asbestos management review - ohs reps · web viewplease complete in rich text or word document...

ASBESTOS MANAGEMENT REVIEWISSUES PAPER RESPONSE FORM

Please complete in RICH TEXT or WORD DOCUMENT Format

Individual or Organisational Name: Victorian Trades Hall Council

Chapter 2: A National Strategic Plan

2.1 ‘Aim’ of the National Strategic Plan

Questions Comments

1. Is ‘elimination or reduction of asbestos related disease in Australia’ a suitable aim for a national strategic plan to improve asbestos awareness and management in Australia? If not, what do you think the aim of the plan should be?

The toxic nature of asbestos is well-known and accepted, and so the aim for a national strategic plan must be to eliminate asbestos related disease in Australia. Australia has one of the highest levels of asbestos-related diseases in the world, due to our extensive use during the twentieth century in the construction of both domestic and commercial properties. Approximately 700 Australians are diagnosed with mesothelioma every year – thousands have contracted this and other asbestos- related diseases over the years, with the ‘peak’ of mesothelioma cases still not reached.

Following the hierarchy of control, the most effective way in which to work towards elimination of asbestos related disease is to eliminate exposure to asbestos in the built environment – and to do this by eliminating the asbestos itself (acknowledging that total elimination of it is not possible as there is naturally occurring asbestos around Australia)

The VTHC participated in a National Asbestos Summit in June 2010 and endorsed the National Declaration: Towards an Australian Safe Asbestos Free Environment which called for the elimination of asbestos related disease and exposures to all forms of asbestos in Australia. It states:

Australia has an unenviable record of one of the world’s highest rate of asbestos related diseases and a legacy of asbestos containing materials (ACMs) in many workplaces and buildings- public and private, commercial, domestic and industrial.

Asbestos Management Review

1

The use of all forms of asbestos in Australia has been banned since 2003, including its import and export. But, because of the legacy of its use, we have not solved the problem of asbestos exposures – for either people at work or in the general community.

The current evidence is that1. despite a general level of awareness about the dangers of asbestos, workers are unsure and unclear about

specific safe work practices2. householders are not aware of the extent and nature of ACMs in domestic dwellings3. affected householders are unsure and unclear about specific safe work practices for home maintenance and

improvement 4. the condition of asbestos containing building materials is deteriorating and 5. the safe disposal of ACMs, especially for householders, is difficult and very often not properly followed.

To eliminate deadly asbestos related disease in Australia we must decrease and eventually eliminate all exposures to asbestos.

The National Asbestos Summit called for the establishment of a National Asbestos Authority (NAA) for a Safe asbestos Free Environment by 2030. This is to be achieved by implementing a 20 year phase out program involving the prioritised removal of asbestos – based on the state of the asbestos-containing materials – from the built environment in the following manner:

Red: immediate removal (or ban of the target area, or both)

Yellow: within 5 years or by 2020, whichever is earlier

Green: within 15 years or by 2030, whichever is earlier.

The VTHC re-iterates its commitment to this aim which will result in the complete elimination of ACMs, rather than continuing the current and ineffective ‘risk management approach’ which could ensure the existence of asbestos in perpetuity and can never achieve the elimination of the risks of exposure to asbestos and the elimination of the burden of asbestos related disease from Australia’s future generations.

The use of a staged approach to the management of ACMs is not novel. The ACT Regulations are a useful and successful precedent that could be adapted for use nationally.

Unless this is achieved, hundreds of thousands of Australians will continue to be exposed to asbestos, and thousands more will in the future contract mesothelioma or other asbestos-related disease not only in workplaces, but in their own homes1. This

1 Evidence of the continuing health impact of asbestos in the built environment: A recent study has found that home renovations are causing an alarming and increasing number of asbestos-related disease in Australia, including in women. The study found that 35.7 per cent of female mesothelioma cases and 8.4 per cent male cases in Western Australia, between 2005 and 2008, were attributable to home renovation. [Olsen, Reid, De Klerk, Threlfall, Shilkin and Musk, 2011 Increasing evidence of malignant mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos during home maintenance and renovation, Medical Journal of Australia 2011:195(5) ]


2

must not happen.

Australia is the country with the highest rate of mesothelioma in the world2, Australia has lived through two “waves” of asbestos-related disease — the first from the mining of asbestos and the manufacturing of asbestos products, and the second from asbestos use in industry. There is now clearly evidence of a “third wave” of the asbestos disease epidemic in Australia: non-industrial users of asbestos products, a significant number of whom are the non-professionals involved in cutting/fixing ACM during home renovations or maintenance and other DIY activities, or who demolished asbestos cement products during renovations.

It must be remembered that the condition of ACM in the built environment is deteriorating, increasing the risk of exposure. Even the most recent materials containing asbestos are approaching 30 years old, and as the peak usage of ACMs was prior to the 1970s most, most are now 40 and 50 years old, and much having been exposed to weathering and contact with machinery, vibration and human activity. These materials will continue to deteriorate and pose unacceptable risks until such time as they are removed.

The VTHC proposes that a further aim of the National Strategic Plan must be to achieve nationally consistent legislation for asbestos – not only under the OHS ‘umbrella’ but in all areas (eg local government, private housing, environmental, etc). As noted in the Issues Paper, the current approach in Australia is fragmented both across and within jurisdictions. This results in many unacceptable ‘gaps’.

2.2 Priority Areas under a National Strategic Plan

2. Are the priority areas suggested above appropriate for a national strategic plan? Are there any other priority areas which should be addressed in a national strategic plan? If so, please specify the activities which you considered are required to support the additional priority areas?

The VTHC strongly supports the priority areas identified in the Issues Paper– with our comments below:

Education and raising public awareness; Agreed – however it is also of paramount importance that the education and awareness campaigns not be limited to the generalised public. We are aware, and research by Safe Work Australia confirms, that tradespeople need on-going education, training and awareness-raising. The UK’s HSE has found it necessary to run a highly-publicised and targetted awareness campaign for carpenters, plumbers, electricians, etc.

Identification, removal, handling, storage and disposal practices; Agreed

Reporting and disclosure of where asbestos is located; Agreed – but the National Strategy should also ensure that the above two ‘priority areas’ achieve/incorporate the outcome of a National Audit of asbestos in Australia, including asbestos in public buildings, workplaces, domestic premises and disposal/dump sites. Further, all buildings should display coloured stickers which inform, simply by the colour, the implied level of risk and

2 Henderson DW, Leigh J. The history of asbestos utilization and recognition of asbestos-induced diseases. Chapter 1. In: Dodson R, Hammar S, editors. Asbestos: risk assessment, epidemiology, and health effects, 2nd ed. Boca Raton: Taylor and Francis, 2011: 1-22.


3

timeframe expected of total removal. Information (data) management and reporting on associated health issues.

Agreed – but in addition to this further, and related priority areas must be to:

o Achieve a nationally consistent approach to the management of dust disease compensation claims

o Achieve a coordinated national approach for medical research (through seeking adequate government funding and coordinating allocation of such funding)

The Issues paper notes “These are similar to the areas identified by both South Australia’s Asbestos Safety Action Plan and Tasmania’s Improving Asbestos Management in Tasmania.” And then lists three other areas identified in the South Australian and/or plans as: (with our comments)

Partnership, particularly strengthening partnerships with the community through a whole of government approach (South Australia); Agreed – this should clearly form part of a National Strategy – without strong partnerships in which common aims are agreed and committed to, achievements will be difficult to secure. There are many organisations which are already active and committed in the area (eg Unions; Asbestos Disease Support Groups; training organisations; etc) and potentially other community groups such as Men’s Sheds that could be involved.

Intervention/compliance (South Australia and Tasmania); and Agreed – however, this may not necessarily mean direct intervention/compliance, rather, the National Strategy should ensure that a nationally consistent as has been acknowledged and agreed under the Harmonisation of OHS legislation, unless there is

Prioritised removal (Tasmania)Absolutely fundamental to a National Strategy – as noted above, the VTHC re-affirms that any National Strategy MUST include a timetable for the prioritised removal of asbestos in the built environment, and that this should be over a twenty year period.

The prioritised removal must be, based on the state of the asbestos containing materials:

o Red: immediate removal (or ban of the target area, or both)

o Yellow: within 5 years or by 2020 whichever is earlier

o Green: within 15 years or by 2030 whichever is earlier

This process would be based on the ACT regulations which had different dates for different sectorsThe 20 year planned phase out must be reflected in individual Asbestos Registers (see below) and as a whole,


4

the planned phase out be reviewed every five years by the National Asbestos Authority (see below)

An additional another key priority area to reflect the additional aim of achieving nationally uniform legislation covering all aspects of asbestos (in workplace, in domestic premises, disposal, etc)

2.3 Coordination and management of a National Strategic Plan

3. Is there an existing organisation or body that could take responsibility for oversight, administration and/or coordination of a national strategic plan? If so, which organisation or body could do this and what features make it suitable for this role?

No, the VTHC does not believe that there is an existing body or organisation that could adequately carry out the tasks of oversighting, administering and coordinating a national strategic plan.

4. Alternatively, is a new organisation or body required to oversee, administer and/or coordinate a national strategic plan?

What would the role and functions of a new organisation be?

