DAY ONE

by Nick Garland, FAAM committee member and Director Assure360

The first day’s amazing morning session was kicked off by keynote speaker John Cherrie, who asked “how did we get here?”, and more importantly, “where do we go next?”. Drawing on his lifetime of work modelling asbestos exposure, he provided insight into where we should put our policy effort.

Professor Cherrie explained how the presence of asbestos and its removal are complex, but the resulting exposure can be modelled. This lets you compare likely exposure among building users, for example, in buildings that contain asbestos, when asbestos is being removed, or when this work has been finished. You can also of course factor in exposure in the asbestos workers tasked with removing the material.

Models also let us compare with the dangers of doing nothing (i.e. manage in situ), and only dealing with asbestos when the building is at the end of its life – typically when it is 100 years old.

John went into a huge amount of detail, exploring predicted exposure for groups including teachers, maintenance workers and firefighters. He looked in more detail at removalists wearing respirators, but also the potential risks to those nearby during and after removal works. The key takeaway? We can expect around double the asbestos exposure if we do nothing with a building, compared to what happens if we remove its asbestos.

Fifty years of the Asbestos Workers Survey

Gillian Nichols of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) presented insight from the Great Britain Asbestos Worker survey – an astonishing, unique resource. For 54 years the HSE has been following up with those exposed to the material. From the top, the survey tells an interesting story of shifting understanding and priorities: at first it tracked asbestos manufacturing workers, then insulators, and latterly those exposed through removals.

The UK regulators showed incredible foresight to introduce this only a few years after the UK started regulating asbestos and a full four years before the HSE even existed! The fact it has been maintained for more than 50 years is deeply impressive, and has resulted in a superb resource.

Gillian shared some highlights from the project. Over time, more than 120,000 workers have completed at least one of the questionnaires, and granted the HSE permission to follow up with the NHS and their health records. Interesting nuggets of information ranged from the time spent in an enclosure per week having doubled since the early 90s, to the fact that smoking among asbestos workers is nearly triple that of the general population.

When everyone in the asbestos industry knows how smoking has a multiplying effect on cancer consequences, this last is a stark statistic, but it’s borne out by disease numbers. Asbestos workers are more than 13 times more likely to die from mesothelioma than the population at large. But they also seem more susceptible to a whole range of other cancers. Lung, stomach, kidney and rectal cancers are all from 1.5 to 2 times more common. If this isn’t a wake up call to asbestos workers to take removal methods more seriously, look after their respirators – and be more diligent even with shaving – I don’t know what is.

One last slide from Gillian really caught my eye, illustrating the unsurprising correlation between mortality and the length of time spent in this hazardous industry. But the statistics also show that our regulations are having an effect. Those who began in the industry since the 1990s (around the advent of wet stripping), have mortality rates 10-fold lower than those who started out in the earliest years of the industry.

The definition of asbestos

With all that’s known about asbestos and asbestos use, you might think we have a definitive definition for what it is. It’s surprising when you explain to those outside of the industry that’s not strictly the case. Thus doctor Andrey Korchevskiy provided a though-provoking conclusion to the mind-blowing morning session.

Those of you who have experienced Andrey talking at FAAM before will know that the fast pace and sheer mountain of information that he presents is astonishing – and just before a break might have been ambitious for the organisers. But the clarity and inescapability of his argument was clear.

Dr Korchevskiy demonstrated how the bio-persistence (how long a fibre can last in lung fluids), rigidity and smoothness of fibres maps incredibly closely to the lifetime death stats that we have been measuring for decades. This correlation explains why we know that crocidolite and amosite (both very rigid) are significantly more hazardous than chrysotile.

More than that, it can be used to predict when non-asbestos fibres might become mesotheliomagenic (likely to cause mesothelioma). For example, fibre dimensions, bio-persistence and rigidity can be used to predict whether carbon nanotubes can cause mesothelioma.

