Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697635758699.pdf (Australia)
Senate Economics References Committee Inquiry into non-conforming building products Greencap is a multi-disciplinary occupational and environmental risk consultancy and is part of the Wesfarmers Industrials Division.

The business was founded in 1984 and has provided asbestos risk management and analytical services to the government, institutional, commercial and industrial sectors.
Greencap maintains technical staff that have approvals to perform asbestos fibre counting and identification analysis in accordance with national accredited test methodologies.

These test methods are assessed by the National Association of Testing Authorities and augmented proficiency programs run by Proficiency Testing Australia.
The testing of asbestos products is based on an optical light microscopy method that employs an assay of asbestos morphology; visibility under cross-polarising light and confirmatory diagnostic test using specific refractory oils that allow dispersion colours to be observed (under plane-polarised light) specific to the three main commercial forms of asbestos utlilised in Australia.

Two of these are the amphibole forms of asbestos commonly termed Crocidolite (blue asbestos) and Amosite (brown asbestos).
Importation of these asbestos materials was banned in 1978.

The most common form present in the Australian built environment and infrastructure is Chrysotile (white asbestos).

Australia banned importation and use of white asbestos in December 2003.

Chrysotile is still in widespread use across Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe and it is only in recent times that mines in Canada have ceased production for export.

Many other sites across the globe continue to produce asbestos products.
The recent instances of importation of product containing asbestos into Australia has resulted largely from procurement of manufactured building and industrial products from overseas sources (e.g.

China).

Many factories in countries in Asia are likely to still be producing asbestos products for internal use and export.

Importers of overseas building and industrial materials are obligated to not import or supply asbestos based products.
The products our business has analysed containing predominantly white asbestos include:       Friction brake pads for motor bikes; Truck brakes; Compressed asbestos cement sheeting (structural fibre cement); Compressed asbestos gasket; Asbestos millboard insulation to electrical door closer units; Asbestos as a contaminant in “talc” and mineral finishes to decorative stone and pool finishes.
The detection of asbestos has been undertaken in response to requests by the Australian Border Force or its agents or through discovery at point of installation and use by various businesses.

In many cases the identification has been difficult as the proportion of asbestos fibre to other mineral and substrate in manufactured products is relatively low and the batches of imported product have varied somewhat based on source of manufacture over time.
It has been our experience in the case of truck friction pads that asbestos content has varied greatly between batches delivered to work places.

Non-conforming building productsSubmission 115 The occurrence of asbestos in product presents an exposure risk at time of use and subsequent maintenance and future work on the products.

In most instances, the static presence of asbestos product installed in remote parts of buildings poses a risk only at the time of new work and demolition.
Industrial friction pads and gaskets, however, are more likely to be routinely serviced and disturbed over the life of the asbestos product.

The importation of asbestos-containing products has presented major problems to businesses when faced with the installed asbestos product in infrastructure and buildings that have been completed.
The installed products are covered in place with energised equipment and structural elements and the removal of the asbestos products requires shut-down of operations and disruption to business.

Installed structural sheeting in control rooms across gas and rail infrastructure sites for instance amounts to millions of dollars’ cost from diversion of supply and closure of operations, with minimum periods for the completion of removal works running from several weeks to months.
In advising businesses, we observe that in some circumstances, it is appropriate to have the organisation allowed to retain the asbestos product safely in place and managed in accordance with relevant parts of the national Work Health and Safety Regulations (the regulations).

This would ensure that exposure risk is controlled until a time when the asbestos can be removed completely when the business does not impact adversely on the community or its workforce.
The regulator requires detailed proof and confirmation that application of the hierarchy of control of potential exposure risk has been demonstrated and fully justified before there is any possibility of dispensation to allow retention of installed asbestos product.

