBU commissioned to do the work. The PCBU must be required to inform the residents of the premises immediately and be responsible for the register. For social housing supplied by local and central government agencies, NZDAA believes that the housing provider should hold the responsibility as a PCBU. Question 78: In the absence of a date where asbestos and asbestos-containing materials were banned from importation and use in New Zealand, is there a date after which structures or plant were built or installed from which they should be exempt from the process requirements? The NZDAA submits that there is no date from which asbestos can be considered absent from the built environment in New Zealand. New Zealand has not banned the importation of asbestos containing products so it is possible that asbestos building materials are still being sold today. 9

10 Question 79: Are the requirements for asbestos removal set out in part 8.7 appropriate for New Zealand? And what new capacity or infrastructure would be needed to support them? The NZDAA supports MBIEs proposal that the requirements for asbestos removal work set out in 8.7 are appropriate for New Zealand. NZDAA recommends that initially the Australian providers are used to train asbestos workers. While the Australian trainers are available in New Zealand, train the trainers courses should be run to lift our capability. There will need to be support for those wishing to enter the industry to achive the new accreditation criteria to avoid the growth in poor quality removalists initially seen in Christchurch. Question 80: Does the 10 square metre exemption create an appropriate threshold for the use of a licensed asbestos removalist? If not, is there an alternative means of exempting small-scale or de minimis asbestos removal work? If it is, are there ways of ensuring the exemption is not exceeded? The NZDAA opposes the exemption of small-scale removal work of 10 square meters of AC. This exemption has been used as a loop-hole in Australia where work involving 50 square meters of asbestos for example is divided into five separate pieces of work. This division has been used by PCBUs to avoid requirements to employ COC holders to do the job safely. The NZDAA submits that 10 square meter exemption is a loop-hole that should not be adopted in New Zealand. All asbestos should be required to be removed by a person qualified to do it safely. Question 81: What information should be provided to the regulator on notification of asbestos removal work? The NZDAA is concerned that the 24 hours currently needed is insufficient and the time needed should be set by the persons receiving the reports (at least 5 days) so that they have time to actually assess the work notifications before work begins. NZDAA feels that a removal plan should be part of the notification process. The information that is provided to the regulator on notification of asbestos work should include: The location, type and amount of asbestos, The name and contact details of the PCBU and the licence holder who is doing the work, The proposed duration of works to be carried out, A written management plan, A monitoring plan and the name of the independent person carrying it out and an asbestos disposal plan. We also suggest that MBIE consider whether on completion of the work the person issuing the clearance certificate should be reuqired to submit a copy of this to WorkSafe to verify that the job has been completed safely 10

11 Question 82: What level of ITO or other training should be required for asbestos removal license holders and removal workers for the two classes of licensed asbestos removal work? The NZDAA submits that the level of ITO training required for asbestos removal license holders and removal workers for the two classes of removal work should be no less than equivalent to the qualifications and experience required in Australia. Question 83: Should there be a link between licensing and the appropriate disposal of asbestos waste? To ensure the safe disposal of asbestos waste the NZDAA supports a strong link between licensing and appropriate disposal. In every management plan there should be a disposal plan and these should be part of the notification documents. Question 84: Is there currently the industry capability to provide for licensed asbestos removalists? NZDAA believes more training would be required. Question 85: Is it appropriate that businesses, as distinct from individuals, are licensed? To ensure credible businesses are involved in asbestos removal work the NZDAA agrees that businesses, as distinct from individuals, are licensed. Question 86: Should there be a requirement to have an asbestos removal supervisor always present during class A work and available for class B work The NZDAA submits that a supervisor should always be present when class A and class B work is being undertaken. Question 87: What level of qualification is appropriate for licensed asbestos assessors? There are reports that some assessments currently provided are grossly inadequate. The level of qualification for a licensed asbestos assessor should be equivalent to the Australian qualification, and should include at least two years proven experience in the asbestos removal area. Question 88: How should a PCBU be able to determine if asbestos is being assessed by a competent person? A PCBU should be able to determine if asbestos is being assessed by a competent person by being able to access the work history of the assessor. The assessor should have proven experience in asbestos work and this history should be available to provide assurance. Question 89: Should a clearance certificate be required in all cases of asbestos removal, or is there scope for the issuing of exemptions? A clearance certificate should be required for all cases of asbestos removal other than work that is done in the open outdoor environment where background sampling during the course of the removal is recommended. Question 90: What would the expected demand be for independent licensed assessors to meet these requirements? And what will be necessary for the regulator and asbestos removal industry to meet this demand? NZDAA feel that there will be high demand for licenced assessors. NZDAA understands that there would need to be a lead in time for the training to be established and completion of the training by the assessors. NZDAA 11

12 would like to see this implemented. Question 91: Does the membrane filter method provide the best means of air monitoring for class A asbestos removal work? NZDAA believe that the MFM method still supplies the best practical solution to air monitoring in New Zealand. The other options are not cost effective, nor do they provide a quick turnaround that is required to confirm the work areas as fit for occupancy. Question 92: Are the thresholds of 10 percent and 20 percent of the workplace exposure standards for asbestos dust appropriate for the investigation and review and ceasing of class A asbestos removal work respectively? Yes. Question 93: Should class A asbestos removal work apply to the removal of all occurrences of friable asbestos and asbestos-containing dusts above minimum quantities? Are there other situations in New Zealand workplaces for residential premises that it should apply to? What would be considered minimum quantities? This may leave loop holes. The NZDAA supports MBIEs proposal to adopt the requirements relating to class A asbestos work and these should apply to all work involving friable asbestos and asbestos containing dust. Question 94: Are the steps required for the removal of friable asbestos in the regulations appropriate in a New Zealand context? Having considered the materials in support of the Australian model regulations, what additional guidance or resources would be required in New Zealand? More qualified persons at all levels of the industry will be required. This will take time. Refer Question 90. Question 95: Is the list of asbestos-related work (as defined by the exemptions to the prohibition on work involving asbestos) comprehensive enough for New Zealand? The NZDAA supports MBIEs proposal that PCBUs are required to have material tested if it is uncertain as to whether asbestos is present or not and all the proposed requirements for work related to asbestos. The definition of asbestos related work could be made clearer by the legal drafting. To have a prohibition against work involving asbestos and then to allow work relating to asbestos via a list of exemptions can create confusion. Question 96: Are the minimum standards for asbestos-related work contained in part 8.9 of the Australian model regulations suitable for the asbestos-related work carried out in New Zealand? The NZDAA supports MBIEs proposal to include the minimum standards for asbestos related work contained in part 8.9 of the Australian Model Regulations. Question 97 to 102: The NZDAA supports the adoption of the licensing regime from the Australian Regulations. The NZDAA also recommends that a central cross governement agency is created in New Zealand like the The Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency (ASEA) in Australia. This agency would help ensure a consistent approach to asbestos issues across situations and agencies eg after a fire or earthquake, in private homes, for waste disposal etc. as well as proviing public education and information. 12

13 Question 103: Should any further terms be defined in the new regulations? NZDAA recommends Contaminated soils and "Free fibre in soils definitions be included to differentiate from the Western Australian soil standard. Question 102: The NZDAA submits that asbestos related work should be defined to alleviate any doubt about its meaning via the exemption. Contact for further information: Linda Dwyer c/o Capital Environmental Services Ltd 2-4 Bell Rd South, Gracefield P O Box Wellington Mail Centre 5045 Lower Hutt Phone : fibres@ihug.co.nz 13