For decades we have struggled and failed to absolutely and definitively define asbestos. Maybe in mesotheliomagenic we have a term that can be linked more to health outcomes, than the geological origin of the original fibre.

Sam Lord gave us an HSE update, where the biggest news was the pivot that the regulators are taking with regard to analytical companies and their failures. Prosecution of surveyors that don’t find all the asbestos has been a gap in the stick part of the HSE’s duties for some time.

The afternoon

The afternoon commenced with a heart-rending talk by mesothelioma sufferer Sue Farrall, who provided a timely reminder of why so many of us choose to work in this field. She explained her experience: an incredibly slow diagnosis where the possibility of mesothelioma was just not considered, despite her having classic symptoms, because she didn’t fit the profile of an elderly man that has worked with asbestos.

Sue shared her story, from the huge operation she underwent to remove the entirety of her pleural membrane and diaphragm, to the quite astonishing 29-plus mile walked marathon she completed despite being out of breath after two flights of stairs. Amazing.

Shortly afterwards, we had talks from a pair of fantastic international organisations. The first was Brian Eva’s update on the excellent work of FAMANZ in Australia, New Zealand and the wider South East Asia region. And then Dr Yvonne Waterman of the Global Asbestos Forum gave us all an update on what is happening around the world – underlining why her organisation has changed its name to the Global Asbestos Forum, rather than ‘just’ being European.

Alas, there was not much in the way of good news. Yvonne explained the likeliness that the EPA in the U.S. would be reduced to a mere token organisation, and relayed how government funding for the South African asbestos cement removal programme was being embezzled. Even the excellent Flanders declaration that all asbestos in schools would be removed – and that the government would pay – has apparently merely led to a doubling of project costs. How depressing.

The bright spark in Yvonne’s talk was the launch of her new magazine. At 87 pages, this has been no small undertaking – and it has been completed in this same classy style that is the hallmark of everything she does. Filled with fascinating articles, from leading lights in the industry, and all with the amazingly beautiful pictures taken by Tony Rich. If you haven’t seen a copy yet I would get on the mailing list before they all go: info@globalasbestosforum.org.

Do (or don’t) as I say

The day’s final session was one I’d particularly been looking forward to. Phoebe Smith of the HSE managed to overcome what might have been considered the graveyard slot; the end of a very long day where your brain just can’t absorb any more. Her energy was astonishing, carrying her around the conference room while she involved everyone, blowing away all the cobwebs in no time.

Phoebe is a clinical psychologist, and the human factors technical lead for the HSE. I can almost hear you ask what ‘human factors’ is: it’s essentially why people do (and don’t do) what you and your procedures would ideally like them to. This is a constant complaint in the asbestos industry, and Phoebe’s talk gave me the beginning of an insight into where we have been going wrong – for probably 20 years.

I’m still reflecting on what I learned, but Phoebe turned much of what we do upside down by explaining the importance of when NOT to have a procedure. She explained the need to pick your moments, and only put the effort into a procedure where the risk and consequences warrant it, because to get it right is a much bigger task than you might think.

So, when the situation warrants it, how do you create the ideal procedure – one that people will actually follow? Phoebe showed how it must work:

• As imagined (by remote managers)
• As described (by workers)
• As proscribed
• As done (actually watch and verify it meets the design)

Are all overlapping, and creating the ideal procedure means distilling them all down in a way that works for all groups. Phoebe’s work is insightful, and it feels like something from which we can all learn a huge amount. I hope I’ll have the opportunity to engage with her more in the coming weeks and months.

So many highlights, and as the more observant among you will note I’ve only got to the end of day one! Even then I haven’t had time to mention Garry Burdett and James Staff’s comparison between electron and phase contrast microscopy (PCM), and how closely they can perform.

You’ll notice I also haven’t had time to summarise day two, which featured a comparably stellar lineup of speakers, covering a similarly stimulating range of subjects. All in all this really was a fabulous conference. I’d like to extend a huge thanks to the FAAM conference committee for organising it, and most especially Sara Mason. Sara, long-serving chair of that group, and longtime FAAM committee member, is stepping down. As swan songs go, this was fantastic.

