The law requires that principal contractors (PC) must undertake the following actions:

• Project management – plan, manage and monitor the construction phase so that it is carried out safely and without risks to health;
• Contractor engagement – provide information and directions whilst facilitating co-operation and co-ordination between contractors;
• Workforce engagement – make sure the workforce is being inducted, informed, trained and consulted on health and safety;

 Are you doing this?

Email me for a free information sheet at info@spectrumrisk.co.uk

Two Worcestershire companies and a contractor from have been prosecuted for releasing asbestos fibres during an office refurbishment project in Birmingham city centre.

Inspectors from the HSE uncovered a series of failings during the refurbishment work that included upgrading a lift containing asbestos insulating board.

Birmingham Magistrates’ Court heard how the building owners and the project managers hired a builder to carry out work over the weekend.

When lift engineers arrived, they found pieces of asbestos insulating board spread around the lift shaft area and refused to carry on working.

HSE inspectors stopped all workers from going into the building until it had been decontaminated. Air tests taken on several floors of the premises revealed significantly high levels of asbestos fibres, which were also found in several vacuum cleaners.

Asbestos insulating board was found stored in the builders van, which itself was heavily contaminated with raised levels of asbestos fibres in the air. By law it should have been disposed of by a licensed contractor.

The building owner had an asbestos survey which clearly showed that asbestos was present in the lift; the project managers, who have expertise in building work, should have known how to deal with asbestos and materials containing its fibres in refurbishment projects. These companies decided not to use a licensed contractor to remove the asbestos insulating board but to get the work done over a weekend by an unlicensed contractor for a tenth of the cost.

The builder should never have carried out the work and did not take enough precautions to prevent the spread of asbestos fibres.

Asbestos fibres were found to be at significant levels and if the alarm had not been raised, it is likely that people working on the refurbishment and office workers would have been breathing these fibres for some time.

The building owners pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 11(1)(a) and 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and was fined £7,000 and ordered to pay £1,500 costs.

The project managers pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 11(1)(a) and 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and was fined £7,000 and ordered to pay £1,500 costs.

The builder pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 8(1) and 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £823 costs.

A director of a construction firm has been accused of causing, through gross negligence, the death of a child who was killed when a wall he designed collapsed on her.

Three-year-old Meg Burgess was killed when a wall designed by the director and constructed by his company collapsed on to a public footpath where she was walking with her mother.

Given the Directors direct role in the incident the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has decided that he should be charged with gross-negligence manslaughter.

His company, which has ceased trading, has been charged with an offence under section 3 of the HSWA, but escaped a charge of corporate manslaughter because the CPS did not judge it to be in the public interest to prosecute the firm for such an offence.

Rosemary Ainslie, reviewing lawyer for the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, said: “After considering reports from experts on construction standards and advice from counsel, I have decided that the Director should be charged with gross-negligence manslaughter for his role in designing and constructing the wall that collapsed.”

The Plan of Work sets out the work of the Construction Division for 2011/12 and outlines the direction of their work over a longer three-year period. 

The plan is designed to improve the health and safety performance of the construction industry; it builds on work carried out previously and continues their mission to deliver sustainable improvements in the industry’s health and safety performance.  The focus is on making best use of their resources to sustain and, where possible, accelerate long-term improvement in health and safety outcomes.   

Securing Justice

Their commitment to the investigation of work related incidents and ill health will continue and they will take enforcement action to secure justice in cases where people choose to ignore their duties and responsibilities or have failed to comply with them.

Construction Operational Activities

Main operational activities will target the following sectors: 

• Asbestos (licensing and licensed work)
• Small sites/projects
• Refurbishment
• Major clients/projects.

There are five generic issues that will be considered at all site visits.  These are: 

• Work at height
• Asbestos risks
• Provision of welfare facilities 
• Good order
• Respiratory risks.

Any matters of evident concern or potential catastrophic events identified during site visits will also be addressed. 

More to follow, or, email me at Andrew@spectrumrisk.co.uk for the full report

The Health and Safety Executive has opened a three-month consultation on how cost recovery for intervention will operate, having already agreed the underlying principle with Government. The new scheme could apply from as early as April 2012.

