The five years since the duty to

manage asbestos was introduced have seen an explosion in the number of

asbestos-surveying service-providers – many of whom are nowhere near

competent. Martin Stear, who will be presenting on this topic at the SHP Arena at Safety & Health Expo, discusses the problem.


In the early days of the commercial era of asbestos, back in the 19th

century, it was hailed as a ‘magic mineral' and was even used to save

lives. Now, however, it is taking lives – and at an alarming rate. Back

in the day, the construction industry loved asbestos but kept few

records of where the killer fibre was used. They hid it, buried it,

concealed it – unintentionally, of course – but now we have to find it,

and so the role of the asbestos surveyor emerged and has evolved.

Just as was once true of the now almost-obsolete asbestos manufacturing

industry, the surveying and removal industry is a multi-million-pound

business. Those who work to locate the deadly fibre and those who

remove it have a responsibility to do so with the utmost diligence and

care but, sadly, this has not always been the case.

Although the surveying business is more than 20 years old, only

recently has the issue of competence really come to the fore. The HSE

published its initial guidance on asbestos surveying only in 2001 –

Surveying, sampling and assessment of asbestos-containing materials,

more commonly known as ‘MDHS100'. Other progress includes the

development of a proficiency module by BOHS (P402: Building Surveys and

Bulk Sampling for Asbestos), and the introduction of accreditation for

asbestos surveying by UKAS, to allow surveying organisations to

demonstrate compliance with an appropriate quality standard.

So why all this action in the last few years? It was precipitated by

the introduction in May 2004 of the so-called ‘duty to manage'

asbestos, implemented under the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations

2002 (and now a duty under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006).

It did not introduce a ‘duty to survey' – the goal was to achieve

better management of asbestos – but there were and are plenty of people

happy to let you think that it did.

Such was the impact of this regulation that there was literally an

explosion in the number of individuals and organisations offering

asbestos-surveying services. Too many saw this as an easy ride and an

opportunity to make a quick buck. P402 was probably the most popular

course in the UK for the mature student at the start of the new

millennium but although it demonstrates that its (by now) 8000, or so,

holders in the UK have attained basic knowledge in the area, it does

not certify ‘competence'. Surveys should only be performed by those

with an understanding of risk assessment and the ability to advise

duty-holders accordingly.

Another problem after May 2004 was that many duty-holders decided to

start afresh and ditch their old survey reports as unreliable. Fair

enough – many of them had not maintained the information in them – for

example, when an ACM had been removed – so they probably had no choice.

But now there were all these whizzy new databases to fill that can be

accessed from your WAP phone, should you so desire!

Overlooking the obvious

With so many new surveys carried out by so many fresh-faced surveyors,

it is no surprise that ACMs were missed – often in blindingly obvious

locations. Whole areas of buildings were being overlooked; some

surveyors didn't seem to release that a ceiling void or undercroft

existed, that they should be accessed, or even that they should be

included in a Type 2 survey. Survey findings were reported badly (why

does the surveying industry believe that every sample deserves its own

page?) The duty-holder needs to know where his asbestos is – not that

the surveyor took 20 samples in the boiler house!

Other areas of asbestos surveying that give cause for concern are the

issue of one-man surveys, using clerical staff to write the reports,

and the many caveats that shroud the report in an attempt to protect

the surveyor from any failings.

Of course, not all surveys are flawed but the number of poor surveys is

alarming. Many surveyors have demonstrated a fundamental lack of

understanding of the location of ACMs and the construction of

buildings. And even when they are discovered, mis-reporting ("the

left-hand side wall is constructed of AIB – whoops, I meant the

right!") is a widespread problem. Carelessness or incompetency, it all

amounts to the same thing, i.e. a report of questionable value.

This is a human process; there is no fancy meter (yet!) to point out

and probe building materials. Misses do occur because the ACMs are

sometimes in awkward, or obscure locations, or simply because the

surveyor is fatigued and makes an isolated miss. This is not excusable,

but where the misses are occasional and not significant, the surveyor

can be defended. It is where the misses are easily predictable, and

where the number of misses stacks up, that no real defence can be

offered.

Duty-holders are sometimes no better; happy to pay the cheapest price

but not happy when the single, inexperienced surveyor only finds the

vinyl floor tiles and sink pads (they never miss these!) It is the

responsibility of the duty-holder to ask for competent surveyors, and

to accept nothing less, while it is the responsibility of the surveyor

to deliver good surveying practice. Those who choose to ignore this

deserve no protection from civil litigation, or criminal

prosecution.

What harm can a poor survey do?

The duty-holder, who has assumed he has a competently-completed survey,

passes it to any tradesperson or building contractor he calls in to

work on his building. If the work results in the disturbance of an ACM

(that the surveyor missed), the tradesperson breathes in asbestos and

the area, room, or building becomes contaminated. Is the exposure

significant? As a one-off, inadvertent exposure – probably not, but if

he keeps on doing this, then it may become so. Is the ensuing

contamination significant? This depends on the extent of the damage

caused and the degree of spread.

Uncontrolled disturbance of asbestos has resulted in the closure of

department stores, schools, and houses. The clean-up can cost hundreds

of thousands and, on rare occasions, millions in costs, when loss of

stock and profit are factored into the overall bill. It doesn't stop

there, as the wronged duty-holder seeks financial compensation and, in

some cases, the HSE takes a criminal prosecution. For the surveyor,

there's the potential stress of the civil or criminal action, and the

potential bad publicity that may arise, as well as the increased

insurance costs.