DAY TWO

by Joanna Parker and Marcus Hill, FAAM conference committee members

Day two of the conference started with a session I had the privilege to host, exploring the complex challenges of asbestos management during construction projects. Framed through a tri-factor perspective, the session examined this issue from multiple vantage points. Managing asbestos is never simple, but during times of significant change, the challenges become even more pronounced.

The goal was to broaden understanding across all stakeholder groups and ultimately promote better project outcomes. Although the presenters prepared their talks independently, several recurring themes emerged throughout the session: the critical importance of properly scoping works, having robust processes and procedures in place, ensuring access to high-quality asbestos information and reporting, and – perhaps most importantly – prioritizing communication and collaboration.

]Insights from the Front Line

James Maxwell, speaking from the perspective of an Asbestos Manager or Dutyholder, shared his experiences managing asbestos at North Manchester General Hospital. He described the comprehensive support systems in place to guide project managers from concept through to completion. From delivering bespoke training for project teams to crafting detailed specifications for abatement works, James emphasized the value of integrating specialist asbestos knowledge into every project phase. His insights underscored how operational understanding of the site is essential to minimize disruption to critical hospital functions.

Next, Marcus Hill of Asbestos Risk Control offered a consultant’s take on the asbestos landscape. He addressed the need for consultants to understand their clients – how they work, what they know, and crucially, what they don’t know. Marcus illuminated the difficulties that arise when working with uninformed clients, particularly in the domestic sector, where awareness and expectations can vary widely.

One particularly thought-provoking point was his discussion of the Dunning-Kruger Effect – the idea that individuals may overestimate their expertise in the absence of meaningful feedback. If surveyors aren’t included in broader project activities or given guidance on report writing, how can their skills evolve? The lack of constructive critique, especially from clients who may not be equipped to evaluate reports, hampers the feedback loop essential for quality improvement.

From the Coal Face to the Board Room

Wrapping up the discussion, Robin Metheringham, Associate Director of Health, Safety & Wellbeing at Mace, shared his perspective on managing safety in large capital work programmes. His message resonated strongly: everyone involved in a project has the power to influence safety outcomes.

Robin didn’t shy away from the complexities – he detailed the balancing act project managers perform every day, with asbestos being just one of many competing risks. His focus on the key factors for success – clear procedures, competency, and collaboration – was compelling. But his most powerful point? True success hinges on cultural change. Risks like asbestos must be owned and understood at every level, from site operatives to senior executives.

Dinosaurs, Trains, and the Evolution of Risk

Following a much-needed coffee break, Stephen Robinson took us on an unexpected but enlightening journey through Jurassic World and the British rail system. His talk, The Evolution of Asbestos Risk Management in Network Rail, may not seem like a likely place for dinosaurs, but the pairing worked brilliantly.

By using the chaos of Jurassic Park as a metaphor for complex risk scenarios, Stephen introduced the concept of risk bow ties and how they can be applied to assess and manage asbestos risk within a vast and varied infrastructure portfolio. With 7,000 buildings, 9,200 bridges, over 6,000 miles of track, and countless other assets, the scale and diversity of the Network Rail estate left my asbestos management mind reeling.

Stephen showcased a suite of practical tools for managing asbestos risk and improving internal processes. His focus on intelligent auditing and organizational pathways offered a fresh and dynamic approach – one that delivers not just compliance, but real assurance that the right controls are in place and working effectively.

Looking Ahead: The Future of Asbestos Removal

The morning concluded with a forward-looking session by Graham Warren from the Asbestos & Environmental Safety Association (ASESA), who explored what lies ahead for the asbestos removal industry. Drawing on decades of experience, Graham reflected on the significant progress made – reductions in exposure levels, improved working practices, enhanced ventilation systems, and better personal monitoring. These are meaningful achievements, but as he pointed out, the journey is far from over.