What would its membership be?

How would it be established?

How would it relate to existing Commonwealth, state and local agencies?

Should it have a finite life and a sunset clause – if so, to which organisation(s) would any residual functions transfer?

What would be the relationship of local government to such an agency?

Every examination of the current regulatory approach to the management of asbestos in Australia has come to the same conclusion: it is piecemeal, fragmented, even ad hoc and fails to build on successes and the lessons learned by those taking innovative and constructive approaches to the elimination of the risk of exposure to ACMs.

This view is based on the experience of our Tasmanian colleagues, where as noted in the Issues Paper, a separate Asbestos Unit was established within Workplace Standards Tasmania. The original recommendation from the working group had been to establish a totally ‘stand alone’ body, however, the final outcome was the Unit within Workplace Standards. Our colleagues report that the effectiveness of the Unit is less than what had been hoped and envisaged, and that much of its work seems to be in the policy area.

For this and other reasons, the VTHC believes that a stand alone, national statutory authority is needed to ensure the appropriate level of importance and activity is carried out.

Role and functionsIn any case, irrespective of the outcome (ie whether a stand alone authority is established, or the decision is to establish a unit of some sort within an existing body), the suggested role and functions of the organisation [which we will from this point on referred to as the ‘National Asbestos Authority’ (NAA)] must be to audit and monitor all aspects the National Asbestos Strategy. Activities related to this include, but are not necessarily limited to:

1. Management of Asbestos in the Australian environment

Assist with the development and implementation of nationally consistent legislation to cover all areas of asbestos

In light of the current harmonisation of health and safety legislation, review the effectiveness and efficiency of the nationally harmonised asbestos regulations, including the removal licensing system, and the adequacy of the competency based training requirements, the different level licenses, and the risks associated with what we fear


5

will be the establishment of companies offering unlicensed removal work

Follow up as necessary with all relevant agencies and promote cross-jurisdictional and cross-agency communication

Coordinate and keep the National Registry/Audit (of registers showing location of asbestos in buildings, assets)

Collate information on asbestos disposal sites, contaminated sites, and areas with naturally occurring asbestos

Have legislative ability to enforce prioritised removal programs and other activities

Have powers to publically report, including to Federal Parliament, on performance of the 20 year phase out

Develop and coordinate awareness raising campaigns and educational programs and materials

Act as a clearing house for information and resources – for example, establish national databases

2. co-ordinate information on the treatment, care and support of people with asbestos related disease

3. advice to the Australian government on international matters in relation to asbestos

MembershipThe NAA would be have representation from all tiers of government, including local government (eg Australian Local Government Association), industry (including asbestos removal contractors), unions, community and asbestos support groups. The NAA would have the ability to call for expert advisors and to conduct necessary investigations and reports to allow it to perform its functions.

How would it be establishedThe NAA should be established under specific legislation as an independent statutory Authority with powers appropriate to enable it to coordinate and enforce a range of matters.

Life of AuthorityThe Authority should have a finite ‘life’ but this ‘life’ should be at least the time needed to ensure that that the National Strategy is well underway and that work in a prioritised removal plan is well-established. If necessary, the NAA should remain in existence for the entire twenty years of the removal plan.

A decision on which organisation any residual functions should transfer to can be made at a later stage.

Chapter 3: Activities under a national strategic plan

3.1 Identification of Asbestos


6

5. Should a national audit to identify the location and condition of asbestos be carried out? If so, what would the process of such an audit involve? What information should be included in such an audit? Who should have access to such information? How should this information be kept up-to-date?

Yes, it is crucial to establish a national audit identifying the location and condition of all asbestos in Australia. This would be undertaken in achievable stages.

Process:

1 - Identification of all current duty holders (eg under WHS legislation) and ‘gaps’ (eg owners of domestic property)

2 - Staged audits and collation:

Stage 1:Beginning with buildings/facilities/etc for which registers should already be in existence (under health and safety or environment legislation):

workplaces constructed or part constructed prior to 1989 - including employer/company-owned accommodation for employees/workers

all government owned or leased buildings constructed or part constructed prior to 1989 e.g. hospitals, schools, and housing (including commission housing)

commercial/ industrial buildings constructed or part constructed prior to 1989

all machinery and equipment, for example for those with friction parts/gaskets inserted prior to 2003 and for insulation prior to 1989

Asbestos dumping/disposal sites

This initial stage could appropriately be regulated and coordinated by the jurisdictional health and safety authorities (eg though HWSA3), and provided to the NAA. It builds on current approaches, including for example, the South Australian approach where buyers must be notified of the presence of asbestos: Land and Business (Sale & Conveyancing) Regulations 1995 - Schedule 1 - Contracts for sale of land or businesses.

Stage 2: Privately owned domestic dwellingsThis sector is largely unregulated in most jurisdictions, with some notable exceptions (eg since 2004 in the ACT – see discussion below) OR when a domestic dwelling becomes a workplace, which triggers the application of occupational health and safety asbestos regulations. However, in this case, the assumption is that there no asbestos audit has been carried out, and no asbestos register is in place.

The VTHC proposes that legislation be implemented to ensure that audits are conducted and registers established for all buildings with ACMs, including privately owned domestic dwellings (see Qu 6, below)

Note: the VTHC does not include employer provided accommodation under Stage 2 (privately owned domestic dwellings). Such accommodation should be considered as the workplace for the employees/workers, and thus covered in stage 1.

3 Heads of Workplace Safety Authorities


7

Audits and registersThese, including for domestic and privately-owned dwellings, must be conducted by competent assessors, with the appropriate minimum training/accreditation. The training of assessors must colour coding of buildings and concept of Prioritised removal program (as opposed to ‘risk management).

In addition:The VTHC would also like the NAA to coordinate and maintain a central audit of all naturally occurring asbestos (NOA). We believe that at least in some states there has been some mapping of NOA.

The national audit, and all the information contained in it, should be made available to the general public. The most effective way would be through the website of the NAA.

As workplace registers must be kept up to date and maintained every five years (or more often if there are changes to the workplace affecting the asbestos), then this time frame should locked into updating the national register. Again, for workplaces, this can and should be coordinated through the health and safety authorities.

6. Should owners of private property be legally required to identify the presence of asbestos in their property? If so when should such identification take place? If so should the identification process involve an assessment of the condition of the asbestos containing material i.e. risk of exposure from airborne fibres?

Yes, owners of private property (that is NOT a workplace – that is, privately owned domestic dwellings, NOT owned by government) should be legally required identify asbestos in their property. If the private property is generally used a workplace then there is already the requirement to do and maintain a register.

This requirement would only apply to domestic dwellings constructed/renovated prior to 1989, and the VTHC proposes that the vendor be required to provide an asbestos audit and register of the property:

When undergoing renovation/extension work requiring a planning/building permit;

When leasing the property; and

At point of sale as part of required paperwork (eg Vic Section 32).

Similar requirements currently apply in the ACT, which was the first jurisdiction to introduce a management regime for asbestos in the residential sector through the Dangerous Substances Amendment Act, 2004 which involves special obligations on the owners and occupiers of residential properties to inform themselves and others working at the premises, tenants and purchasers of the condition and location of asbestos. New asbestos laws affecting the residential sector commenced on 1 July 2006 in the ACT. Requirements under this regime:

Home owners must provide advice on the presence and condition of asbestos with a contract of sale when selling the home

Landlords of domestic dwelling must provide tenants with asbestos advice as part of their residential tenancy agreement

Tradespersons/maintenance workers must be provided with the asbestos advice when engaged to undertake


8

construction or renovation work on domestic dwellings

The asbestos advice must be provided when seeking building approval

The identification should be in the form of an audit and certainly include an assessment of the condition of the asbestos, which is also to be consistent with the proposed 20 year phased removal program (see Addendum 1 at end of submission for more detail).

The NAA would work to assist local councils to ensure that the above requirements are met. This could include:

Facilitation of removal

Investigating and assisting with insurance concerns

Assisting by providing subsidies for low income earners – eg for audits, removals, etc

7. What activities, if any, should be included in a national strategic plan in relation to the identification of asbestos? Who is best placed to deliver these activities?

Activities in relation to the identification of asbestos include, but are not limited to:

An education/information strategy to be developed (through NAA) and implemented (through HS authorities, with RTOs)

Funding for training of an adequate number of competent assessors for both workplace and domestic audits. Note that the a number of jurisdictions after consideration of needs (eg the ACT Asbestos Taskforce established in 2005) found that minimum technical standards were necessary for assessors and surveyors, and recommended the introduction of a licensing regime for person in the asbestos industry, including those performing identification and assessment work.

Development of standardised register/audit forms (particularly for domestic premises) and standard pricing guides

Possible awards/recognition programs along the lines of ‘safe towns’, etc

These activities would be best delivered through a range of agencies, depending on the activity itself, though overall coordination should be at the NAA. For example, first point would be combination of NAA, health and safety authorities and training providers, while awards/recognition programs may be best delivered by local government.

3.2 Management

8. Is a standard ‘risk management’ approach sufficient to protect against the risk of exposure to asbestos fibres?

No, such an approach is in no way adequate to protect workers and the community against the risk of exposure from the large amount of deteriorating ACM in the Australian built environment. The approach must be that of agreed prioritised removal, as outlined above, within a certain reasonable and agreed timeframe. The actual removal would be staggered and begin with government owned and leased buildings and move to commercial and domestic buildings.

