HSE have fairly dragged their heels on this one. They recently stated that legislative amendments would be timetabled only for September and April.
Does this sudden alacrity mean that timetable is to be abandoned ?

The real issue here rests with the subsequent withdrawal and replacement of myriad ACoP and Guidance documents (L143, Asbestos Essentials etc.). HSE have invested heavily in ACM publications over the last 5 years or so and it's going to cost a lot to get the guidance to align with what the Regs should have said.

There's the little matter of significant "unlearning" of information given via various Asbestos Awareness Courses over the last 5 years or so too.
Regulation 10 makes great play on the fact that Awareness refresher should not be a regurgitation of the initial formal training (such as that provided by UKATA, AITP and others). Given the significant issues involved here, it can be argued that any previous formal training is now invalid?

This "sporadic, low intensity" issue has been misinterpreted from day 1. It shouldn't relate to the duration of the work, but to the fibre exposure. We have risk assessed, monitored and sampled tasks from the essentials manual and have zero fibre counts. We have no reason or requirement then to time-limit these sort of tasks.
HSE muddied this whole issue entirely by retaining in the L143 ACoP permissible non-licensed short-duration work on AIB - something the Directives simply do not permit.

Hopefully revised guidance will clear this up - quickly!

Changing the Regs is the easy bit. The real ££££££ lies beyond that.

HSE proposals for revised Regs tend to hinge on the presumption that AIB in "good" condition is a "non-friable" material. I'd be interested to hear the views of others in this regard.

I'm still scratching my head around the proposed creation of a new work category of "notifiable non-licensed work" (NNLW) and the types of work that would apply to.

Phew! Thanks Chris, I thought I was going ga-ga. My impression is of the HSE attempting to work some sort of flanker around the lack of definition of 'non-friable' in the Directive (despite what HSE's own existing HSG 248 guidance says!)

I'm still struggling with this proposed new 'NNLW' category, but presumably this would be work above "sporadic and low intensity exposure" (UK = >0.6f/cm3 over 10 minute reference) and below the control limit (UK = 0.1f/cm3 over 4 hours).

On the face of it, one would presume HSE have figures to back up their proposed listing of NNLW tasks falling between these values, but given this somewhat sudden determination of AIB as 'non-friable' - well..........I have my doubts.

Bob, You rightly identify one area of long-standing confusion in understanding of the current Regulations.

The current Regulations and ACoP are quite clear and are compliant with the Directive requirements (Member States are free to determine their own definition of "sporadic and low intensity").

In the UK this is defined in Regulation 3(3) and in paragraph 32 (page 10) of the L143 ACoP. Quite simply, the term relates to a defined concentration of fibres in the air - nothing more. In the UK this is defined (in our Guidance) as 0.6f/cm3 over a 10 minute reference period. In that respect Bob, neither of your readings is correct.

The real issue here for me is this sea-change of definition of AIB as "non-fraible". My expert contacts are concerned and consider this to be a nonsense, and attempt to perpetuate the current allowed system of short-duration work on AIB.
Have a look at what the opening line of paragraph 41 of L143 has to say about AIB.

"Due to the relative ease with which asbestos fibres can be released when working with asbestos insulation and insulating board,...."

How can that be equated with "non-friable"?

The current approach permitted by para 41 is also to be determined and confirmed via risk assessment, an assessment which can only be validated where available air monitoring data confirms the lower 0.6 concentration will not be breached.

In reality, it is just this type of work that continues to result in prosecution, numerous RIDDOR Dangerous Occurences, and God knows how many undiscovered and unreported disturbances across the demolition and maintenance sector. The HSE know this, and yet they would appear to seek to perpetuate a regulatory framework that does little to address it.

In fairness, they do at least explore this issue in the CD question set.
In the real world though, considering the lack of compliance with the requirement to undertake a task specific Risk Assessment (and pay for the evidence to back that up) how many of these jobs do we seriously expect to be notified under this proposed new category of "Notifiable Non-Licensed Work"?

I see no improvement here in these proposals, nor do I see any solid basis for improved management and prevention of exposure. The current Regulations & Guidance are not well undestood, and these proposals are only going to muddy things further.

I would take gutters to be Asbestos Cement Bob, in which case the "sporadic low intensity" issue would only apply if they were in very poor condition?

Nothing at all wrong with non-licensed persons spending a couple of days taking down AC gutters in good condition. "short, non-continous" restrictions wouldn't apply - Reg 3(2)(c)(ii) refers.

See also ACoP para 40, but I would suggest that paragraph is one that is widely misinterpreted and responsible for much of the current confusion.

Bob, it was the "industry" that blew the whistle to our friends in Europe regarding incorrect UK application of the Directive, resulting in UK Regs offering a lesser degree of protection. I'd be interested in any references you have to the industry (asbestos, construction or other) resisting or objecting to full Directive compliance?