www.sec-ed.com


SPECIAL REPORT Key questions for the DfE


codes of practice clearly lay out what is required of school authori- ties, and because of their specific nature there is no ambiguity about what applies to schools and what does not. The asbestos problem in UK


schools is far greater than in the US because a large amount of amosite was used in UK schools, whereas in US public buildings 98 per cent of airborne asbestos fibres are the less dangerous chrysotile. Despite this, UK schools are


not treated as a “special place” as they are in the US. Regulations have not been drafted specifi- cally for schools, but instead they come under the generic regulations and Approved Codes of Practice (ACOPs) of all workplaces. They are also mainly drafted for people who work on asbestos and only by default apply to the occupants of the buildings. This has at times led to confusion and ambiguity so that government officials, local authori- ties and school authorities have been unsure what applies to schools and what does not. The ACOPs need to be clearly


drafted so that a busy headteacher knows immediately which regula- tions apply to them, what they and their staff have to do to comply with the law, and what actions they need to take to keep staff and pupils safe from the dangers of asbestos. Professor Ragnar Löfstedt is


presently reviewing health and safety regulations and in its sub- mission, the AiS has proposed that asbestos ACOPs and guidance are drafted specifically for schools.


Training


As headteachers, bursars and school managers are expected to manage asbestos they have to be trained. In addition, all members of teaching and support staff need to be trained as well so that they can avoid dis- turbing asbestos and can also pre- vent pupils from doing so. It is equally important that gov-


ernors and the relevant officials in local authorities are aware of their responsibilities under the law and aware of the level of resources that are needed to manage the asbestos safely. Training should be in either


asbestos management or asbestos awareness and tailored to the indi- vidual’s role. The Department for Education is presently developing basic web-based asbestos aware- ness training, however it will not be mandatory and it is inadequately funded. The AiS has recommended that


standards should be set, the training should be mandatory and it should be properly funded.


Campaigner: Michael Lees Staff are in the dark


In 2004, a meeting was held at the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to decide on the policy of informing staff and parents of children who had been exposed to asbestos. The expert medical guidance was that regardless of the level of exposure people should be informed and an entry made in the individual’s medi- cal records. Contrary to the advice, the HSE


decided to adopt a policy that staff and parents in schools need not be informed of their exposure unless the exposure was “significant”, and they defined a significant exposure as one that exceeds the “Action Level”. The Action Level is a work-


place level that is applied to asbes- tos contractors. It is a dangerous level for adults, let alone for chil- dren. When it was current, it was a cumulative exposure of 240 hours at the “Control Limit”, which is 0.1 asbestos fibres per millilitre of air (f/ml). By law contractors have to wear


breathing apparatus and protective clothing if the Control Limit is likely to be exceeded and the HSE acknowledges that it is not a safe level. Dianne Willmore died of mes-


othelioma in 2009 from exposure to asbestos as a pupil at school. The Supreme Court earlier this year accepted the expert medical, epide- miological and legal opinion that “there is no known threshold expo- sure to asbestos below which there is no risk”. It also accepted the Industrial


Injuries Advisory Council’s defini- tion of a “significant” exposure as being “a level above that commonly found in the air in buildings and the general outdoor environment”, and that an exposure above that would materially increase the risk of mes- othelioma developing. The Action Level is 96,000


times greater than the level com- monly found in schools. The HSE’s decision that peo-


Nine key questions for the government


1 Does government accept that staff and pupils are being exposed to asbestos at school?


2 Will the government treat schools as a “special place”? 3 Will the government draft specific asbestos Approved Codes of Practice and guidance for schools?


4 Why are workplace asbestos control levels applied to staff and children in schools?


5 Will the government adopt an “environmental” asbestos fibre level for schools?


6 Will the government withdraw the HSE guidance on the risks from asbestos exposure (OC265/48 and LAC5/19)?


7 Will the government adopt a policy of openness so that staff and parents are updated annually on the management of asbestos in their school?


8 Will the audit of the condition of school buildings include an audit of the friable asbestos they contain?


9 Will the government make public the Committee on Carcinogenicity’s assessment of the relative risks to children from asbestos?


ple need not be informed unless their level of exposure exceeds the Action Level runs contrary to expert medical, epidemiological and legal opinion. It is also ethically wrong that children have been exposed to asbestos at school and yet their par- ents have not been informed.


