Asbestos in homes poses risk to maintenance workers

Someone once said: education, education, education but, what they really meant was money, money, money and expedience as in do a lot of what highly visable costs nothing and avoid at all costs anything that will rock the bout or open the flood gates to expensive remedial work.

RSL's council or otherwise have been getting rid of surveyors who are deemed over priced and over qualified for 'maintenance' work and are replacing 'them' with 'a' builder and his dog to oversee or manage repair contracts.

In that way I am told they can get away with SLA's to cover their back sides.

It has been known since 1843 that asbestos is dangerous! It is just big business that has brought pressure on governments to allow asbestos to be used for so long - the various wars have not helped as the stuff is much used in warships of all sorts.

On condition surveys - I was a director of a very large firm of surveyors. We were often submitting quotes to do condition surveys. After we got the contract we were often asked (verbally and confidentially) not to take account of the possible presence of asbestos. We then asked how the possible presence of asbestos was being managed. When the answer was that the Registered Social Landlord (RSL) was doing nothing but did not want a Pandora's box opened, we then withdrew from the contract.

I have discussed this situation confidentially with HSE officers at a fairly high level but they seem not to be concerned.

I know of no RSL which gives it's staff any training as required by Reg 10 of the Control of Asbestos Regulation 2006 but I am out of date with the current situation.

I can't believe it has taken a Doctor and side kick to work this out. This is something that I have been discussing with colleagues for years. But why should this just be restricted to social housing. There are many millions of private properties containing ACMs. The easy answer is that this can not be done by the wave of a magic wand. I am an asbestos surveyor and I work with local councils and house assocations, and they appear to be doing what they can within budgets. The first step is as Beatriz Shorrock says above, Reg 10 CAR. If all workers were trained properly, this wouldn't be a issue, but is Reg 10 being policed? Not a chance. Most contractors are completely unaware of any training requirement. So until then..........fill your lungs chaps.

Chuffed to note yous two solution focused against a background of mucho indifference exhibited by many worker most likely to be at risk in the first place who "if they can't see it" ain't worried enough by 'it' to comply.

Unfortunately, in the governments well intentioned bid to comply with 'air quality standards' by removing the obviously unsightly visible airbourne particulates and beef up workplace health protection they have sort of shot themselves in the foot.

For sure seeking a reduction in the scale of larger visable particulates produced in many manufactoring processes and other workplaces, construction etc or in the general environment including deisel exhaust following introduction smokeless domestic solid fuels it has now led to a significant reduction in particulate size that may, in fact, according to on-going research represent even greater risk to health.

Ideally we should all be living in our own personal bubble fed by clean air filtered and treated by UV to remove microbiological contaminates.......

Not 'reasonably practicable' soooo, just left with doing our best that will result in reasonably practicable "mitigation" or reduction of foreseeable risk in the workplace whereveeeer that may be.

Problem there is encouraging the workers to use said appropriate PPE as so often either fatigue or limited vision or respitarory effort cause the worker to modify use of the equipment along the way or abandon it negating the benefits of it's use in the first place.

So one can either ignore that as will be contributory neg if or when a problem arises or negotiate use of PPE that may not be the best in terms of prevention or total protection but will be the best in terms of "use" and therefore offers reasonably practicable mitigation and 'reduction' of risk.

Don't matter how good it is if they don't or won't use it and one is unable to directly link or build in the use of safety to completion of the operation of equipment or work...............

As a fast track step in helping to immediately secure the health of workers
all workers should wear appropriate dust masks where they are or
their colleagues produce dust in their operations. No matter how trivial the
work treat every job as an asbestos risk and not take any chances....even asbestos surveys are not always 100% dependable.. This requirement would also include appropriate vacumn and dust cover disposals and training within the RM statement. This does not help the domestic home DIY workers however most DIY instructions include good advice on wearing dust masks but not normally the appropriate standard for max protection against asbestos. This subject is a concern but has been around in the domestic and non-industiral arena for to many years but only really coming to light for real action as a result of tradepersons now starting showing on the health stats as being at higher risk from this danger.....bit late for most now I'm afraid however very valid point about the childrens exposure and I wonder how many council house tenats actually know where they have asbestos lurking in their homes.

How much regulation do we need? There is already a requirement to protect employees plus the recently introduced requirement to train staff liable to come into contact with asbestos; Reg 10 Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. The Duty To Manage for non domestic is by no means a fail safe solution and in my opinion training staff complying with Reg 10 offers more protection than Reg 4.

Well, yes, but, no but, yeea sort of jus depends on what sort of asbestos we is talking about as many properties depending on period contain asbestos but 'white asbestos' as used in artex ceiling decoration that will mostly be encapsulated cause it has been painted over the last 30 years !

Older Council or social housing contain a lot of it and their building and works surveyors will have completed a risk assessment as part of stock condition surveys and reviews over the years and unless roofs, garages and/or decorative finishes contain high risk versions used mainly for insulation and fire protection it would not be "reasonably practicable" to remove all low risk variants.

One, of course, should be wary of any potential hazard to health however, in older council and social housing often now fitted with double glazing the risk of respiratory problems from mould or mildew due to poor ventilation particularly in bathrooms and kitchens is a greater risk to health especially children.

Also the further north one travels the more tenants are still dependent on solid fuel for heating and will often refuse to leave windows or double glazing vent bars open and in addition will tend to block air bricks to prevent cold draughts unintentionally increasing their risk of carbon monoxide poisoning.

That doesn't mean maintenance workers shouldn't be better clued up on the potential hazards that they will be presented with on a daily basis associated with common dust and/or other common, seamingly harmless, airbourne particulates, inert, biological, chemical including solvents.

It is not only the workers who are at risk, and it is important to note they are responsible for their own health and safety and those affected by their works. My biggest cocern is those residents that are oblivious to the fact they are left living in contaminated conditions following disturbance of asbestos. It is worthy of note that childrens lungs are up to 500 times more susceptible to asbestos disease than adults - a statistic that only the most negligent or irresponsible ignore at their peril.