SAF14-P5 19 February 2014 Subject: Origin: Asbestos Management HSM Purpose of This Paper To inform the committee of the arrangements needed to implement an asbestos management action plan. Action required To consider this paper and, if appropriate, to approve the action plan. A major part of this action plan is for the creation of a new role to support the management of asbestos throughout the University. Background Asbestos is a material which was used extensively in buildings throughout the 20 th century. The material is now known to be carcinogenic and it is a cause of lung cancer, mesothelioma and other asbestos related diseases. Regulations concerning the control of asbestos have had a number of iterations over the last 50 years but the current regulations were last updated in 2012. These regulations are now more onerous and the appetite for prosecution has similarly grown. See the section on Justification in the Action Plan for evidence of recent prosecutions. The University has arrangements in place to manage asbestos and to meet the regulatory requirements. These arrangements have evolved over a long period of time and they have been developed around the structures and staff available in the Facilities Management Department who have taken the lead on managing asbestos throughout the University. There is increasing pressure on these arrangements and FM commissioned an independent review of its procedures to ensure that they meet current requirements. The review was carried out by Eurosafe UK. The Auditor who carried out the report on behalf of Eurosafe has extensive experience in the asbestos industry, working with public bodies and national corporations. She holds various qualifications such as the British Institute of Occupational Hygienists (BIOH) P402 and P405, and is a trained auditor. The review covered process and procedure in areas such as policy, training, coordination of work, record keeping, management of contractors, inspection of known asbestos containing materials and emergency procedures. The review identified that there is no unified asbestos policy which applies to the whole University. While FM has been leading the asbestos management process by implementing the established FM Asbestos policy, there are different procedures throughout the Schools. The arrangements to manage asbestos are disjointed and the current resources are inadequate. An action plan has been jointly prepared by staff in FM and the University H&S Manager to address this. The Committee should note that a key requirement is contained in item 5 of the Action Plan. This relates to the appointment of an adequately resourced individual to act as a Duty Authorised Person. This role is set out in guidance to the regulations (HSG264) and where the
Duty Holder is in control of a large or complex building portfolio, the expectation is that this will be a dedicated role. One option is that the Duty Authorised Person should be based in the University Health and Safety Service, as this team has a University wide remit and this issue affects the whole university. The Action Plan 1. Database A high quality database which is accessible, accurate and produces information in a user friendly format is essential in maintaining control over asbestos containing material. The Archibus database which is currently in development for use across FM is ideal for this purpose. We require an additional Asbestos Module which will then hold the new asbestos registers following the re-surveys. Action already taken: Order for Archibus asbestos module was placed in October 2013, awaiting confirmation of installation date. Install process will take approximately 1 month. 2. Asbestos Survey FM has approved 156,000 for asbestos surveys of academic buildings and 79,000 for asbestos surveys of residential buildings which was based upon estimates. It is believed that the tender process could be completed by February 2014 with work expected to start shortly thereafter. The work is likely to take at least 2 years to complete. Action required: To agree that monies made available for this project will be ring fenced and kept within the LTM budget in order to complete the survey in 2014/2015. 3. Policy The deficiencies in the University policy have been succinctly described by Eurosafe. Although FM is responsible for most work with asbestos containing materials (ACMs), a University policy is needed to ensure that responsibilities are defined for staff throughout the University. Action required: To approve a suitable unified University asbestos policy together with a management plan to follow guidance in HSG 264. It is proposed that the current FM Asbestos Policy (Annex X) is adopted and expanded where necessary to become the Loughborough University Asbestos Policy. Prior to acceptance as a University Policy, it will need to be scrutinised by an asbestos consultancy and subsequently approved by the University Health & Safety Committee. In parallel with the policy, there will need to be an asbestos management plan produced that sets the overall strategy for managing ACMs on the campus. For example, this will give guidance on long-term action taken when discovering asbestos (either remove or encapsulate), the process of undertaking the annual visual inspections, the annual asbestos refresher training learning packages etc. Advice would be sought from an asbestos consultant on the suitability of our asbestos management plan to ensure legal compliance. 2