The reality is that whilst asbestos remains in the built environment, it remains a risk to the health of all Australians exposed to


9

it. Unfortunately, the risk is increasing, whether due to deterioration due to weathering, vibration, or because building materials have a limited life and will deteriorate even if not actively interfered with.

It is our experience that the risk management approach fails to protect people, workers and others, whenever one of the elements fails, such as basic information, training of workers or work procedures.

For example, recently the VTHC was shown a copy of a national company’s ‘Working with Asbestos’ document which included general information for its workers and describes various procedures the workers are required to adhere to. The company is a national company which services and supplies appliances, including heaters, hot water services, etc. The information contained in this document (updated in June of this year) is tragically inadequate in both the advice provided regarding the risk of asbestos fibres, the identification of asbestos, and more. It does not even refer the user to relevant health and safety asbestos regulations or current codes of practice.

There has been enough research to show that despite years of training and information, there are groups of workers who somehow have ‘missed out’ on being provided with adequate information and training to ensure that they do not put themselves or others at risk of exposure to asbestos. The AWU has reported that their experience in Tasmania was that while, for example, 20 year old and 50 year old tradies knew of the risks of asbestos and had been trained, 40 year olds had missed out.

The VTHC is concerned that the protections to both the public and workers under current proposed model WHS Regulations will be less than those currently in place in Victoria due to a number of matters4:

Removal of less than 10 square metres of non-friable asbestos – the current draft regulations will allow this to be carried out by companies without a license (using workers who have not completed the training required by those employed by companies with a licence) and without the limitations currently in place in Victoria (viz: such removals are limited by not only the amount of and condition of the asbestos but also the time – permitted only if “the total time over which asbestos removal work is performed in any period of 7 days does not exceed 1 hour”).

In our view this provision will encourage commercialization of what was intended to be one-off jobs only and numbers of companies will be established offering removal work without licences – and carrying out dozens, even hundreds of such removal jobs over a week.

This will inevitably lead to increased risks not only to workers in workplaces, but also, perhaps even more so, to the general public.

Lower training requirements for workers not employed by licensed removalists (ie for workers undertaking removals for

4 See the VTHC Submission to the draft model WHS regulations, which can be downloaded from the Safe Work Australia website: http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/Legislation/PublicComment/Pages/PublicSubmissionsV.aspx– Asbestos chapter comment is at pp 37 – 51 (or pdf: http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/Legislation/PublicComment/Documents/Model%20work%20health%20and%20safety%20public%20comment%202010/Public%20submissions%20V/1099%20Victorian%20Trades%20Hall%20Council%20%28VTHC%29.pdf )


10

http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/Legislation/PublicComment/Documents/Model%20work%20health%20and%20safety%20public%20comment%202010/Public%20submissions%20V/1099%20Victorian%20Trades%20Hall%20Council%20(VTHC).pdf

http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/Legislation/PublicComment/Documents/Model%20work%20health%20and%20safety%20public%20comment%202010/Public%20submissions%20V/1099%20Victorian%20Trades%20Hall%20Council%20(VTHC).pdf

http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/Legislation/PublicComment/Pages/PublicSubmissionsV.aspx

which a licence is not required)

Problems with requirements for health monitoring

Definition of ‘worker’ – under the current Victorian Asbestos regulations, employees undertaking removals for a licensed asbestos removalist must be direct employees of the licence holder. This ensured that the license holder could be held accountable in a number of areas such as provision of information and training, health monitoring, keeping of records, etc. This will no longer be possible under the new regime due to the definition of worker.

And more

(see VTHC Comment on Draft Model Work Health and Safety Regulations April 2011 – in particular the following extract:

In the draft regulation, a licence is not required for the removal of 10 square metres of non-friable asbestos – there are no further limitations. This represents a lessening of controls for Victorian workplaces, where there is a time limitation placed on such removals of one hour per week. This limit ensures that only one such removal can take place ‘on a job’ or at a particular workplace. By not having such a limitation, there is the real danger that new companies will begin to offer themselves as ‘unlicensed removalists’ and do any number of such limited removal jobs at the same workplace. There must be a time limitation for removals not requiring a licence. Victorian regulations require that health surveillance to be done when a (non-licensed) removal worker or a worker doing any maintenance asbestos-related work has been exposed to above HALF of the exposure standard. Such a reduction of protection which is strongly opposed. )

In addition, even under the current Victorian regulations, which the VTHC believes in some areas are the most rigorous, there is a significant level of non-compliance. It is not uncommon for emergency events to occur in government buildings with large amounts of friable asbestos ‘discovered’ which then trigger large scale and costly emergency removals.

Surveys of workers and the community demonstrate a lack of awareness and variable perception of risk, with variable knowledge and understanding of how to manage the risks posed.

The only truly acceptable and long-term solution is prioritised removal of all ACMs, done by licensed asbestos removalists.

9. Are there any measures, including possible research, that could be undertaken to inform improvements to current management approaches? Are there safe alternatives to asbestos removal? Are there any examples of practical methods to permanently and indestructibly bond asbestos fibres

The approach must be that of agreed prioritised removal, as outlined above, within a certain reasonable and agreed timeframe.

Many past reviews both here and internationally (the UK and the USA) on asbestos and necessary activities involve the same recommendations – improving risk management; increasing awareness and training; and so on.

Unless there is a phased, prioritised removal of all asbestos which is planned, committed to and adequately funded, then future reviews will find the same issues exist and will end up making the same recommendations – which may or may not be implemented, for a time at least.


11

into other non-friable substances? There are no safe alternatives to asbestos removal. It is our experience that money spent on ‘containment’, ‘encapsulation’, etc is wasted as these are relatively short-term solutions. While the asbestos containing material may be ‘safe’ for a period in this form, eventually the barrier is compromised, etc and therefore a risk always remains.

10. What would be the advantages of a prioritised removal program for asbestos in the built environment? How would they outweigh the costs and risks involved? How would it operate in practice? How would the timeframes be determined?

As per comments, above, unless a prioritised removal plan for asbestos in the built environment is implemented, Australia’s problems with asbestos exposure will continue for… impossible to say for how many more decades. The costs of NOT implementing a prioritised removal program include:

Costs of asbestos related disease (treatment of sufferers; loss to economy of loss of productive working years both of the victims of disease and their immediate family members; legal and litigation costs; costs of care)

Costs of ‘risk management’ – ie mitigation measures for ‘in situ’ asbestos

Costs of on-going public information campaigns

Costs of on-going information and training for workers (removal workers, trades people, etc)

Compliance costs for regulators

We have outlined how we see a prioritised removal plan working within a 20 year framework. Registers/audits must be done for all government, commercial and domestic dwellings, and these must be written in such a way as to reflect the prioritised removal and facilitate planning for such.

11. Should a prioritised removal program apply to:

Privately owned properties such as residences?

Workplace?

Government properties?

Are there particular types of properties and structures that should be targeted first as part of a prioritised removal program? Which ones and why? How could such a program be monitored and enforced? Who should bear the costs of a prioritised removal program? What incentives might apply to such a program?

The VTHC believes that a prioritised removal program should apply to all asbestos containing materials in the built environment, including all buildings, plant within buildings and asbestos in ‘other’ facilities, such as telecommunication pits, and so on. The prioritised program should cover not only workplaces, but also privately owned domestic premises.

1 - Privately owned properties - yes

In discussing ‘privately owned properties’ it must be firstly made clear that this category must exclude workplaces. Consequently, it is unclear what properties other than domestic residences this category might include.

As noted above, the VTHC believes that registers/audits need to be done for all privately owned domestic property which include an assessment of the condition of the asbestos, and plans for prioritised removal, that is:

Red – removal to be done prior to transfer of ownership or at point of sale – asbestos identified as ‘red’ would be friable, and would be an unacceptable risk to those purchasing/intending to inhabit the premises

Yellow – within 5 years or by 2020, whichever is earlier

Green – within 15 years or by 2030, whichever is earlier


12

2 – Workplaces - yes

The current, as well as future, health and safety legislation requires that asbestos be identified, audited and entered into a register, and that any associated risk be, ‘where reasonably practicable’ eliminated, and if it is not reasonably practicable to eliminate it, then minimised. The person with management and/or control (note that definitions of duty holders under the model legislation have changed) has a duty to label the asbestos.

As noted above, the VTHC contends that risk management of asbestos is unacceptable, and that the objective must be to eventually rid all workplaces of ACM. Registers must identify the location and condition of the asbestos, and be written with a view to facilitating the prioritised removal (ie Red, Yellow and Green) and the Control plan also written accordingly. Workplace labels should also be colour coded.

3 – Government Properties - yes

The prioritised removal program should begin with government properties – both owned and leased. This includes buildings housing government departments and authorities, public service, health and education (schools, etc) and government owned housing.

Further: remote and rural areas must be a particular area of focus, including indigenous communities, given the logistical challenges of accessing these sites and the state of disrepair of many of these buildings.

12. What activities, if any, should be included in a national strategic plan to support a Prioritised Removal Program or improved risk management approach?

