Able UK and the US Ghost Fleet
Impact Home page		back to main 'Ghost Fleet' briefing

Why the Asbestos is coming - the HSE speaks!

Thank you for your e-mail of 8 September to John Thompson in which you ask for details of the factors that led HSE to grant an exemption certificate from the Asbestos (Prohibitions) Regulations to Able UK. I am replying on his behalf.

As you are aware the Asbestos (Prohibitions) Regulations 1992 (as amended in 1999) prohibit the importation of asbestos though they allow for exemptions. The HSE approaches any request for an exemption certificate in relation to the importation of asbestos on the basis that there is a presumption that asbestos should not be imported. It is not enough simply for the minimum condition set out in the Regulations to be met i.e. that the health and safety of those likely to be affected by the exemption will not be prejudiced. There must be other factors that over-ride the general presumption of a ban on imports. In this case the factors that we took into account in the 25 July 2003 decision included:

The work was similar to other asbestos removal projects carried out legally under UK legislation, and the risks to workers during the removal of asbestos containing material from ships could be controlled as readily, possibly more so, than similar land based work.

The proximity of the company's own Seaton Meadows landfill site from the TERRC (Teesside Environmental Reclamation and Recycling Centre) site, would minimise the risks to the public from the transfers of asbestos waste.

Able UK hold asbestos removal licences issued by the HSE allowing them to carry out removal work of this nature, and they have experience in carrying out work of this complexity and scale.

The contact of HSE inspectors with the company over the years had revealed no grounds for refusing the application. The only enforcement action against the company had been some time ago, and was not directly relevant to asbestos work.

HSE would only allow the importation of the vessels to go ahead if strict conditions concerning the control measures to be taken were specified in the exemption certificate and were similar to those for analogous UK operations.

The importation of these vessels is for the purposes of disposal rather than for the purposes of placing a product onto the UK market, thus avoiding any subsequent potential exposure to asbestos associated with the latter.

The Environment Agency, responsible for policy on the importation and disposal of waste, were content that their requirements had been filled. There are no grounds under the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations to prevent the movement, and although the UK Waste Plan favours the disposal of waste in its country of origin, this case is mainly about the recovery and recycling of ships. These are matters within the regulatory focus of the Environment Agency.

The project will secure existing jobs and create many new ones, and contribute towards the regeneration of the area.

There was widespread local support for the project amongst the Local Authority, the Government Office for the North East, Able UK's own workforce and local MPs.

A precedent existed ? HSE has allowed the importation of asbestos waste from oil rigs for disposal.

In discussions with the US Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs we were told that if the ships were not recycled in the UK they would then consider exporting to other countries, where the recycling would be likely to be carried out with less regard for both environment and the health and safety of workers. There were also assertions by them that there was insufficient capacity available in the US.

In the light of the above factors HSE was satisfied that this was an appropriate case in which to exercise its discretion under the Regulations.

I hope this is helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Bill Macdonald