4. Training Training obligations are increasing in addition to the asbestos awareness requirement for all persons whose work may bring them into contact with ACMs, there are requirements for annual refreshers, plus make safe for those responding in an emergency. FM is providing asbestos awareness training to approximately 150 staff but there are expectations that a similar number of staff across the rest of the University will require similar training. There have been requests for training over and above awareness training, for example category B unlicensed asbestos training has been recently requested by Technicians in the S Building. All this needs coordinating, controlling and monitoring. Subsequent Health Surveillance will be required (initial and at interval of not more than 3 years while exposure continues) for all persons undertaking these works. Appropriate training for staff requires that competencies in various areas are maintained according to their job role. The Duty Authorised Person will produce a training matrix to match training competencies with job roles for everyone involved in achieving legal compliance with the Control of Asbestos Regulations and adequate control measures. 5. Resource staffing The current resources are inadequate to ensure compliance with CAR 2012, HSG 264 and as highlighted in Eurosafe s report. Additional work has been generated on post holders by changes in legislation mainly caused by the requirement to undertake Refurbishment & Demolition (R&D) surveys in advance of all invasive construction/maintenance works. HSG 264 identifies a specific role in large and complex orgs as abstracted below: To help comply with the legal requirements and to ensure that ACMs in premises are properly managed, dutyholders should identify a person (and in some cases a deputy) within their organisation who will be responsible for that management. An appointed person will be essential where the dutyholder has a large or complex building portfolio. The appointed person will need the resources, skills, training and authority to ensure that the ACMs are managed effectively. Part of their responsibilities will include managing the survey, including contractual and reporting arrangements, quality and subsequent use of the data. (Text abstracted from paragraph 14 of HSG264) Other Universities do have a dedicated resource to manage the risks posed by asbestos. The Asbestos consultant Eurosafe has stated that the current post holders in FM do not have adequate qualifications as required by legislation to manage LU wide tasks. The recommendation is that the Duty Authorised Person has authority over all asbestos works/duties and will seek assurance from the relevant project deliverer to ensure compliance with the University s legal duties. Action required: To gain approval for a devoted role for the Duty Authorised Person 3
6. Proposed Duties/Requirements for the Duty Authorised Person (DAP) FTE to be decided but minimum of 0.5 FTE This is a compliance role on behalf of the University, not just FM The proposal is that this person sits within the University H&S Team but it is recognised that FM will be a major stakeholder in this process This post holder is the initial point of contact for specialist advice, and coordinates the effective management of ACMs Organise, coordinate and manage all asbestos surveys, bulk samples and removals work. Has the authority to ensure compliance with all asbestos issues The relevant PM retains responsibility for any building work planned / undertaken but the post holder liaises closely with the PMs and will provide advice, guidance, coaching and monitoring to ensure compliance with University Policy Liaises closely with the person undertaking the management re-inspection of identified ACMs at regular intervals, and ensures appropriate action is taken if the condition changes Answers queries from University staff (worries / concerns etc.) Be suitably trained to British Occupational Hygiene Society (BOHS) requirements (P405 Management of Asbestos in Buildings, P402 Building Surveys and Bulk Sampling Asbestos and possibly P407 Managing Asbestos in Premises, The Duty Holders Requirements). Justification The main justification is to ensure full legal compliance. We have investigated 7 known incidents since 2011. Fortunately, none of these have triggered notification to the HSE as a reportable incident. Over recent years the HSE have prosecuted Universities for breaches and noncompliance under asbestos legislation. Penalties for non-compliance in recent cases include: o University of Lincoln 10K plus 12.8K costs o Aston University 4K plus 2K costs o City of Bristol College 10K plus 18.9K costs o Marks and Spencer (in 2011 the company was fined 1m over work at its Reading store). Reputational damage is considerable through negative press. Costs of HSE Fee for Intervention currently run at 930.00 per day for investigating incidents. Some of the costs for this post holder can potentially be recouped by coordinating (for the University and Contractors) and delivering annual asbestos refresher training (training costs are currently 48 + VAT per head for awareness and 30 + VAT for refresher training). We have recently spent 4,800.00 carrying out asbestos awareness training and this figure will increase as detailed in item 4. Lessons learned from recent incident investigation reports can be implemented University wide This post holder can actively engage across the campus and hopefully reduce the incidents involving ACMs Currently, staff within FM carry out the following additional queries from FM & LU staff and contractors working on campus on top of their designated duties including:- 4
o General help and advice. o Responding to ACM incidents. o Organising bulk samples, Management or Refurbishment/Demolition surveys. o Organising and managing removal works. o Organising air reassurance tests. o Updating of the asbestos registers when information is received from individuals. o Filing of asbestos related job information when received from individuals. End of Action Plan 5