In order for a Prioritised Removal Program to be implemented nationally, the National Asbestos Authority will need to include the following activities into a national strategic plan, together with timeframes, allocation of funding, etc:

Arrangements with the state/territory occupational (work) health and safety regulators to ensure the process/strategy is regulated

A program of completion of asbestos registers – including monitoring where these should already be in existence and facilitating completion in private areas

Ensuring there are adequate numbers of trained asbestos assessors available to carry out audits

Setting pricing guidelines for audits and registers

Developing information and education material on asbestos, the prioritised removal strategy, the colour coding of buildings for government and the public

Assisting state/territory governments with the development and implementation of the prioritised removal plan

Ensure that there are consistent arrangements/requirements in place around Australia for the transport and disposal of ACM/asbestos waste

13. What activities, if any, could be included in a Where asbestos poses a risk during natural disasters (eg damage to buildings, etc due to earthquakes, cyclones, bushfires etc)


13

national strategic plan to reduce the risks posed by asbestos during and following natural disasters?

then the relevant state/territory authorities (Health and Safety, EPA, local council), in consultation with the relevant union peak council and in concert with the National Asbestos Authority should develop and implement a suitable plan to cover:

Localised information campaign warning of risks, etc and distribution of material

Special arrangements, if necessary, for the removal of asbestos posing risk to community as soon as possible (eg organisation of interstate removalists, etc)

Arrangements for disposal and transport of asbestos

Highly visible presence of appropriate inspectorate

Co-ordination of activities

This was done in Victoria following the clean-up, demolition and re-building following the 2009 bushfires, very successfully. A ‘template’ plan should be developed by the National Authority for use in any future such emergency.

3.3 Removal and Handling

14. If it is not possible to ensure that removal of asbestos by homeowners from private properties is undertaken safely, should it be allowed at all?

Are there any measures that could be applied to improve safety of homeowners when removing asbestos?

Should a permit be required for asbestos removal from private property by homeowners?

Should an inspection regime apply in these circumstance?

How would this work?

It is the view of the VTHC that there is no way to ensure that homeowners can safely remove asbestos themselves.

In the first instance, it must be clarified that any removals in privately owned domestic dwellings in situations where the site becomes a workplace must be carried out, as a minimum, in compliance with current and proposed occupational health and safety asbestos regulations (noting the VTHC concerns with the current version of the proposed harmonised regulations which will provide a lesser protection to workers and the community).

However, the aim must be that all asbestos in privately owned domestic housing must be removed and disposed of safely. It is the VTHC position that all asbestos removals be done by licensed removalists – that is, removals of ACM in all public, commercial buildings, including all workplaces, as well as in privately owned domestic housing. This is the only way to ensure that removal work is carried out correctly and the only way for authorities to monitor the removal work, including the training of removal workers, the insurance status of removal companies, and the proper disposal of asbestos waste.

Even though removal work in domestic dwellings is not currently regulated in most jurisdictions, the increased risks5 6which will be posed to the general community from increasingly degraded and deteriorated ACMs and the potential outbreak of companies offering totally unregulated ‘small removal jobs’ increases the need to ensure that all removal is regulated – that is, carried out by licensed removalists. In other words, the VTHC does not believe that there are any alternative measures that can guarantee safe removal of asbestos by homeowners. This is the view held not only by the VTHC and our affiliates, but

5 Olsen, et al study, referenced earlier6 Also findings in Safe and Sound - A housing profile of Victoria’s older population [pdf http://www.archicentre.com.au/images/stories/pdfs/SafeAndSound.pdf ] that asbestos is a significant hazard for elderly Victorians, with the recommendation that any ACM be removed by a licensed removalist. (Archicentre Sept 2011)


14

http://www.archicentre.com.au/images/stories/pdfs/SafeAndSound.pdf

experts in the building area (as illustrated by the advice provided by Archicentre in their Safe and Sound report)

The VTHC acknowledges that this can only be achieved once there is a legal requirement for audits and registers to be carried out in privately owned domestic premises. However, once private domestic dwellings have had audits done and the registers are available, then it must be up to either the health and safety authorities, or the relevant local councils to ensure that dangerous DIY removals are prevented and only licensed removals carried out.

A ‘saturation’ awareness campaign needs to be run through the National Asbestos Authority to ensure that the general public is aware of the dangers of asbestos, and particularly of poorly carried out removal (and therefore the need to engage licensed removalists only) and of the national prioritised removal plan.

The VTHC also acknowledges that there has been useful and valuable work undertaken by a number of asbestos advocacy groups jointly with local councils and trades and labour councils, particularly in rural communities to provide assistance to home owners to minimise current levels of risk to these home owners, their families and the general community. They have done this by assisting with the provision of training, subsidies for appropriate disposal, etc in an environment that has been totally without regulation or control. These have had some success, but recent attempts to make these kits available in other councils, and provide facilities for limited disposal have hit a serious snag, with councils being unable to secure appropriate insurance to provide such services to ratepayers.

Consequently, it is now time to ensure that asbestos removal is only undertaken by licensed removalists, irrespective of where such removals are done.

15. Are risks posed by naturally occurring asbestos appropriately covered by existing OHS and mining safety legislation? Is there sufficient data such as airborne fibre counts to conclude that naturally occurring asbestos in open-cut mines does not pose a potential risk?

We have proposed that the National Asbestos Authority ensure that information be collated which includes all areas where naturally occurring asbestos may be present and that this information be made publicly available.

The relevant environmental authority in each state/territory should have the responsibility to regularly monitor sites with naturally occurring asbestos to identify and assess any risks to people and the environment. Where a risk is identified, then that state/territory environmental authority should take whatever steps are necessary to eliminate/minimise the risks.

The draft asbestos regulations contain some provisions for naturally occurring asbestos.

The National Authority should, on a regular basis (eg on a five year basis), monitor the effectiveness of these provisions, keep a watching brief on any unexpected issues and make recommendations where necessary with regard to amending the regulations.

16. What responsibility should governments have in relation to the removal of asbestos from former government owner properties that have been sold or otherwise disposed of? What responsibility should governments have for the presences of asbestos in

It should be remembered that former government owned ‘assets’ include not only properties but also plant and pits (eg telecommunication pits).

The relevant government should provide any information it may have on the presence of asbestos in any buildings/assets it has already disposed of to current owners of those assets. This information should be provided directly where possible, and also made publicly available on a central website.


15

circumstances where it came about as a consequence of the specification of government agencies at the time?

It must ensure that in any sales currently being effected the up to date register is provided.

Any sale of domestic housing from government to private citizens should not proceed without any asbestos being removed prior to transfer.

17. What activities, if any, should be included in a national strategic plan in relation to the removal and handling of asbestos? Who is best placed to deliver these activities?

The National Asbestos Authority should:

monitor asbestos removals, particularly in relation to the issues raised, below

promote the use of licensed removalists for all removal work

work with local governments/state/territory jurisdictions to designate and plan for sufficient disposal locations, including appropriate alternative disposal facilities

promote transparent pricing for removal and disposal

18. Should incentives be provided for homeowners to identify asbestos and if so what kind of incentives would be appropriate?

As submitted above, the VTHC believes that there needs to be a system implemented to ensure that all domestic dwellings have properly undertaken audits done, registers created and lodged centrally. There are a number of possible incentives to promote the completion of these in the shortest possible timeframe – for example:

providing means-tested government funding to facilitate audits and removals of priority asbestos for privately owned domestic dwellings

allowing the cost of undertaking registers, removals, and so on as tax deductions – normally the cost of home improvements is not a tax deduction, however for the purposes of asbestos removal, a home owner who incurs a cost for that removal (including any borrowing costs if funds to remove need to be borrowed) would be able to claim the expense as a tax deduction against personally derived income;

by providing a disincentive through council rates – that is, that council rates for homes with ACM be higher than for homes without ACM – would provide incentive to remove and also price differentiation between homes

ensuring costs for services are kept low and competitive through transparent pricing;

giving owners a nationally recognised certificate

Issues regarding Asbestos removal and the currently proposed nationally harmonised Work Health and Safety Regulations.

As noted above, the VTHC position that all asbestos removals be undertaken by licensed removalists only.

However, as noted above our current (and proposed) regulatory system allows for removals of less than 10 square metres of non-friable asbestos without a license in workplaces, and there are no controls for removals in domestic, privately owned housing at all unless the site becomes a workplace. This is not acceptable.

Where in Victoria, there has been, to date, a limitation that such removal jobs in workplaces were only allowed to be done if


16

they could be completed within a one hour time period over one week, this limitation will not apply under the nationally harmonised regulations. This means, we fear, the potential creation of a new ‘class’ of asbestos removalists – those who hold no licence yet can do an endless succession of removal jobs of less than 10 square metres – both in the one location (over a number of days) or not at the same location.

The position of the VTHC and our affiliates in Victoria has always been that all removalists should also be the equivalent of Class A removalists – that is, be capable and licensed to remove all forms of asbestos, having satisfied the regulatory authority of certification of asbestos occupational health and safety management systems. This is because very often when jobs ‘go wrong’ putting people at risk, these jobs were undertaken by Class B removalists. The experience of our regulator WorkSafe Victoria has generally been that many problem removal jobs have been those undertaken by companies holding Class B removal licences.

