Key Issues

•Asbestos rules to be consolidated
•HSE suggests extra exemptions to licensed removal
•Follows COSHH hierarchy of control measures

The Health and Safety Commission (HSG,) is consulting on proposed amendments to the Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 and the associated Approved Code of Practice (ACoP. The HSC aims to “rationalise the legislative regime for asbestos” by combining three sets of current asbestos regulations (covering controls, licensing and prohibitions) into one.

The updated Regulations would also take more of a “risk-based approach” to licensing asbestos removal. According to the consultation, some types of work where exposure to asbestos is only ‘sporadic and low intensity’ and below the asbestos control limit would not need to be done by a licensed contractor. The HSE (who implements HSC policy) says that, in practice, most work that currently needs to be done under licence would still be licensable. However, it suggests that work on textured decorative coatings (notably ‘Artex’-type materials) containing asbestos would not need to be done by a licensed contractor.The HSE says that the risks from these materials are lower than work with asbestos cement (for which its guidance says there is currently no need for an asbestos removal licence*).

The draft regulations also include a tighter control limit for work with all types of asbestos; specific training requirements for those who work with asbestos; and a ‘hierarchy’ of control measures that match those in the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (COSHH).

According to HSE’s Giles Denham: “HSC is not saying that work with asbestos containing textured coatings is safe: it still needs proper control measures. All work with asbestos, whether or not it needs to be done under licence, must be done by competent people with the appropriate controls.’

However, that message has not reassured key stakeholders such as the unions and licensed asbestos removers. These groups are concerned that contractors would be able to remove textured coatings containing asbestos, irrespective of adequate training, supervision or insurance. According to Bob Blackman, national construction secretary for the union TGWU: “If this goes through, families will be put at increased risk. We would rather the HSE took a tough line on prevention than have to fund inquiries into illnesses.” Alan Ritchie, the general secretary of UCATT, added: “My union has a zero tolerance policy wherever we suspect asbestos is present.We need asbestos regulations that protect workers and the public.”

The TUC suggests that the HSE’s claim that removing textured coatings is around a thousand times less dangerous than previous assumptions is invalid because it is based on controlled removal.

HSC provides information on the types of work that could be exempted from licensing in its draft ACoP (CD205). (Note that the proposals in CD205 are not yet in force). CD2OS can be found at:
www.hse.gov.uk/consult/condocs/cd205.htm

*See HSE’s guidance note HSG 189/2 ‘Working with asbestos cement’, is available from HSE Books (telephone:
01787 881 165).

Comment: Previous exposure to asbestos kills thousands of workers every year, so when HSE selects various asbestos—containing materials as candidates for ‘proportionate’ risk management; it is taking a bold step. But if HSE wants to take a stand on risk, it should not offer any comfort to groups (including clients) who want to ban other activities (for example, certain types of work at height) irrespective of the actual risks. HSE should be applauded for attempting a sensible approach to risk, but is asbestos the best subject material for testing stakeholder views?

Asbestos study points to extra colon cancer risk

The story of asbestos is already tragic enough, but according to US research, men who have been exposed to asbestos also run a greater risk of developing colorectal cancer. Dr Mark Cullen from Yale University School of Medicine and colleagues used data from a cancer prevention trial to investigate the risk of colorectal cancer among nearly 4,000 men. They compared a non-asbestos-exposed but heavy- smoker subgroup of participants with an asbestos- exposed but ‘smoker-eligible’ subgroup.

Their study, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, says that men in the asbestos-exposed group were 36% more likely to develop colorectal cancer than men in the “heavy-smoker but not asbestos-exposed” group. Participants with 21 to 30 years of exposure had a 74% increased risk of colorectal cancer compared to those with less than 10 years’ exposure. The study also found that the presence of pleural plaques (non-malignant asbestos-associated radiographic changes) was linked with an increased risk of colon cancer of over 50%.

As a result, Dr Cuflen concludes that colorectal cancer screening “should be aggressively pursued in view of the higher risk”. “Heavily exposed men get preventable as well as, sadly, unpreventable cancers” he added. “This is one disease we can do something about and it should be a focus of care

O. Aliyu, M.Cullen et al. Evidence for excess colorectal cancer incidence among asbestos-exposed men in the beta-carotene and retinol efficacy trial, American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 162, Number 9, pp 868-878, 2005 (abstract at:
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/ 162/9/8 68).

Copyright Schofield Publishing 2005-2008. www.healthandsafetymonitor.com