HSE guidance


In 2008, the HSE updated the guidance on what should be done following an inadvertent asbes- tos exposure. Contrary to expert opinion the guidance still uses the Action Level as a threshold of expo- sure “usually insufficient to pose a significant long-term risk to health”. In recent Parliamentary written


answers, the works and pensions minister stated that the HSE guid- ance would not be withdrawn and the schools minister confirmed that following the release of asbestos fibres in a school, authorities should refer to this guidance. This not only gives a dangerous


message to school authorities about the level of exposure that can cause harm, it has also meant that staff and parents have been given incorrect advice about the risks from their exposure to asbestos. Also, it is indefensible that fol-


lowing asbestos incidents they have also been advised not to enter the exposure in their medical records. In 30 years’ time, if one of the children subsequently develops mesothelioma they are unlikely to remember the incident and their GP might miss the initial symptoms as there is no note of the exposure on their medical records. The AiS has formally requested that the HSE guidance is withdrawn.


Clearance levels


Following a release of asbestos fibres in a school, staff and pupils are allowed back in the classroom when the airborne asbestos fibre levels are below the “Clearance Level” of 0.01f/ml. However that is not a safe level as the occupants will inhale 6,000 fibres an hour. In 1983, there were calls for an


“environmental” level to be applied to schools at a level 1/100th of the workplace control levels. But this has never happened and instead workplace control levels are still applied to children. The Netherlands already has a


Control Limit of 0.01f/ml which is 10 times less than the EU limit, and France is calling for a similar level. The Health Council of the Netherlands published a paper in June that proposes a Control Limit 300 times less than the present EU limit. It also proposes an environ- mental level 33,000 times less. The AiS has called on the UK


government to no longer apply workplace levels to schools, but instead to adopt an environmental asbestos fibre level for schools.


A policy of openness


The AiS has also called on the gov- ernment for a policy of openness so that staff and parents are annually updated on their school’s asbestos management. No longer must the risks be


played down. No longer must the very presence of asbestos and the exposure of their children be kept from parents. The government must assess the


true scale of the problem and the risks, and then allocate proportion- ate resources so that schools really can be made safe from the dangers of asbestos.


SecEd


• Michael Lees is a member of the DfE Asbestos in Schools Steering Group. For more information, visit www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk


SecEd • September 15 2011


The Department for Education’s response Statement


“It is unacceptable for local authorities or self- governing schools not to comply with the statutory asbestos guidance. We fully back the HSE in taking action against any local authority not fulfilling its legal duty. The HSE’s expert advice is absolutely clear that if asbestos is not disturbed or damaged, then it is safer to leave it in place, with robust processes to manage and monitor it – no ifs or buts. We are working hard with the HSE to make sure asbestos is managed properly in schools. We commissioned the James Review to set out long-term plans for school building and capital investment to make sure it targets schools in the greatest disrepair – we will respond in due course.”


Answers


1. Does the government accept that staff and pupils are being exposed to asbestos at school? Schools are among many buildings where asbestos is present, but teachers and pupils are not likely to be at risk in the course of their normal activities as long as asbestos is managed in accordance with the legal requirements. Those responsible for maintenance and repair in


all non-domestic premises, including schools have a legal duty under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 (CARs) to manage the risks arising from asbestos. Asbestos which is in good condition and unlikely to be damaged or disturbed does not pose any significant risk to health and is better left in place and managed to keep it in that condition, rather than be removed, which would release fibres. Asbestos which is in poor condition, or which is


likely to be damaged or disturbed, should be sealed to contain the fibres, enclosed or removed. The most likely way that asbestos containing


materials (ACMs) in schools will be disturbed or damaged is through maintenance, repair or construction activities. This includes even seemingly innocuous jobs such as installing telephones or computers. Those responsible for maintenance and repair


in schools must ensure that anyone who is likely to work on or disturb asbestos is provided with information on the location and condition of the material. It is important to appreciate that people are


exposed to very low levels of fibres as they are present in the environment. A key risk of developing an asbestos-related disease is the total number of fibres breathed in. Those most at risk are maintenance staff who may unknowingly disturb ACMs. There is no evidence to show that rates of asbestos-related cancer among teachers are significantly greater than that for the British population as a whole. A recent research study commissioned by Cancer Research UK and the HSE which looked at the full set of jobs individuals did during their working lives reinforces the view that teachers do not stand out as a high risk group.