The repeated discovery of asbestos product in infrastructure projects and building workplaces creates doubt as to the situation in other Australian buildings with similar products installed and built since 2004.
It is submitted that a statement of undertakings is required from persons conducting businesses to either ascertain that their building or infrastructure is not impacted by asbestos product, or otherwise manage their site as if asbestos is present where such products have been installed since 2004 on the basis of available records and evidence.
There should be a requirement to ensure additional testing using alternative identification methods to confirm the presence or absence of asbestiform mineral or to ascertain whether non-asbestiform mineral is present.
In Australia, the current identification of asbestos is predominantly by optical light microscopy methods, and in many situations the determination of asbestos in overseas imported products may require the use of alternative identification methods such as electron microscopy and X-ray diffraction methods.
What is problematic in Australia is establishing the level of uncertainty in testing methods adopted as well as the lack of differentiation between levels of quantification and reporting limits and the capacity to identify unequivocally non-asbestiform mineral and microscopic asbestos mineral.

Testing methods commonly adopted in Australia show inconsistencies at levels under 1% between laboratories.
There are limitations with respect to trace contamination; variable asbestos content and dimension of asbestiform mineral (i.e.

asbestos fibres too fine to identify unequivocally).

We submit that a mandatory reporting limit should be established for Australian asbestos identification analytical methods and statements as to qualification of nature and form of asbestos content and uncertainty for non-asbestiform mineral present.
The national proficiency program for identification of asbestos, presently administered by Proficiency Testing Australia, should also evaluate the diversity of products imported which reflect the range of products having asbestos- containing materials.

Non-conforming building productsSubmission 115 The variation in determination of asbestos in products poses an ongoing risk for Australian businesses despite stronger procurement guidance and provision of test reports for imported products.
Only adoption of a consistent international testing regime in countries producing our manufactured goods would provide more comfort for buyers of the range of products potentially impacted by asbestos.

The same may be said for certifying Australian testing facilities for alternative testing methodologies to ensure absolute verification of “asbestos-free” product to defined limits of quantification.
This would then remove doubts about products where there is no unequivocal result and provide assurance to workers and the public that there is no risk of exposure.

Ultimately, the inconsistency in testing methodologies overseas may require that confirmation that products delivered to Australian workplaces and projects are “free” of asbestos is a requirement at the point of shipment and delivery.
The eradication of asbestos product installed over the last decade is costing the business community millions of dollars.

Consideration must be given to allowing reasonable grounds to provide exemption, at this stage, where it is impractical and risky to remove and manage asbestos contaminated material in line with regulations.

Asbestos cannot be eradicated to prevent harm unless there is a direct and appropriate program to remove it where exposure risk is greatest in our built environment.
Asbestos still poses a risk in older buildings, as well as in aging infrastructure such as asbestos cement water pipes, electrical and communication conduits and pits, and even formwork in bridges, roads and tunnels.

While importation of asbestos materials must be stopped, the eradication of asbestos requires a consistent and formal assessment approach overseen by Australian authorities that prioritises on the basis of risk to workers and the public.
Appropriate budgetary allowances should be required from relevant government agencies and the business community, to ensure appropriate in situ management or safe removal of asbestos from the Australian built environment.

Summary 1.
Summary 1.

Require undertakings from persons in control of premises (in particular owners/landlords) to ascertain on the basis of available records and evidence that their building or infrastructure is not contaminated by asbestos product or to otherwise manage their sites as if asbestos is present where such products have been installed since 2004; 2.
Mandate minimum standards for internationally recognised testing methods that allow certification that all imported products meet standards acceptable to Australia; 3.

Mandate a minimum Australian quantification/reporting limit for asbestos identification to include relevant analytical methods and qualifying statements on the nature and form of asbestos content and any uncertainty about non-asbestiform mineral that may be present; 4.
Certify Australian testing facilities for the above mandated testing methodologies to ensure absolute verification of “asbestos-free” product to defined limits of quantification/uncertainty; and 5.

Ensure budgetary allowance across government agencies and the business community to progress, as appropriate, the management in situ, or the complete removal and replacement of installed asbestos infrastructure such as underground asbestos cement water pipes and communication conduits throughout Australia.
Non-conforming building productsSubmission 115