With growing parliamentary interest in asbestos policy and increasing momentum toward Net Zero Carbon goals, Graham urged the industry to think critically about its environmental impact. Asbestos removal is not traditionally known for its sustainability. However, opportunities exist – from segregating waste streams more effectively and rethinking enclosure materials to questioning long-standing practices like the use of baglocks.

In closing, Graham addressed the potential implications of future changes to the control limit and what these might mean for removal practices. He raised important questions about non-licensed asbestos work, including this being a somewhat unknown area of risk. Should all asbestos work require notification? Is it time to transition from basic training to formal qualifications across the board? These are the kinds of conversations that must shape the industry’s future to build upon on the improvements already made.

Predictive Modelling and the National Asbestos Heat Map – Rick Vandeson, Asbestos and Silica Safety and Eradication Agency (Australia)

Rick Vandeson, Director of Research, Evaluation and Data at Australia’s Asbestos and Silica Safety and Eradication Agency (ASEA), presented an impressive update on the development and application of Australia’s National Residential Asbestos Heat Map, a predictive tool designed to estimate the likelihood of asbestos presence in residential areas across the country. Despite a 20-year ban, Australia still suffers over 4,000 asbestos-related deaths annually, prompting ASEA’s drive for targeted asbestos removal and management.

The Heat Map aggregates disparate datasets, including known asbestos presence, construction age, and socioeconomic indicators, into AI-driven models based on Statistical Area 1 zones. These zones group clusters of homes. Built using a machine learning algorithm, the model initially achieved 94 percent accuracy and has since been further refined.

Importantly, the tool has been integrated into the Digital Atlas of Australia, enabling overlays with datasets such as bushfire risk, flood zones, cyclone paths, and waste facility locations. This allows policymakers and emergency responders to plan proactive asbestos removal or prioritise safe clean-up operations after disasters. Vandeson illustrated this using examples from Sydney, Canberra, and Queensland’s cyclone-prone coastal regions.

Further applications include community profiling, such as identifying language needs for public health communication, allowing more effective outreach in multicultural regions.

Vandeson’s talk demonstrated how data science can support practical asbestos risk mitigation, and he acknowledged key contributors including Dr Georgia Katib for spearheading the Heat Map’s development.

Update from the Asbestos Information Certificate

John Richards, Asbestos Information Certificate, presented a compelling case for transforming how the asbestos industry handles data, outlining work by the Asbestos Information Certificate (AIC) to build a practical, risk-led national database. Despite decades of asbestos management, the UK still lacks a full understanding of the scale and distribution of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs). John highlighted a core issue: the wealth of data held in survey reports is underused, inconsistently recorded, and often inaccessible to the people who need it most.

By applying machine learning and natural language processing, the AIC team is developing a tool that analyses survey data, categorises materials into risk-based groups, and links findings to specific building types and usage scenarios. This allows for prioritisation, particularly in high-risk environments like schools. The model builds on the concept of an asbestos certificate like an energy performance certificate, simplifying complex survey data for non-specialists.

John stressed that current industry data quality is poor, with frequent errors, inconsistent terminology, and limited standardisation. The team’s approach involves aligning asbestos records to Ordnance Survey Unique Property Reference Numbers, enabling cross-referencing with national infrastructure data.

An interactive map now allows users to view asbestos risk profiles by parliamentary constituency, combining ACM counts, damage levels, and mesothelioma to road death ratios. This aims to bring political focus to asbestos risk.

John called for national coordination, better training, and clear building classifications. Without strategic planning and data-led action, he warned, the UK will still be debating asbestos removal in 2075.

Asbestos Surveyor’s Register and Chartered Status

by Marcus Hill, asbestos consultant and FAAM conference committee member.

Be Aware, Take Care – Asbestos volunteers needed

Paul Beaumont, IATP CEO delivered a thought-provoking and characteristically humorous session that tackled a serious issue: the persistent knowledge gap around asbestos, despite nearly four decades of legislation and awareness campaigns. Drawing on over 40 years in the industry, Beaumont challenged attendees to reframe their assumptions, calling for renewed public communication and personal involvement from professionals.

