Welcome the additional risk controls that the proposed Regulations and guidance will provide in relation to both the prevention of accidental exposure to airborne asbestos fibres during normal shipboard activities and the minimisation of workers inhalation and other exposures during the planned maintenance and removal of asbestos containing materials.

REGULATIONS

Notification of work relating to asbestos - Regulation 6.2

Requirement for 14 days notice may, in a sea-going context, be impracticable. Article 4 of the Directive requires notification but does not specify a period. The 14 day notice period appears to come from Regulation 9 of HSE’s Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006.

Now amended to provide for notice to be given:-

(a)  if reasonably practicable, not less than 14 days before the work commences,

(b) otherwise, as soon as is reasonably practicable and in any event before the work commences.

Health surveillance - Regulation 17(1)(a) and 17(3)

Phrases “or is at risk of being” and “or is likely to be” do not assist with clarity in the Regulations as they are both subjection and consequently open to interpretation. Article 15 of the Directive refers to “exposure to dust arising from asbestos or materials containing asbestos” and retaining this terminology would bring clarity to the Regulation.

The use of “or are likely to be” occurs in Regulation 18(1) and a similar comment applies

Health surveillance - Regulation 17(2)(c)

The requirement for “information on any previous work undertaken with asbestos” is not within the control of the employer as a worker may have been exposed to asbestos in a previous employment over which the current employer has no control and no formal records. It is suggested that this requirement be qualified with the addition of “in this employment”.

Now qualified by only requiring such information to be recorded when it is available.

MARINE GUIDANCE NOTE

Paragraph 6.1 - See comment above re 14 days notice requirement.

As it stands this could require a register of all seafarers and it is suggested that “will be or have been” better meets the requirement of the Directive.   

The final sentence of this paragraph appears to end unintentionally. It makes no sense as it stands and it would appear that some text is missing.

Regulation 6.2

We are concerned at the requirement for 14 days’ notice to be given to the Secretary of State before the commencement of any work that is likely to involve exposure to asbestos.  It is likely to cause considerable practical difficulties for ship operators, especially when their ships are away from the UK.

Regulation 17(2)(c)

We have concerns at the detail of the requirements for health surveillance.  It is not reasonable to expect an employer to be responsible for providing information concerning an employee’s previous employments, which is, at best, highly unlikely to be in his possession.

MGN Paragraph 6.2

This states that employers are required to provide evidence from contractors on their ability in asbestos handling and removal.  This is unrealistic since only the contractor would be in a position to provide evidence.

MGN Paragraph 18 (1)

We suggest replacing the following wording in the first sentence:-

“Where any worker will, or could potentially, undertake any activity . . .”

with

“Where any worker will undertake, or has undertaken, any activity . . .”

MGN Annex 1, Paragraph 8

The word “friable” is unlikely to be well understood.  Our understanding is that, in this context, it refers to asbestos that can be easily reduced to dust and, therefore, become present in the local atmosphere and a respiratory hazard.  The paragraph could be amended to refer to any substance that can be reduced to fibres or finer particles by the application of relatively little pressure or friction on its mass, such as inadvertent brushing up against the surface.

MGN Annex 5, paragraph 2(g)

The final sentence does not end with a full stop and it appears that something is missing.  It was further pointed out that the 2002 Regulations referred to had been superseded by Regulations adopted in 2006.

In preparing this response the BTA has reviewed the Chamber of Shipping’s response to the first consultation in July 2006 and the subsequent MCA reply to issues raised.

Regulation 6.2

The requirement to notify the Secretary of State at least 14 days in advance of commencement of activities potentially involving exposure to asbestos fibre is of serious concern to BTA members, particularly where work is being undertaken, as is commonly the case, outside the UK.   We understand your desire to have similar notice periods in both HSE and MS regulations, and that may indeed be achievable where work is being carried out by UK contractors within the UK.  The blanket application of a 14-day rule for work outside the UK will be completely impracticable and lead to extended and expensive delays to vessels abroad.   

We note that the Asbestos Directive itself does not specify a minimum notification period, and it is likely that individual Member States will have adopted differing notification periods for landside and/or maritime applications.  We hesitate to propose a particular alternative notice period, but would propose that there be a requirement to notify the Secretary of State as soon as is practicable before the work is undertaken.  

Regulation 17(2)(c)

We note that the requirements for health surveillance place a responsibility on an employer to provide information about his employees’ previous employments.  In practice, particularly in relation to seafarers, this will typically not be available to the employer.

MGN Paragraph 6.2

Again, in relation particularly to work being undertaken outside the UK, the requirement for employers to provide evidence from contractors on their asbestos handling and removal capabilities is unrealistic within the time constraints considered above.  We note the remarks concerning overseas contractors, and assume that such information as is provided – most likely in their national language – will  be acceptable.

MGN Paragraph 18 (1)

We do not understand the intent of including in the register those employees that “could potentially” undertake an activity, especially as it goes on to require information about the exposure to which they “have been subjected”.  This would lead to a large number of entries of names in the register which would never have any exposure to record.  We suggest that it be limited to those that “have undertaken, will undertake, or could be expected to undertake” a relevant activity.

MGN Annex 1, Paragraph 8

The word “friable” is unlikely to be well understood.  Our understanding is that, in this context, it refers to asbestos that can be easily reduced to dust and, therefore, become present in the local atmosphere and a respiratory hazard.  The paragraph could be amended to refer to any substance that can be reduced to fibres or finer particles by the action of relatively little pressure or friction on its mass, such as inadvertent brushing up against the substance.

MGN Annex 5, paragraph 2

There appears to be text missing from the end of this paragraph.

The Nautilus position remains that there is no safe level of asbestos it should either be contained and monitored or removed from vessels. In this connection a particular concern is that asbestos continues to be found onboard vessels including ‘new build’.

The Regulations implement for the maritime sector, the same EC Directives that have been implemented for land-based workers by Regulations introduced by HSE.