Progress in the pipeline

That's the bad news – so how can we improve standards of asbestos

surveying? Well, 2009 is shaping up to be a landmark year in asbestos

surveying. Firstly, the HSE is currently reviewing the aforementioned

‘MDHS 100' guidance on asbestos surveying. Type 1, 2 and 3 surveys are

expected to be replaced with management surveys and

refurbishment/demolition surveys in the new ‘Asbestos: The Surveyors'

Guide'.1 It is no longer a scientific methodology-type document,

focusing more as it does on the measurement of hazardous substances in

air, with the guidance targeted more at the duty-holder and surveyor.

This guidance should resolve many of the issues that have developed

over the last few years but the fundamental issue in relation to

effective surveying remains surveyor competence. As mentioned above,

organisations can obtain accreditation for surveying from UKAS. Now,

individuals can also demonstrate that they have adequate levels of

competence through having personal certification for asbestos surveys

from a certification body that has been accredited by UKAS under BS EN

ISO/IEC 17024. Personal certification provides assurance that an

individual has obtained a defined level of competence to carry out

specific activities – see panel above. The facility to demonstrate

competency is therefore open to all surveyors, whether through the

UKAS-accredited organisation they work for, or through their own

personal certification.

The latter is a more cost-effective and realistic route for independent

surveyors, or small consultancies. The added attraction is that the

individual, and not his or her employer, has been assessed. The

assessment is thorough and considers his or her experience, examples of

their survey reports, their practical surveying and sampling skills, as

well as their thorough understanding of building types and

construction. They will be expected to understand fully the

complexities of all aspects of surveying and be competent to survey

anything from a house to a hospital. Successful candidates will have

passed all three stages: CV and survey appraisal; practical assessment;

and interview. Although anyone can apply, those who can't demonstrate

any foundation in basic surveying knowledge (e.g. P402) nor sufficient

experience are unlikely to have their application accepted.

Role of the duty-holder

Under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, duty-holders are

expected to satisfy themselves that those providing consultant services

have the necessary skills and competence to do so. The duty-holder

should also be making other checks and demands on the surveyor – for

example, by asking for references and examples of reports. If the

duty-holder gets a cheap quote, he or she should ask themselves: is it

because the surveyor has not gone to the expense of obtaining such

certification, is surveying on his or her own, or is otherwise taking

short cuts?

Duty-holders and surveyors need to work together to progress the

survey. The surveyor needs to understand the duty-holder's needs and

start with a desktop study to understand the premises. The survey

builds up the knowledge of ACMs on the premises, starting with the

desktop study through to more and more invasive surveying, all the time

delivering what the duty-holder needs for day-to-day management of the

site/premises, and any planned works. The process doesn't stop until

the building is no more than a pile of rubble because that's the only

point at which the absence of further ACMs can be guaranteed.

Throughout this process, both parties have been communicating (possibly

over years) to understand what the survey limitations are, and what

further surveying is needed. The information is presented in a format

that the duty-holder can understand, with clear plans and records of

the ACMs found (i.e. not just the samples taken) – he needs something

he can use day to day, not a phone directory-sized tome. The new

surveyors' guide provides such guidance and it is important that

duty-holders and surveyors alike appreciate that such close working is

the true model for success.

Conclusion

Surveying standards won't improve overnight but, at the very least,

with competency schemes available to all, there will be a greater

degree of accountability. Duty-holders will be able to check with UKAS

or ABICS as to whether the surveyor is ‘part of the club'. There is

also a need for enforcement of surveyors by the regulators, UKAS, ABICS

and duty-holders. In other words, everyone has a responsibility to

ensure that not only are competent surveyors employed but that they are

made to deliver what is expected of them. If they don't, the HSE should

enforce, UKAS or ABICS should suspend their accreditation/

certification, and duty-holders should report them accordingly.

It is important to underline that there are good surveyors who operate

to best-practice standards, who only ever conduct two-person surveys,

who work hand in hand with the duty-holder, and who provide sound

risk-assessment advice. Such surveyors build a relationship with the

duty-holder and help them increase and manage the knowledge of their

buildings until the wrecking ball moves in. It's now time to create a

level playing field and make the poor surveyors accountable. Those

19th-century asbestos peers had no idea of the problems they were

creating as they marketed this great new mineral; in the 21st century

we do know the problems, so there are no excuses.

[PANEL]

The scheme of things
Asbestos surveys can't be done by just anyone – to make sure they are done properly, the surveyor or building inspector must be competent to do this specialised work. ABICS – Asbestos Building Inspectors Certification Scheme – certifies surveyors and inspectors. It makes sure that they have the qualifications and knowledge they need to find materials that contain asbestos, and to advise on the condition of the materials. A surveyor who has an ABICS certificate must have shown that he or she has the ability to do this work properly, and can give the building occupier a clear report so that decisions can be taken on how to manage any asbestos that is found.

HSE guidance strongly recommends that if you employ someone to inspect your premises for you, you should use a company accredited by UKAS, or an individual personally certified by a scheme accredited by UKAS. ABICS is a personal certification scheme and is accredited by UKAS. To find out more about the scheme, contact the British Occupational Hygiene Society (BOHS) on 01332 298101, or visit www.abics.org

Reference

1 This is to be launched through a series of roadshows organised jointly between BOHS and the HSE

Martin Stear will be speaking on the subject of asbestos surveying in

the SHP Arena at Safety & Health Expo at 1pm on Wednesday, 13 May.

For the programme and more details about the speakers and presentations

visit www.shponline.co.uk /pdfs/shparena09.pdf