The HSE’s programme director, said:

“The Government has agreed that it is right that those who break the law should pay their fair share of the costs to put things right – and not the public purse. These proposals provide a further incentive for people to operate within the law, levelling the playing field between those who comply and those who don’t. Compliant firms will not pay a penny in intervention fees.”

Costs would be recovered, if during an inspection or investigation a material breach – a failure to adhere to health and safety law identified by an inspector as requiring formal action – is discovered. Fees would apply up to the point where HSE’s intervention in supporting businesses in putting matters right has concluded.

Law-abiding businesses will be free from costs and not have to pay a penny.

Under the proposals, HSE will recover costs at current estimates of £133 per hour. Costs of any specialist support needed by HSE would also be passed on. Invoices will need to be paid in 30 days.

HSE is publishing this series of short case studies to promote some of the new and practical solutions used to manage health, safety and welfare during construction of the London 2012 projects, to help others working in construction and inspire further ideas to deal with hazards and manage risk.

Background

Danger from falling objects is always present whatever the size of the construction or building project. This hazard was anticipated as a significant risk on London 2012 projects and one that could be difficult to manage.

Hazard

Records kept during work revealed that falling objects accounted for around 50% of near miss incidents and around half of those objects were tools.

Solution

Full protection from falling tools could only be achieved by full height sheeting, debris netting or similar which was not always practicable. The project therefore adopted an innovative tool lanyard system for work within 2m of an edge not provided with full height sheeting or netting.

If a tool fell from the grasp of the user a retractable line would prevent the tool falling and causing injury.

 The HSE has issued several comments recently indicating that client demands and corner cutting has led to an increase in deaths within the construction industry.

HSE fatality figures, due to be released, are expected to reveal that there is an increase in the amount of deaths of people working in construction during 2010-11,based on the previous year.

This increase has been associated with clients demanding more from their contractors. 

Companies are also facing the consequences of pushing construction workers too hard – last month two construction firms in Northern Ireland were fined a total of £61,000 after 150 tonnes of concrete collapsed injuring six workers.

These facts come at a time when the HSE is seeing its budget reduced by 35% -  the number of proactive site inspections the HSE makes is also being cut.

FACT – It is a legal requirement to provide construction / construction workers with asbestos awareness training* ANNUALLY

CHAS Assessors are also increasingly looking for full compliance as part of the application process

 These construction trades include:

 We are running a 3 hour Asbestos Awareness Course, in Sheffield, on Saturday 14^th May starting at 930 – cost is only £30 per person.

NB:We are registered on the Occupational Safety Consultants Register – we guarantee quality training.

Don’t delay – book today……contact us on info@spectrumrisk.co.uk for a booking form

*Reg 10 Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2006

A builder has been jailed for four months for carrying out illegal gas repairs and leaving electric work in a state that posed a risk of death.

The builder was contracted to build a granny flat at the rear of a house; he started work consistently failed to turn up to finish the job.

The Client called in another builder to give an estimate of how much it would cost to finish the work; during his visit, the builder noticed that pipework leading from a boiler had not been properly secured and that the electrics in the new building had not been earthed.

The Client notified the Metropolitan District Council, which sent out a building control surveyor to inspect the property; the council notified the HSE that it believed the electrical and gas work presented an immediate risk.

The HSE’s investigation found that the builder had carried out the gas work despite not being a Gas Safe registered engineer. The boiler and pipes were not installed adequately and the pipes had not been covered, leaving them exposed to the threat of corrosion.

The builder appeared at Magistrates’ Court on 11 April and pleaded guilty to breaching s3(2) of the HSWA 1974. He also admitted to the following offences under the Gas Safety (Installation & Use) Regulations 1998.
•    reg.  3(3) for carrying out illegal gas work;
•    reg. 7(1) for unsafe installation of gas equipment;
•    reg. 7(3) for leaving gas pipes exposed to corrosion;
•    reg. 26(5)(a) for leaving unsafe gas appliances connected to the mains supply.

In mitigation, he said he carried out the electric and gas work himself, as he had not priced the job correctly; he told the court that he would have made the site safe but the Client had already contacted another builder to finish the job.

Magistrates sentenced him to four months in prison, which they said was a result of the builder presenting a danger to life and property, failing to cooperate with the HSE’s investigation, and for putting profit before safety.