logo
Call us: +44 (0)1865 244727

  • Home
  • Scope
  • News
  • Products
    • RADAR
    • CALL-OFF PROJECTS
  • Clients
  • Contact
  • How we work
    • Independent
      • Common law orthodoxies
      • Sensationalism
      • Expert witness
      • Regulation and Politics
      • Tied services
    • Up-to-date
      • Timely
      • Insurance Scenarios
      • Probabilistic Methods
    • Expert
      • Personal Injury
      • Trends
    • Innovative
  • Database
    • Member’s login
    • Member’s Settings
    • Register
    • RADAR Database
  • Recent projects
    • EMFs
    • STRESS AT WORK
    • WHIPLASH
    • WELDING RODS: MANGANESE EXPOSURE
    • ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE
    • Other Projects



2001. Asbestos in premises – duty to manage.

May 24, 2012
by Andrew@Reliabilityoxford.co.uk
0 Comment
The new duties extend the explicit  responsibility of property owners and occupiers. There are also changes to health surveillance regimes. Surveillance could result in insurers being put on notice of the risk of serious disease in 20 to 40 years time. This would create a data management problem.

Evidence from:

HSE Con Doc CD 176.

The Radar report is available to subscribers:

1#11 13

Evidence from:

Managing asbestos in premises. rev. ed., HSE, 2001. (INDG223 (rev2)) ISBN 07176209214

Aimed at people who own, occupy, manage or have responsibilities for premises which may contain asbestos and explains a new duty to manage these premises under the revised Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations (due to come into force in 2002). It advises how to identify, assess and manage any asbestos-containing materials in premises to protect the health of workers or others who may use the premises. A checklist is included.

Comment
Health surveillance organised in this way should be effective in setting a date of knowledge among groups of co-workers who display similar signs. However, it may be many years after being put on notice before any firm evidence of harm is found. Clear guidance on the prognostic value of early signs would be helpful in reducing uncertainty. HSE guide MS 13 informs medical practitioners of relevant early signs, but cautions that they are non-specific.

The other obvious reason for undertaking health surveillance/ screening is the fitness of workers to use breathing apparatus. Some lung diseases contra-indicate the use of BA.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

*
*

captcha *

Search Documents


Categories

  • Causation
    • de minimis
    • material contribution
  • Date of knowledge
  • Diagnosis
  • Duty of Care
  • Exposure estimation data
  • Mitigation
  • Motor related injury
  • News
  • Uncategorized

Archives

  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • November 2020
  • January 2020
  • November 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • April 2018
  • November 2017
  • July 2017
  • April 2017
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • November 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • July 2014
  • April 2014
  • February 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012

© Re: Liability (Oxford) Ltd. 2012. All rights reserved.
Website Design by The Big Picture