3.4 Storage and Transport

19. Is there a need to regulate the storage and transportation of asbestos that has been removed by homeowners from domestic premises? If so, how could this be achieved? What incentives for safe transportation of asbestos material might be provided?

Yes – as noted above, currently there are very few controls on any asbestos-related activity undertaken by homeowners. While there are requirements (in Victoria under the EPA) regarding disposal, too often these are not complied with either due to ignorance or due to the cost. It is impossible to know whether the guidance and information provided to non-commercial operators regarding transport of asbestos is followed.

With all removals being undertaken by licensed removalists only, these problems will be eliminated – or at least much reduced, depending on the compliance levels of licensed removalists. Regulators will need to implement thorough compliance activities, however, to ensure that

With regard to storage – it is not permitted under current Vic OHS (and proposed future WHS) regulations to store asbestos for any length of time in workplaces. There are clear and sensible reasons for this. Storage of any asbestos or ACM should be similarly not permitted for householders.

20. What activities, if any, could be included in a national strategic plan to improve safety when transporting and storing asbestos materials?

An information and advice campaign

Ensuring consistent regulation around Australia;

Promoting fair and transparent fees

3.5 Disposal

21. Are there adequate asbestos disposal sites and facilities throughout Australia?

The safe disposal of ACMs is problematic, and currently in Victoria, at least, there are insufficient registered sites accepting asbestos waste, particularly in the metropolitan area.

There has been a practice of using asbestos contaminated land fill for road making and domestic driveways; the burying of


17

ACM in sites that have later been uncovered during construction or restoration work; illegal dumping of ACMs continues at general waste disposal and illegal dumping in bushland. Even with regulation now in place, the cost of disposing of asbestos is, even of small amounts, is very high. This means that asbestos waste continues to be dumped in:

normal rubbish collections (including ‘green’ collections), creating a hazard for workers at rubbish disposal sites. The VTHC raised an incident with WorkSafe Victoria a couple of years ago, having been alerted to it by a worker who subsequently lost his employment with a contracting company. However, inspectors who visited the site issued a number of notices as the problems identified existed and were serious

on the streets, in lanes and on private properties (eg Church grounds, estates under construction, outside municipal dumps) – again, we regularly receive queries and complaints.

Such dumping is not restricted to domestic waste, but also in some cases amounts that are clearly commercial (as noted in the Issues Paper and reported by NSW study). One of our affiliates with members working in municipal councils has in the past reported that their members were being called to clean up rubbish dumped on the street which turned out to be large quantities of asbestos waste. As noted above, regulators will need to improve compliance activities.

22. Are the fees that are charged for the disposal of asbestos containing waste a disincentive to safe disposal - or do they encourage illegal dumping? Are there additional factors that contribute to the illegal dumping?

Yes, they are a disincentive – but as noted above, it is not only the cost, but at times the distance someone needs to travel to dispose of asbestos legally that can lead to illegal dumping.

Further, it is sometimes difficult to find the location of facilities licensed to take asbestos waste – many do not accept domestic quantities.

Once again, a system of removals only being carried out by licensed removal companies will reduce/eliminate these problems.

23. Should all asbestos containing materials that have been appropriately removed and packaged be able to be disposed at these sites at no additional cost to standard waste disposal fees? Alternatively, how could the cost of accepting and processing * asbestos containing waste be reduced?

Yes, reducing the cost of disposing of asbestos waste (particularly small quantities) would improve the illegal dumping and also resolve some of the issues with the lack of sufficient disposal sites. However, large commercial quantities – that is asbestos disposed of by those undertaking large scale paid removal work – should continue to attract commercial rates. Reducing the disposal costs would not necessarily encourage removalists to charge less for their jobs.

There could be some alternatives/options which could be implemented to reduce costs of domestic removals, and which are offered already in certain locations/by certain removalists, such as:

local councils to set up ‘collection’ sites where for a small fee/free for small amounts of appropriately packaged asbestos waste resulting from removal jobs in domestic dwellings is accepted

Larger licensed removalists agreeing to accept small amounts of appropriately packaged asbestos waste from smaller licensed removal companies undertaking domestic removal work, and disposing of this at the same time as they dispose of the asbestos waste resulting from their business.

* “and processing” - What does this mean? Asbestos waste is not ‘processed’ and therefore the term may be misleading – there is little/no handling by disposal site employees. It must be remembered, however, that disposal sites are workplaces, and


18

so WHS regulations apply.

24. Should uniform national regulations apply to all asbestos disposal sites and facilities?

Yes, this would ensure the same level of protection for disposal site workers, and certainty around the country. It would provide a good opportunity for standardised information and awareness material to be developed and used throughout Australia (for users of such facilities, as well as for operators, workers, etc)

25. Are current approval and monitoring processes sufficient to ensure the long-term safety of the disposal sites that accept asbestos?

The reported ‘red tape’ with regard to approval of sites if accurate, is of concern if this is the reason there are so few sites. However, it is important that a rigorous approval and monitoring process be in place to ensure that disposal sites do not end up becoming environmental disaster zones.

Measures to ensure that all asbestos disposed of at these sites is properly sealed and encapsulated. To facilitate this, common guidelines, requirements, training for operators and workers will be necessary. Facilities on site to ensure that poorly packaged asbestos is not accepted until such time as it is properly packaged may be necessary.

The issue of what the long-term use of these sites might be is one which will need further consideration, given that the quantities of asbestos will end up being extremely large.

If they are to be reverted to public use, the local councils and state/territory governments must ensure they will not pose a risk to those using the land/buildings constructed on the sites.

26. What activities, if any, should be included in a national strategic plan in relation to the disposal of asbestos? Who is best placed to deliver these activities?

As per question 20. Local councils, jointly with the health and safety and environment regulators, are best placed to deliver these activities. A number of activities as listed in the Issues paper, should be consistently carried out by all councils/relevant authorities: information and guidance; penalties; warning signs; security cameras; barriers; etc.

27. If incentives are provided to ensure safe disposal of asbestos, what sort of incentives would be appropriate and who should provide those incentives?

Ensuring the costs of disposal – including disposal fees, cost of packaging materials and signs – is reasonable and affordable

Government: State/territory, jointly with local government, should provide these incentives, as the cost of cleaning up illegal disposals would be borne by them

A high profile compliance program which includes fines (and advertising of these) for both individuals and companies (higher fines for companies) caught dumping asbestos illegally.

3.6 Awareness

General Comment with regards to Awareness and Education

It should be noted that while asbestos exists in our society, Awareness and Education activities will need to be delivered on an on-going basis and be extensive to ensure that no group or generation ‘misses out’ and is consequently put at risk of not just


19

disease, but a real possibility of death. Therefore an effective awareness and education strategy/program is going to be very expensive. As noted in the Issues Paper, there is currently a wide range of government and non-government organisations undertaking public awareness activities. Apart from the need for these to be better coordinated, it must be recognised that their effectiveness is limited – in reach and for the length of the activity.

The only way for even a coordinated and thorough awareness and education strategy to have a ‘finite’ life is to implement a Priority Removal Plan and achieve an Asbestos Free Australia within a set timeframe.

In order to ensure that the Prioritised removal program and all its specific requirements (audits, registers, etc) are understood,

28. What existing activities or information sources could be used to raise awareness of asbestos? What networks not currently used could be utilised to raise asbestos awareness? Who should be responsible for coordinating these efforts? How should this be undertaken?

Existing: health and safety regulators, EPA (or equivalent) websites; Trade courses (TAFE/RTOs; traineeships, etc); Union networks and activities such as Asbestos Awareness Week (annually, last week in November); Asbestos Diseases Support and Advocacy Group networks; Cancer Council.

There is much very good information available already (for example material from the ACT aimed specifically at tradespeople, renovators, and so on - http://www.asbestos.act.gov.au/ ). There are also international campaigns, for example, the VTHC and affiliates have, a number of times, brought to the attention of WorkSafe Victoria, the UK’s HSE awareness raising campaign “Asbestos – The Hidden Killer” 7, however we have not been successful in convincing our regulator to have a similar campaign.

The difficulty, however, is that such programs and information are patchy in terms of coverage and sustainability and perhaps even in terms of accuracy. There is no oversight of what is being produced. Another concern is how easily is good information accessed by those who need to know.

The NAA should coordinate some evaluation of previous information, education and awareness campaigns to maximise the effectiveness and reach of any future programs.

Both business (big, small and medium) and the general public need clear information regarding action needed, how to fulfil the regulatory requirements, how to protect themselves and their communities and where to go for assistance.

The advice of public health educators should be sought: for example anti smoking education, anti skin cancer campaigns. Their expertise needs to be sought and used to advise the proposed NAA.

Not currently used: National hardware chains; local council Safe Week activities; The Men’s Shed organisation; renovation programs on television8; home shows (eg exhibitions); community festivals and activities; local newspapers

The establishment of a National Asbestos Authority and the launch of a National Prioritised Asbestos Removal Plan would be a great opportunity to raise awareness of asbestos with the general community in a very effective way.

