Hi D, In my experience the significance of "trace" is debateable. Analysts (who I'm sure will correct me if I am wrong) will use the term trace when there is some indication of Asbestos being present, but not in sufficient quantities to make its detection quantifiable. So minute quantities are present when a swab is taken. There is no proof that the dust seen contains asbestos and that the asbestos has become airbourne - whilst this is not a watertight argument in terms of managing asbestos, it does give you a good indication of not only is the asbestos present in trace amounts, it may not even be in the dust being made airbourne. This is all for staff reassurance only though - it sounds like you are doing the right thing by getting rid of the unit. The way to get more "accurate" indications of what people may have inhaled would be to have air monitoring carried out - although this would only give you an indication of what is present in the air at the time - and now you have sealed the safe, the levels should be dropping. (If really concerned, swaps of the environment should give you an indication of how much asbestos has escaped. As you have said you do not want to cause undue concern. I would think about what other tests you are going to do (environmental swabs and air tests if you want to) and use these results to inform employees if necessary. There is little in the way of biological or health monitoring that can be done for these sorts of exposures. Asbestos workers are monitored over the long term for reduced lung function, etc: this would probably be inappropriate for your workers unless you are convinced exposure was high. I do not believe the actual exposure will be reportable, but depending upon how the safe will be dismantled this may be notifiable. Your approved asbestos removers should be able to advise on this. Lastly the survey - Surveyors will only survey what they can see, and there is a get out clause to this effect in their surveys. If the safe was secured or out of the way they will not have looked at it. This is why I always tell people to give the surveyors lists of rooms, maps, etc to ensure everything is surveyed. Hope this helps!

Taking the amorris response forward then, on the basis of this "trace" report, you do not necessarily have confirmation that the safe actually has an asbestos lining. There may be security specialists out there who can help with information about old safes where the manufacturer is defunct. Dare I say it- maybe even the HSE specialists might be able to help. Irrespective of all of that, the safe could presumably be sealed/ resealed so as to encapsulate any presumed lining material. Cheaper than specialist disposal (certainly more sustainable)?

Whether its trace or not does not remove the risk. Its' still asbestos. If the safe/ cabinet is lined it will probably be Asbestos Insulating Board (AIB) and is therefore notifiable. However, you could choose to clean & seal the item and manage the asbestos. You don't necessarily have to dispose of it unless you choose to based on the risk to people using it/ in the vicinity of it. Record the inadvertent exposure for your records and get the people affected to the same (a good employer will encourage them to do this). Asbestos related diseases have a long latency period so a health check is probably not going to throw anything up relating to this exposure. You are limited in that respect. If you show that you are managing the problem both retrospectively and going forward then your staff should gain some peace of mind. An exposure of short duration and intensity should not result in any health problems. In my opinion it could be deemed a dangerous occurrence and would therefore fall within RIDDOR (I am not aware of RIDDOR stipulating control limits, etc. Maybe I am wrong in this). You could arrange for air monitoring to be carried out for further reassurance but the air conditions in the place where the item is may have changed. Survey reports should (but don't always) detect the presence of asbestos. There use to be the provision for caveats but these are strongly discouraged in HSG264 Asbestos - The Survey Guide. Strong justification has to given as to why a area/ location/ item has not been surveyed. There never has been an automatic 'get out' but thats not to say that some 'surveyors' abused the guidance.

From what has been said there is no evidence that anyone has been exposed, no evidence to suggest that exposure limits have been exceeded. Not a dangerous Occurrence, not reportable under RIDDOR There will be thousands of samples taken every day across the country showing "trace" Getting rid of the safe is a good solution Steve

Given that it's a fire proof safe 'of an age' and with a positive amosite sample taken from it, then yes it is highly likely to contain asbestos. Don't forget the requirement to presume that asbestos is present unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. No need to use my title in here Ron, it'll make people jealous. ;-)

Cheers Chris! Just making the point that we have no absolute proof here that the trace came from the safe itself. A strong presumption in any event I would agree. My main reason for attempting to strike a balance here is that removing a large heavy safe from a building can be a very difficult and costly exercise. Not unusual for a building to have been built up around a safe, with no thought whatsoever of it ever having to come out! This still happens to this day with installation of floor safes. "CDM!" I here you cry! -but such is life.

So the answer is no, not reportable under RIDDOR Steve