Request ID: FOI-1906-2122 Date published: 13 January 2022
You asked
F/on from FOI-1602
Regarding the incident on 2 June 2017
(i) why was the station not closed (ii) was airborne fibre analysis performed, if not why and (iii) What time did this incident occur? (iv) was the location of this incident close to an area(s) accessible by the public; and
(iv) Even though this is classed as a "minor" incident why wasn’t this reported to HSE as breach given that your colleague admits that TFL should have known about the presence of asbestos before work was conducted and clearly the person working on this material was likely exposed?
Also per TfL Ref: EIR-2333-2021
Your colleague states that "There has been no such breach of health and safety with regards to asbestos at London Underground’s Moorgate station since January 2015 to current during refurbishment or any other work".
Why is there a discrepancy between this statement and the information you have submitted.
We answered
Our ref: FOI-1906-2122/GH Thank you for your requests received by Transport for London (TfL) on 18 and 21 November 2021 asking for information about Moorgate station. Your request has been considered under the requirements of the Environmental Information Regulations and our information access policy. I can confirm that we do hold the information you require. (i)why was the station not closed (ii) was airborne fibre analysis performed, if not why and (iii) What time did this incident occur? Moorgate station was not closed because the works in question took place during the night of 3 June 2017 into the early hours of the morning of 4 June. Works were stopped at 06.30. The works were not inside the station building, but in a small exterior/external area just outside the station, but still within the boundaries of TfL land. This area is not accessible to the public or staff. The method of work involved spraying the area being worked on with a water mist, to eliminate dust (concerns had been about minimising concrete dust). It was discovered that normal concrete was covering some pipework ducts. These ducts were made from asbestos cement - a cement product with a small proportion of asbestos fibres bound within the cement. Some asbestos insulation board was found to be present but had suffered little disturbance. The workers had been wearing filtering face masks (respiratory protective equipment), and this, combined with the water mist spray, would have eliminated respirable dust and fibres (of all natures), and prevented the spread through the air. An asbestos analyst was engaged. They confirmed the ducts were asbestos cement, and the presence of asbestos insulation board, which were all sprayed with a PVA solution to prevent any further possible fibre release. We have carried our reasonable searches, but have been unable to locate any sample reports relating to this incident, and therefore cannot confirm whether airborne fibre monitoring took place. Also per TfL Ref: EIR-2333-2021 Your colleague states that "There has been no such breach of health and safety with regards to asbestos at London Underground’s Moorgate station since January 2015 to current during refurbishment or any other work". Why is there a discrepancy between this statement and the information you have submitted. There is no discrepancy in the information provided. The nature of the incident meant that it did not release sufficient fibres to potentially constitute a harm to health. Therefore, it was not reportable under the ‘Reporting of Injuries Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) 2013’. Consequently, this incident is not categorised as a breach of health and safety regulations. (i)was the location of this incident close to an area(s) accessible by the public; As advised above, this area is not accessible to the public or staff. (iv) Even though this is classed as a "minor" incident why wasn’t this reported to HSE as breach given that your colleague admits that TFL should have known about the presence of asbestos before work was conducted and clearly the person working on this material was likely exposed? There was no requirement to report the incident to the Health and Safety Executive. The requirement under the Reporting of Injuries Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) 2013 is to report an escape of fibres in a quantity sufficient to cause damage to health – which for reasons stated above was not the case here. . If this is not the information you are looking for, please do not hesitate to contact me. If you are not satisfied with this response please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal. Yours sincerely Graham Hurt FOI Case Officer FOI Case Management Team General Counsel Transport for London