7 On the HSE website: http://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/hiddenkiller/index.htm 8 There has been a flurry of activity recently when both unions and asbestos diseases support groups have commented that the producers of these programs have failed to clearly warn viewers of the dangers of asbestos. When challenged, they have responded that any asbestos was removed by licensed removalists, ensuring that no contestants or others were put at risk. However, this was not made clear during the programs that went to air, thereby potentially misleading viewers.


20

http://www.asbestos.act.gov.au/

http://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/hiddenkiller/index.htm

29. What are the barriers to raising asbestos awareness in the community, and for employers and workers, and how can these be addressed?

Too often these sorts of asbestos-related items receive no ‘airspace’ – except for the occasional article when an unexpected person is diagnosed with mesothelioma. Other barriers also:

lack of general understanding of numbers of work-related cancers in general, and extent of diseases caused by asbestos in particular

long latency period of asbestos-related diseases

mistaken belief that asbestos banned therefore not a problem. The VTHC asks this question of HSRs on training courses – and many believe that asbestos was banned in the 1960s in Australia. Surprisingly, at a joint ACTU/Cancer Council, even the Cancer Council commented that it had not been very active in this area due to their belief that asbestos was well-regulated

insufficient funding

However, articles such as the Agenda Item in the Sunday Herald Sun (Agenda pp 98099) on August 21 (attached as separate document to email), serve to heighten general community awareness.

30. What activities should be included in a national strategic plan to improve asbestos awareness in the community? Who is best placed to deliver these activities?

The National Asbestos Authority should work jointly with the Federal, State and Territory governments to develop a strategy and activities to be delivered variously, as appropriated, through the health and safety regulators, local councils and in partnership with any other relevant networks/companies/clubs. Activities could include:

broad advertising and information campaigns

joint campaigns with major hardware chains

flyers and printed information sent with council and water rates

certificates available when asbestos-free homes, buildings sold

plaques for public buildings

3.7 Education

31. Are there further examples of education activities that are already being undertaken? How successful have these been? How could they be improved?

As noted above, the Tasmanian experience has been that education and information has been patchy in that groups of trades people of certain ages have somehow ‘missed out’. It is necessary to ensure that there is a compulsory asbestos component/module in all trades courses for apprentices and trainees.

Consideration should be given to develop a module for all students in secondary schools to be included in basic curriculum.

32. What are the educational needs of: All of these groups need education and information on what the National Strategy means for them specifically – for example,


21

Private property owners?

Employers?

Workers?

The general public?

Are these needs being met? If not, how can these needs be addressed?

what a Prioritised Removal Plan involves; duties to undertake audit and have registers; keeping these up do to date; removal and disposal duties; duties on disposing of property; duties under other legislation; etc etc

Example:

Private property owners (NB- this means Householders – private domestic owners)Need to be provided with information on whether their homes are likely to contain asbestos, and if so, what it looks like, where it might be found, the hazards and risks associated with asbestos and what are the asbestos-related diseases and conditions, what to do if they do have asbestos in their homes next - depending on decisions re removal etc, this information would need to include: removal information; information on commercial removal; disposal; etcAlso need to be provided with information on what they need to do (eg registers, etc )

EmployersDuty of care under WHS regulations: audit and register; duties with regards to removal; provision of information and training for workers; specific duties if the employer is an asbestos removalist; etc

WorkersWhat is asbestos, hazards and risks, and where might it be found in workplaces; what to do; where to get advice; duties of employers; etc Nevertheless while there are clear duties under the occupational health and safety regulations for employers to provide adequate information and training to all workers, not only those who are required to undertake work involving asbestos (both removal and work that may put them in contact with asbestos – eg maintenance work) but also to workers who may be at risk of exposure, the reality is that in too many cases this is inadequate, and there is little compliance activity on the part of the regulators to ensure that it is delivered.

In terms of consistency of training for workers undertaking removal work – this issue is being dealt with under the harmonised WHS regulation, whereby such workers will need to have completed certain units of competency.

The general publicWhat is asbestos; why it’s a problem in Australia; levels of diseases; The National Strategic Plan; etc

Also needed in terms of education/information:

Owners/managers – including owners and or property managers of commercial property such as office buildings, shopping centres and apartment buildings

33. What activities should be included in a national As per question 30 (same question?)


22

strategic plan to improve asbestos awareness in the community? Who is best placed to deliver these activities?

3.8 Remote, Rural and Regional Issues

34. What are the barriers to dealing with asbestos issues in remote, rural and regional communities, and how can these be addressed? Are there any existing information opportunities that could be capitalised on?

There are clearly issues with:

remoteness,

lack of suitable and appropriate information

possibly insufficient numbers of suitably qualified and/or licensed hygienists/assessors/removalists

35. Should a national strategic plan address remote, rural and regional issues as a stand alone priority area, or as an element in each of the proposed priority areas? What would be the benefits of the preferred approach?

Given the issues raised by the Issues Paper that seem to be of particular concern regarding remote/rural ad regional communities it may be that dealing with these as a stand alone priority may be the best way to go. However, the VTHC considers that further discussion, deliberation and a decision on whether to have a stand alone priority or deal with the issues as elements in each priority area should be left to the NAA.

A particular point that has come to the notice of the union movement is that much of the indigenous housing in remote/rural areas in the NT for example, is government housing and contains asbestos. It has been reported to us that in a recently released Indigenous Expenditure report, no funding was set aside for asbestos removal, and when this was questioned, apparently the response was that it had been examined and was ‘considered to be stable by experts’.

36. What activities, if any, should be included in a national strategic plan to improve asbestos awareness and management arrangements for remote, rural and regional communities? Who is best placed to deliver these activities?

See above

3.9 Medical Data

37. Is nationally consolidated information or a database on all asbestos related diseases required?

Yes, Australia currently has a paucity of disease data generally, and although there is now a National Mesothelioma Registry, its existence is due only to the efforts of unions and the research community, a decision having been made by the then ASCC


23

If so:

How can this data be collected?

Who should provide the data and when? And how often should it be updated?

Who should be responsible for the coordination of data collection and reporting?

Who should be able to access the data and under what circumstances?

Identify any privacy issues that need to be addressed in relation to the collection of data and reporting on asbestos related diseases? How should they be addressed?

How should provision of data be enforced?

to discontinue what was then the Australian Mesothelioma Register. The ‘new’ registry was launched on April 30, 20109

However, there is no consolidated database of all asbestos related diseases. NSW has a Dust Diseases Board the statutory function of which is to administer the Workers' Compensation (Dust Diseases) Act 1942. The Act provides compensation to people who have developed one of the following list of diseases or a pathological conditional of the lungs, pleura or peritoneum that may cause one of the following dust diseases through occupational exposure to the relevant dust as a worker in New South Wales:

Aluminosis

Asbestosis

Asbestos induced carcinoma

Asbestos related pleural disease (ARPD)

Bagassosis

Berylliosis

Byssinosis

Farmers' Lung

Hard Metal Pneumoconiosis

Mesothelioma

Silicosis

Silico-tuberculosis

(It also has a research grant scheme.)

Conditions/illnesses directly related to asbestos (such as asbestosis, plural plaques, etc) should be made reportable.

With regards to the difficulties related to diagnosis and therefore data collection of asbestos related lung cancer, the VTHC believes that as lung cancer is a reportable illness, measures need to be taken to improve the collection of data related to potential exposure to asbestos in these cases – work-related exposures should be relatively easy to capture; other exposures less straightforward, but information should be sought and provided.

With regards to who should have access to the data, the following is an answer provided by Safe Work Australia/the then Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations Julia Gillard to a similar question on access to the Mesothelioma Registry:

9 Media Release: http://www.deewr.gov.au/ministers/gillard/media/releases/pages/article_100430_113804.aspx


24

http://www.deewr.gov.au/ministers/gillard/media/releases/pages/article_100430_113804.aspx

“The Registry will publish detailed annual statistical reports which will include incidence and mortality, nationally and by state/territory, age standardised and age specific rates as well as statistical information on exposure patterns – industry, occupation and non-occupational exposure.

In addition the data from the Registry will be made available to researchers following ethics approval. This is necessary due to the confidential nature of the information collected on patients.”

(as provided to Kevin Jones, SafetyAtWork Blog http://safetyatworkblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/new-mesothelioma-registry-and-asbestos-related-disease-data/ )

With regards to the question of privacy provisions there needs to be some examination of what changes there need to be made in terms of the legislation to ensure that the information collected (not only that collated through the current state/territory Cancer Registers, but information on other asbestos-related conditions) can be provided into an central database. The NAA should examine how the information is made available under the Mesothelioma Registry arrangements.

There will need to be protection of personal information once it has been placed into a central database, as there is under current arrangements.

The same applies to how the provision of data should be enforced – not an issue surely, with regard to the compensation authorities providing the data, particularly if there is a national Dust Diseases Board (or equivalent) and provision of data from medical practitioners – make asbestos-related diseases notifiable under the Health Acts.

38. What activities, if any, should be included in a national strategic plan with respect to collection of medical data? Who is best placed to deliver these activities?

The National Asbestos Authority should work towards achieving:

A consolidated data base of all asbestos-related disease – and investigate the best manner this data should be collated and collected – eg through a reporting system gathering data from medical practitioner and also through jurisdictional workers compensation schemes. As noted in the Issues paper, all jurisdictions already maintain Cancer Registers. The NAA should work with all the relevant agencies to ensure consistent and comparable definitions, what information is sought, and so on, so that the data collected can be extracted to be used in a consolidated register for asbestos related cancers and other illnesses.

