Document View

The United Kingdom's control of asbestos at work (CAWR) regulations in October 2002, introduced a new duty to manage asbestos risk at non-domestic premises. The new regulations took effect on May 21, 2004. In order to meet statutory requirements regarding the compilation of asbestos information and records for all its buildings, as well as identify any asbestos that could pose a risk to buildings users, the London Borough of Hillingdon initiated a four-year asbestos survey program in 1999, to update its records. This involved the identification, management, and removal of asbestos from the property stock. The problem was the enormous scope of unforeseen difficulties and risks leading to project delay, cost and stress. It was believed that the problem arose as a result of poor project planning and communication; a lack of initial reference to the existing asbestos registers, and major refurbishment and /or demolition projects setting off with limited information on asbestos containing materials. By use of a case study methodology, this critical analysis studied the cost implications of setting out with varying degrees of information on asbestos containing materials, using 20 randomly selected refurbishment and/or demolition projects running concurrently with asbestos removals. It was hoped that the knowledge gained would facilitate the development of a strategy for cost containment for similar projects in future. The importance of this study lays in its multi-dimensional approach while paying particular attention to measures of project success of time, cost, quality, and customer satisfaction. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Asbestos is a commercial term given to six naturally occurring fibrous mineral silicates namely: chrysotile (commonly known as white); amosite (commonly known as brown); crocidolite (commonly known as blue); anthophyllite; tremolite; actinolite. Only the first three have widespread commercial use [3].

The asbestos mineral's ability to resist high temperatures is what made it to be used so extensively as a building material in Great Britain . According to the Health & Safety Executive (HSE), 3,500 people in Great Britain die each year from mesothelioma and asbestos related lung cancer as a result of past exposure to asbestos. Annual numbers of deaths are predicted to continue to increase into the next decade. At present, there is no known cure for asbestos-related diseases [3].

Asbestos was used extensively as a building material in Great Britain from the 1950s through to the mid 1980s. Although some of this material has been removed over the years, there are many thousands of tons of asbestos still present in buildings. It is estimated that over half a million nondomestic premises currently have some form of asbestos in them. This will require extensive repair and removal work, which will continue for the foreseeable future [3].

Much has been done to control the risk from asbestos. The use, supply, and importation of asbestos and asbestos products has been banned for all but a few exceptions by the asbestos (prohibition) regulations. Work with asbestos generally requires a license and the use of strict control measures, including personal protective equipment such as respirators. For this reason, the latest revision of the control of asbestos at work regulations (CAWR) introduced (from May 2004) a new duty on those responsible for nondomestic premises to manage the contained asbestos [2].

The UK's construction design and management regulations (CDM) of 1994, require that the client of demolition and major building works take positive steps to identify any hazards associated with the site, including asbestos. They must then informs contractors of any hazards that they find [4]. The making of the CAWR regulations in the UK in October 2002, introduced the new duty to manage asbestos risk in non-domestic premises. Regulation 4, the duty to manage asbestos became a requirement on May 21, 2004, following an 18-month lead-in period [5].

Key Issues

In all but the simplest of building types, an asbestos survey is unlikely to find the location of all asbestos materials. For a typical Type 2 (non-invasive) survey undertaken in an average building, the detection level would typically be approximately 90 percent of the total asbestos materials present or better.

Access to all parts of a building is rarely achieved for various reasons, and variations in materials used during construction can lead to inconsistencies that may not be noticed at the time of the survey [1].

However, Type 3 (invasive) survey, in an empty building, prior to refurbishment or demolition, should give a much better opportunity for locating asbestos materials, as access within walls, floors, ceilings, risers etc. is more likely to reveal inconsistencies and greater details relating to the materials that may be present. Even so, asbestos shuttering within flooring, ducting or hidden voids may still escape detection until the actual refurbishment or demolition process is undertaken [1].

If suspected asbestos containing materials are found during refurbishment or demolition work (and not previously identified), work must be stopped. A full investigation should then be carried out to determine whether asbestos is present (samples collected and analyzed), and proper account taken if asbestos is subsequently confirmed.

All asbestos containing material should always be removed or dealt with by a licensed health and safety executive approved asbestos removal contractor. This will ensure that each client fulfills his/her legal obligations, and that all asbestos waste materials are disposed of strictly in accordance with the current legislation for dealing with asbestos waste. When planning projects, all clients should budget both sufficient time and funds to deal with hidden or trapped asbestos materials, which may have been missed (e.g., concealed within the building structure or, present in previously inaccessible voids etc.) [1].

Asset Management Review

The London Borough of Hillingdon (LBH) manages over 1,000 properties of different sizes, age, construction, location /environment. The majority of these are held primarily for service or socioeconomic reasons. There are also additional properties that the London Borough of Hillingdon leases from other landlords [7]. Reactive and cyclic maintenance work is out-sourced through measured term contractors.

Periodic reviews are carried out to determine the economic benefit deriving from holding onto the current property stock. These reviews include the cost/ benefit analysis, justification to keep, refurbish, demolish or sell/dispose of the assets. These reviews now include asbestos considerations as one of the critical factors affecting investment decisions.

Asbestos Management Program

While cognizant of the following three asbestos survey types: (presumptive, semiintrusive, and intrusive), and as a matter of policy, the asbestos survey type 2 was chosen by the LBH as the minimum for establishing asbestos registers.

However, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) recommends that for all major refurbishment and/or predemolition projects, a type 3 asbestos survey be carried out. In view of this, HSE's survey type recommendation for major projects, this meant that the LBH's type 2 asbestos register basis presented a challenge each time when major projects were considered. In such a case the LBH was faced with a choice of either upgrading the initial type 2 asbestos survey to a type 3, or proceeding with the project, but only after having made the necessary arrangements for on-site surveys, air monitoring, testing and asbestos removals by firms of asbestos surveyors and HSE licensed asbestos removal contractors. There were, however, cost implications for whichever route was preferred. For instance, the asbestos survey costs were largely determined by the property size and the prevailing survey hourly rates. For instance, at the time it costs about £200 ($408.00) per ton to legally dispose of hazardous waste, such as asbestos [8].

All asbestos that had been identified as posing an immediate risk was removed, encapsulated, or prepared for removal.

Where unavoidable delays occurred in removal, management procedures were established to ensure that risks were negated or minimized. All asbestos surveys were entered into the new asbestos database, which will link into the new property database [7]. Table 1 shows the levels of asbestos related activities for the last five financial years to 2004/2005.

As the number of properties with asbestos registers in place began to increase, this resulted in a gradual decline in both surveys and removal projects over the years. Roughly 98 percent of the nonresidential properties had been surveyed by the end of July 2005.

Annual asbestos audits/risk assessments were carried out to ensure that the element of due diligence was exercised/observed at all times.

Mitigation of Problem

Various mitigation measures were employed in dealing with challenging projects. For instance, where mere was a lack of initial reference to the existing asbestos registers, so the relevant register was made available for inspection. However, the necessary arrangement was made for on-site surveys, air monitoring, testing and certification by a firm of asbestos surveyors.

A similar arrangement was made for major refurbishment and/or demolition projects based on type 2 instead of the recommended type 3 asbestos surveys, and in these cases an HSE licensed asbestos removals contractor was involved. In circumstances where it was established that the project contained HSE notifiable asbestos, notification was first carried out as required by the CAWR regulations.

Reflective Analysis

Table 2 summarizes the observations made on asbestos surveying fees cost estimates and these were:

* Type 3 surveys;

* Type 2 surveys; and

* Type 1 surveys

The explanation is that type 3 is intrusive, type 2 is semi-intrusive and type 1 is presumptive.

A cost comparison for asbestos removals projects concurrent with refurbishment and/or demolition was carried out and the results are shown in table 3.

It was observed that type 2 survey-based projects had relatively higher cost variances than those based on type 3 surveys. The average cost variances for type 2 and type 3 based asbestos removal projects were approximately nine percent and zero percent respectively.

Table 4 summarizes the observations made on cost comparisons for asbestos removal projects concurrent with refurbishment and/or demolition and these were:

* Type 1 surveys;

* Type 2 surveys; and

* Type 3 surveys

It was assumed that the observed positive cost variances had occurred mainly because of limited information; work scheduled outside normal working hours charged for at relatively higher rates; project delays partly because of HSE notification; mitigatory design alterations; extension of time delays; and commissions for surveys and removals work were done on an ad hoc basis and introduced higher set-up costs.

Table 5 summarizes the observations made on the risk of finding more asbestos containing material during refurbishment and/or demolition. These included the following.

* Type 1 surveys;

* Type 2 surveys; and,

* Type 3 surveys

The possible explanation is that type 1 presents the greatest probability of finding asbestos, therefore the highest risk to exposure and/or potential litigation.

Table 6 summarizes the cost implications of asbestos survey types and their corresponding information levels as deduced from this critical analysis. The observations were as follows.

* Type 1 surveys;

* Type 2 surveys; and

* Type 3 surveys

The possible explanation is that the probability of finding concealed asbestos is greatest with a type 1 survey basis because of limited information and decreasing toward a type 3, therefore a relatively higher cost for a type 1, in comparison.

A projects audit was carried out against measures of success of time, cost, quality, and customer satisfaction and the results are shown in table 7. On this basis, the author of this article was satisfied that the majority of projects had been executed satisfactorily, with the exception of a few projects that suffered delays, cost overruns, poor quality, and failure to satisfy customers.

Consideration of Options

Health and safety considerations and the nature of the intended projects were major influences to the processes followed and the rationale behind decision-making as shown in table 8.

Lessons Learned

This critical analysis showed that temporary stoppage, as more asbestos containing materials were discovered and dealt with, resulted in increased costs to the project with the characteristics of a domino effect. When planning projects, one should budget both sufficient time and funds to deal with hidden or trapped asbestos materials, which may have been missed (e.g., concealed within the building structure or, present in previously inaccessible voids etc.). It was also observed that poor project planning increased the project costs.

It was deduced that the magnitude of costs corresponded to available information on asbestos containing materials. Thus, higher information levels (e.g., type 3) resulted in relatively low degrees of uncertainty and costs (and vice versa) facilitating good project planning and cost containment. The ultimate benefit was that of meeting satisfactorily the measures of success of time, cost, quality and customer satisfaction.

The critical analysis proved an invaluable experience in furthering knowledge of the provision of project management services. The key issues and challenges encountered covered a broad range of the services that project managers provide for their clients.