2. Will the government treat schools as a “special place”? The CARs already place a legal duty on those responsible for managing the maintenance and repair of all non-domestic buildings. The duty requires the “duty-holder” for a building to identify the location and assess the condition of all ACMs within the building. The existing science and available research emphasises the importance of ensuring that asbestos is managed in all work premises – including schools – so that risk of exposure to fibres is low. The main priorities for future schools’ capital


spending will be condition (of the schools) and the need for pupil places. Local decisions about how to distribute allocated funding need to prioritise urgent condition needs such as ACMs that require remedial work or removal.


3. Will the government draft specific asbestos Approved Codes of Practice and guidance for schools? Since 2004 there has been a requirement on duty- holders across all work premises, including schools, to identify the location and condition of ACMs. This is supported by a specific Approved Code of Practice which gives practical advice on how to comply with the law. The HSE has published addi- tional guidance material including an online guide to help duty-holders to manage asbestos. The DfE and the HSE (in consultation with


the DfE Asbestos in Schools Steering Group) is also developing a dedicated web-based asbestos awareness raising and training tool for headteachers, governors, employers and school staff


to ensure they are fully aware of their roles and responsibilities. The website will provide entry level training and will allow schools and local authorities to share good practice and documentation.


4. Why are workplace asbestos control levels applied to staff and children in schools? The Control Limit is applied to the workplace where workers are liable to disturb asbestos in the course of their daily work. It refers to the concentra- tion of asbestos fibres in any localised atmosphere, measured and averaged over a continuous period of four hours. At the moment, the Control Limit is 0.1 asbestos fibres per millilitre of air (f/ml). This is not a “safe” level and work activities involving asbestos should be designed to be as far below the Control Limit as possible. As long as asbestos is managed in compliance with the legal requirements and according to the HSE’s published guidance there is no significant risk in leaving it in place.


5. Will the government adopt an “environmen- tal” asbestos fibre level for schools? There are no plans to. The current Control Limit in the 2006 regulations is 0.1f/ml averaged over a four-hour period. Irrespective of this limit the regu- lations require exposures to be reduced to the lowest reasonably practicable level below 0.1f/ml.


6. Will the government withdraw the HSE guidance on the risks from asbestos exposure (OC265/48 and LAC5/19)? The guidance documents quoted form part of the HSE’s operational guidance – they deal with the level of risk from occupational exposure to asbestos, and give guidance for the HSE and local authority staff when responding to enquiries. The entire suite of HSE guidance is currently under review and the priority has been given to reviewing its external guidance first. The operational guidance to inspec- tors, including the two documents, will be reviewed from October 2011. The HSE website gives advice to anyone who may have been exposed to asbestos (www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/faq.htm)


7. Will the government adopt a policy of open- ness so that staff and parents are updated annu- ally on the management of asbestos in their school? Local authorities and schools outside local authority control are in charge of asbestos management and communications with staff and parents.


8. Will the audit of the condition of school build- ings include an audit of the friable asbestos they contain? The James Review recommends a programme of building surveys to enable better targeting of nation- al funding, but this programme would be relatively light-touch and is not intended to identify the loca- tion of ACMs. Such a national survey could certain- ly not substitute for local asbestos surveys already required by the CARs, which require duty-holders at school and local authority levels to identify the location and condition of ACMs in their buildings. In January 2009, the DfE and the HSE carried


out a survey on the management of asbestos in system-built schools. The majority of local authorities demonstrated that they have procedures and precautions in place to manage asbestos safely. Visits were made to those authorities where


the HSE considered further clarification of arrangements were necessary. The HSE served enforcement notices on a small number of authorities to improve asbestos management. The HSE has also written to the chief executives


of all 152 authorities to highlight key elements on managing asbestos, and to remind them that effective management of asbestos in schools is an ongoing requirement. Additionally, the HSE has just completed a


further inspection of 150 sample schools outside local authority control, to check compliance with the regulations. The findings will be published shortly.


9. Will the government make public the Committee on Carcinogenicity’s assessment of the relative risks to children from asbestos? The Committee on the Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment has been commissioned by the DfE to assess the relative vulnerability of children to low- level exposure to asbestos fibres. The proceedings are usually put in the public domain via its website (www.iacoc.org.uk).


3


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16