This data should be provided as soon as the relevant person/organisation in the shortest possible timeframe – if this proves to be six weeks from diagnosis and/or treatment, as with the NSW Cancer Register, then this should be the timeframe.

A nationally consistent approach to the management of dust disease compensation claims and

A coordinated national approach for medical research (through seeking adequate government funding and coordinating allocation of such funding)

The NAA should, in conjunction with federal and state/territory governments, work through the logistics in terms of responsibilities, etc. It may be that, like the National Mesothelioma Registry, the functions are tendered out, but funded through


25

http://safetyatworkblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/new-mesothelioma-registry-and-asbestos-related-disease-data/

http://safetyatworkblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/new-mesothelioma-registry-and-asbestos-related-disease-data/

government.

3.10 Location Data

39. What options are available to provide information to identify locations where asbestos containing materials have been disposed of on public land?

If, as proposed earlier in this submission, audits and registers are completed for all buildings and assets (including private housing) as part of a prioritised asbestos removal plan, then these will form the basis of accurate asbestos location information – again suggested to be placed on a database.

The exercise must begin by collecting whatever information there is already in existence from the various bodies responsible in each jurisdiction, working towards a standardised reporting system (information, format, department to which it is reported) and ensuring this information is collated centrally.

It should begin with government owned and leased properties/assets, then to workplaces generally and commercial properties – a relatively straightforward thing to do as under harmonised WHS regulation, relevant PCBUs will be required to conduct audits and complete registers and this will cover all workplaces with asbestos.

The final stage will be to collect this information from privately owned housing (but begin collecting the latter as soon as available by providing the means for householder to submit their registers to, for example, their local council).

At the same time, there needs to be collection of information on all contaminated sites.

The Issues Paper provides various examples from around Australia of situations where various government bodies have the power to require information from householders, or gather information on contaminated sites, schools, and so on. This illustrates, again, the very patchy and complex nature of current schemes and legislation, and the necessity for one of the priority tasks of the NAA must be to work towards a consistent regulatory approach to all areas of asbestos.

To be overseen by the NAA.

40. Should the disclosure of disposal sites be mandatory for those entities and persons who have knowledge of such sites? What would this achieve? Should an amnesty be provided to any persons or companies providing such information?

Yes – the NAA should examine the Contaminated Sits Act 2003 (WA) and any comparable legislation I other jurisdictions with a view to recommending that consistent legislation be adopted in other jurisdictions

In the meantime, can it be assumed that the EPA or equivalent will have list of licensed sites; local councils will have knowledge of illegal dumping sites (not necessarily just asbestos) and this information should provide the starting point.

Is the assumption here that there are many illegal dumping sites?

41. Have arrangements such as in SA and ACT proved useful in management of ACM in the domestic sector?

The ACT and SA have been useful in demonstrating the sorts of arrangements that can be implemented and promoted to deal with asbestos in the domestic sector, as well as highlighting the need to ensure that there is adequate consideration of the need for assessors, funding, support, information and awareness-raising.


26

Our colleagues from those jurisdictions will be better placed to provide information on the level of success of these arrangements/initiatives.

42. Should disclosure of the location of asbestos materials be required for private property? If so:

Should such disclosure be limited to knowledge of the owner?

What information should be disclosed?

When, how and to whom should such disclosure be made?

See comments above with regard to the VTHC position that that all properties/assets have asbestos audits and registers – which in the case of private domestic properties, would be legislated to be done when renovations/extensions needing permits are to be carried out or at point of sale. Further, with incentives, registers could be done at any other point.

The information would be that required for any register – that is, location, type and condition of asbestos.

This information should be provided to any potential purchaser, and also to the relevant authority (may be local council) as determined in the compilation and collation of national data.

43. Is consolidated information on the location of asbestos required? If so:

How can this data be collected?

Who should provide the data and when? And how often should it be updated?

Who should be responsible for the coordination of data collection and reporting?

Who should be able to access the data and under what circumstances?

Are there privacy issues that need to be addressed in relation to the reporting and subsequent disclosure of the location of asbestos? If so, how should they be addressed?

How should provision of data be enforced?

Yes, consistent with comments made above.

The NAA should determine which state/territory bodies/authorities should be responsible for the collection/collation of data from which sector (eg the workplace health and safety authorities for workplace registers; local councils for domestic dwelling registers; the EPA/equivalent for contaminated site information; etc) and this then be collated into a national database, divided into sectors and placed on a national website.

Workplace registers currently are required to be kept up to date and reviewed every five years or whenever there are changes which affect the management/control plan. This should be the timeframe for updating the data on a national database.

The data should be publicly available as it is in the public interest (as is, for example, the Queensland database of schools containing asbestos).

The VTHC does not believe there would be privacy issues – if there are, then the issue needs to be resolved, as access to such information is in the public interest.

44. What activities, if any, should be included in a national strategic plan to improve reporting and disclosure of information on the location of

The NAA will need to:

consult with all the relevant state/territory authorities/bodies


27

asbestos? develop consistent reporting mechanisms (including what information is sought, according to where the asbestos is – eg homes, sites, etc)

develop the database

coordinate activities

develop a national information campaign

3.11 Exposure Data

45. Are existing requirements for reporting of workplace exposure to asbestos adequate? If not, what further measures are required?

At the moment, the VTHC does not believe that the current requirements are adequate. The model regulations will introduce a level of consistency with regard to health monitoring of asbestos removal workers or workers undertaking asbestos related work, provision of a copy of results to these workers, and the keeping of these records for 40 years. In certain circumstances these reports must also be provided to the regulator – however, there are problems with these circumstances in the last ‘official’ version seen10.

However, health monitoring will not record when other workers may be exposed to asbestos.

The VTHC and affiliates have the policy that whenever a worker has been exposed to asbestos, irrespective of whether that exposure was the result of in situ asbestos, during removal activities, or as part of the job, an Exposure letter is completed and where possible, signed by the employer. It is recommended that copies of this letter be placed on the worker’s file, in their doctor’s file and on the union/ legal firm’s register.11

This policy has been successfully implemented in a number of unionised workplaces, through negotiation and agreement, however there are many large employers and government departments where agreement has not been reached.

With reference to the NSW requirement under the regulation, as discussed in the Issues Paper on p33, on closer examination, it appears that asbestos is NOT covered12 as while it applies to prohibited or notifiable carcinogenic substances, in situ asbestos may not be covered. However if the employer could have the duty to keep such records to all exposures to asbestos,

10 Duty to provide health monitoring report to regulatorA person conducting a business or undertaking for which a worker is carrying out work for which health monitoring is required must give a copy of the health monitoring report relating to a worker to the regulator as soon as practicable after obtaining the report if the report contains:(a) any advice that test results indicate that the worker may have contracted a disease, injury or illness as a result of carrying out the work that triggered the requirement for healthmonitoring;Health monitoring cannot indicate several asbestos-related diseases due to long latency period. These comments were made in the VTHC submission, and we believe this has been rectified.11 For information, including Exposure Letter, see this page on the OHS Reps @ Work website http://www.ohsrep.org.au/hazards/asbestos/asbestos-in-the-workplace/asbestos-action-plan-for-reps/index.cfm 12 For example Chrysotile is listed - except when (r158):


28

http://www.ohsrep.org.au/hazards/asbestos/asbestos-in-the-workplace/asbestos-action-plan-for-reps/index.cfm

http://www.ohsrep.org.au/hazards/asbestos/asbestos-in-the-workplace/asbestos-action-plan-for-reps/index.cfm

and make a copy available to any worker who has been exposed in the workplace, this is the sort of requirement that should be in place in every jurisdiction.

The VTHC does not believe that there is such a requirement under the model WHS Act or Regulations. A similar regulation in the model WHS Regulations (r 387) does not seem to apply to any form of asbestos – as it is not listed in the Schedule of Carcinogenic substances.

The Issues paper suggests (p33) that the current notification requirements under OHS laws (and proposed model WHS laws) cover the situation of where employees have been exposed to asbestos. This is not necessarily the case.

A notifiable incident under Section 35 of the model WHS Act is:

(a) the death of a person; or

(b) a serious injury or illness of a person; or

(c) a dangerous incident.

S 36: A serious injury or illness of a person means an injury or illness requiring the person to have:

(a) immediate treatment as an in-patient in a hospital; or

(b) immediate treatment for:

(i) the amputation of any part of his or her body; or

(ii) a serious head injury; or

(iii) a serious eye injury; or

(iv) a serious burn; or

(v) the separation of his or her skin from an underlying tissue (such as degloving or scalping); or

(vi) a spinal injury; or

(vii) the loss of a bodily function; or

(viii) serious lacerations; or

(c) medical treatment within 48 hours of exposure to a substance,

(a) used for the purpose of research or analysis, or (b) being removed or disposed of, or being handled for storage or stored awaiting disposal, or (c) encountered during non-asbestos mining, or (d) comprising or included in an item being used for the purpose of a historical or educational display.


29

and includes any other injury or illness prescribed by the regulations but does not include an illness or injury of a prescribed kind.