He explored the deep historical roots of asbestos use in the UK, referencing Turner Brothers’ expansion in the late 1800s and early reports of asbestos harm by 1899. Beaumont highlighted a long lineage of ignored warnings, ineffective enforcement, and the repeated failure to protect workers and the public through adequate awareness training, despite successive regulations from 1931 to 2012 and multiple awareness campaigns such as HSE’s “Hidden Killer.”

The heart of his talk was a call to action: Beaumont is developing a publicly searchable database of asbestos professionals willing to offer short, non-commercial educational talks to local groups, schools, trades associations, and more. He made a passionate plea for delegates to volunteer their time and expertise to help fill the training void, especially among tradespeople who have never received formal asbestos awareness.

Illustrated with anecdotes, videos, and stark examples of recent uncontrolled AIB disturbance, Beaumont’s message was clear: the regulations are not enough.  Ongoing engagement and education remain essential.  His final message was a rallying cry to use the experience in the room, potentially thousands of years combined to protect those still unaware of the risks.

FAAM Research Update

Garry Burdett, FAAM committee member,  provided a comprehensive update on the FAAM Science and Technology (SC3) Committee’s recent work and future research priorities. Emphasising collaboration and knowledge-sharing, Burdett encouraged wider participation in SC3’s efforts, which are open to any asbestos professional willing to contribute time and expertise. Monthly meetings serve to maintain momentum, and recent outputs reflect an expanding portfolio.

A key development has been the success of FAAM’s webinar series, which provides space for deeper discussion than conferences allow. Topics have included research prioritisation, updates from HSE, and technical debates such as PCM versus TEM. Burdett underscored the value of these sessions in surfacing industry consensus and capturing international perspectives.

He outlined FAAM’s involvement in the HSE Research Prioritisation Summit, where three key themes emerged: effective asbestos removal, understanding historical exposures, and assessing the effectiveness of ongoing in-situ management. These have informed a growing list of priority research areas.

A notable live project is the development and interlaboratory testing of an enlarged phase contrast graticule, addressing limitations in fibre counting at lower concentrations. Early results show promising consistency, with further data to come. Burdett also flagged future research directions, including a comparative analysis of PCM and TEM results for chrysotile and crocidolite, and exploratory steps toward AI-assisted PCM fibre counting, contingent on regulatory support.

In closing, Burdett reinforced the need for cooperative, low-cost research efforts and urged professionals to contribute data, filters, or insight to help drive progress.

Introducing the professional register for qualified Asbestos Surveyors

Kevin Bampton, BOHS CEO presented a compelling case for strengthening accountability and professional recognition in the asbestos sector. Drawing from recent discussions with the HSE, trading standards, and professional bodies, he highlighted the persistent lack of safeguards for clients who rely on unverified asbestos surveyors. He shared troubling examples, including forged certificates and criminal operations targeting homeowners, demonstrating how easy it remains for individuals to falsely claim competence.

In response, BOHS will publish a publicly searchable register of individuals who hold valid asbestos-related certifications such as the P402. While holding a certificate is not the same as being competent, Kevin stressed that not having one, or faking one, presents a serious risk. The register will serve as a basic verification tool and a starting point for clients seeking assurance. BOHS also plans to offer an ethical sign-up option, where individuals can agree to be held accountable to a peer-reviewed code of conduct. This would be supported by a nominal fee to cover regulatory oversight.

Kevin also introduced the concept of developing a route to chartered status for asbestos professionals. This would mirror existing systems in other fields such as engineering and occupational hygiene, allowing true expertise in asbestos to be recognised at the highest level. BOHS has secured agreement in principle from its internal regulators and the Privy Council to pursue this, contingent on sector interest.

He concluded with gratitude to staff, committees, and supporters, reinforcing BOHS’s commitment to education, rigour, and public protection across the asbestos profession.