So under this definition, asbestos-related illnesses cannot be covered.

S 37: A dangerous incident means an incident in relation to a workplace that exposes a worker or any other person to a serious risk to a person's health or safety emanating from an immediate or imminent exposure to:

(a) an uncontrolled escape, spillage or leakage of a substance; or

(b) an uncontrolled implosion, explosion or fire; or

(c) an uncontrolled escape of gas or steam; or

(d) an uncontrolled escape of a pressurised substance; or

(e) electric shock; or

(f) the fall or release from a height of any plant, substance or thing; or

(g) the collapse, overturning, failure or malfunction of, or damage to, any plant that is required to be authorised for use in accordance with the regulations; or

(h) the collapse or partial collapse of a structure; or

(i) the collapse or failure of an excavation or of any shoring supporting an excavation; or

(j) the inrush of water, mud or gas in workings, in an underground excavation or tunnel; or

(k) the interruption of the main system of ventilation in an underground excavation or tunnel; or

(l) any other event prescribed by the regulations,

but does not include an incident of a prescribed kind.

It can be seen that in many cases, exposure to asbestos would not require notification.

The VTHC proposes that it should be mandatory for the relevant PCBU to provide workers who are exposed to asbestos at the workplace or in the course of their work with Exposure letters at the time the exposure occurs.

These measures would only need to be in place for the period in which asbestos will be removed as per the Priority removal plan. The only situation in which such measures will still be needed will be where exposure relates to naturally occurring asbestos.

Note: The VTHC has become aware of a recent Russian study which supports the establishment of exposure registers for workers:


30

Registers of health for workers exposed to extremely dangerous toxic chemicals - basis for early diagnosis and prevention of occupational intoxications

The following summary of the study is taken from the August 19, 2011Chemwatch Technical Bulletin Board [pdf ftp://ftp.chemwatch.net/pub/chemwatch/Bulletin/2011/08/190811/110819-Technical.pdf]

During the study, the authors deal with results of specification and functioning of a register of health for workers exposed to extremely dangerous toxic chemicals. Patterns of diseases development in workers according to length of work with toxic chemicals and to work conditions are demonstrated. The authors concluded that the identified cause-effect relationships of the diseases development necessitate health registers to minimise negative consequences in work conditions, for early diagnosis and occupational diseases prevention.

Authors: Filippov, V. L.; Rembovskii, V. R.; Filippova, Yu. V.; Krinitsyn, N. V. Full Source: Meditsina Truda i Promyshlennaya Ekologiya 2010, (1), 35-41 (Russ)

46. Do we need a centralised system for reporting public exposure to asbestos?

What purpose would a centralised exposure register serve?

How would such a system operate? Would reporting be mandatory?

What controls would be required to ensure the data collected adhered to current privacy laws and had the requisite degree of integrity so it could be effectively used by government and for research purposes?

Who would be in charge of collecting, collating and storing such information?

As noted above, the VTHC would prefer to see asbestos removed from the built environment – this would ensure the level of public exposure will be almost eliminated by the end of the removal period.

In the meantime, however, consideration should be given to establishing a means by which members of the public can register their potential exposure. The purpose would be to facilitate any claims to compensation individuals may wish to make in the future should they develop an asbestos-related condition.

Such data would also be useful for research purposes.

47. Can you provide the Review with any examples of exposure registers that are considered to be successful?

The Mesothelioma Registry has been mentioned both in our comments and in the Issues Paper. Respected researchers were instrumental in ensuring that the new register was established when decisions had been made to discontinue the Australian Mesothelioma Register, arguing the value of such a register.

48. What activities, if any, should be included in a


31

ftp://ftp.chemwatch.net/pub/chemwatch/Bulletin/2011/08/190811/110819-Technical.pdf

national strategic plan with respect to collection of exposure data? Who is best placed to deliver these activities?

3.12 Import and Export Controls

49. What are the challenges to enforcing Australia’s ban on the import and export of asbestos containing materials, and how can they be overcome?

The VTHC and our affiliates are aware of the challenges to enforcing Australia’s ban, as discussed in the Issues Paper: varying definitions according to the country of origin; asbestos in products manufactured in countries where asbestos is still in use; etc

It is clear that Australian authorities are active in seeking to enforce our ban and must continue to do so, and must remain aware of the issues.

50. Should Australia take a more active role in encouraging an effective ban on the international trade in asbestos? Who should be responsible for this activity? Should this be a priority under a national strategic plan?

Yes, Australia must remain active internationally and do everything we can to achieve a ban in the international trade in asbestos – otherwise it will continue to kill hundreds of thousands.

The VTHC welcomed Australia’s recent ratification of ILO Convention 162 on Asbestos.

As noted, Chrysotile is not currently listed under the Rotterdam Convention, despite the efforts of Australia and many other countries. Australia should explore what avenues it has with countries such as Canada to encourage them to agree to list chrysotile in Annex 111, thereby making it a PIC substance.

51. Should import and export controls be a priority area under a national strategic plan to improve asbestos awareness and management in Australia? What activities, if any, could be included in a national strategic plan to strengthen the efficacy of Australia’s import/export controls?

No, Australia should maintain the controls it currently has in place and maintain its international activities, however the priority for the national strategic plan must be the prioritised removal in Australia.

Final Comments

Any other matters you wish to bring to the attention of the Review?

The VTHC supports the ADSVIC submission made with regard to treatment, care and support of those suffering with asbestos related diseases.


32


33

Addendum 1:

ACT Asbestos Laws (Residential buildings)(taken from the ACT website) New Asbestos Laws The ACT laws that manage and regulate asbestos (generally) are: Building Act 2004 Construction Occupations (Licensing) Act 2004 ; Dangerous Substances Act 2004 Dangerous Substances (General) Regulations 2004 ; Environment Protection Act 1997 ; Occupational Health and Safety Act 1989 Building Regulation 2004 Construction Occupations (Licensing) Regulation 2004 Part 3.4 of the Dangerous Substances (General) Regulations 2004

Laws for residential buildings

Asbestos laws affecting the residential sector commenced on 1 July 2006. These laws are designed to ensure greater awareness and protection for the industry and the community.By raising public awareness of materials containing asbestos and promoting better management of these materials, we can help reduce the future incidence of asbestos-related diseases.

The Government has developed generic advice about the likely location of asbestos in residential premises built before 1985.

This advice is based on the findings of an asbestos survey of over 600 homes undertaken by the ACT Asbestos Task Force.

The laws require sellers and lessors of residential premises to provide this advice with a contract for sale and with a residential tenancy agreement. It also requires building certifiers to provide this advice when issuing a building approval.Obtaining an Asbestos Assessment Report is optional. However, if an owner/occupier has a current Asbestos Assessment Report that has been undertaken by a Licensed Asbestos Assessor (Class A) it must be provided instead of the Asbestos Advice at the following transaction points:

sale of property; residential tenancy agreements; when engaging a tradesperson or maintenance worker to undertake construction or renovation work; and


34

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/sl/2004-56/default.asp



http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1989-18/


http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/sl/2004-56/




building approval.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Due to the introduction of licensing arrangement for Asbestos Assessors from 1 July 2006, Asbestos Assessment Reports produced prior to 1 July 2006 do not apply.These laws replace the requirement for owners and occupiers (including people renting or leasing who have an obligation to repair and maintain the premises) of premises to give information, in writing, on what they know about materials containing asbestos at the premises to tenants, purchasers, tradespeople and maintenance workers.Penalties do apply to these new laws for non-compliance.

Requirements Those selling their homes, need to provide:

the asbestos advice with a contract for sale; or if available, a current Asbestos Assessment Report that has been undertaken by a Licensed Asbestos Assessor (Class A) you need to provide it instead of the

Asbestos Advice, as it provides specific information about asbestos in and around the home.

Landlords of homes need to provide:

all new tenants (tenants who enter into a residential tenancy agreement after 1 July 2006) with the asbestos advice as part of their residential tenancy agreement;

any current tenants (existing tenants who entered into a residential tenancy agreement before 1 July 06) with the asbestos advice at the point of renewal of their residential tenancy agreement; or

if they have a current Asbestos Assessment Report that has been undertaken by a Licensed Asbestos Assessor (Class A) you need to provide it instead of the Asbestos Advice, as it provides specific information about asbestos in and around their home; and

if they have a current Asbestos Assessment Report that has been undertaken by a Licensed Asbestos Assessor (Class A), they need to provide to provide it to a tradesperson or maintenance worker when engaging them to undertake construction or renovation work on your premises.

Useful information about asbestos for landlords The Asbestos Advice mentioned above informs the tenant about the likely location of asbestos in residential premises built before 1985. Research to date indicates that ACT homes built after 1985 are unlikely to contain asbestos.

To accompany this advice, it is recommended that landlords indicate to their tenants when the property was built and your management procedures for the asbestos at the premises. For example, providing specific contact details for tenants concerned with the condition of asbestos at the premises. They should also provide any other relevant information regarding asbestos at the premises they might have.

If they have an obligation to maintain and repair the premises, it's a good idea to talk to the person who is going to work on the property, e.g. maintentance and trades people, about the likelihood of asbestos on the premises, so that any materials containing asbestos can be safely managed.


35