Ignorance of asbestos continues to be a problem

A contractor has been found guilty of potentially exposing workers and shoppers to asbestos on a busy high-street construction site because he flouted the rules on working with this hazardous material.

The contractor was fined for several breaches of asbestos and construction design legislation on the Bromley High Street site. In this case the contractor was a private individual. An HSE inspector who investigated the case, commented that the project had not been properly planned. The project involved the demolition of a building that comprised a restaurant on the ground floor with flats above it. Three workers, whose qualifications could not be proved, were overseen by the contractor.

During the demolition, the workers, who did not recognise that the insulating boards in the restaurant’s ceiling contained asbestos and they used sledgehammers and hand-operated tools to break them up, so they were “more than likely” to have been exposed to asbestos fibres (according to the Inspector).

The investigating HSE Inspector said: 

“Sadly, this kind of incident is all too familiar. The dangers of asbestos are well known; it is the single greatest cause of work-related deaths in the UK, with around 1000 tradesmen dying each year from asbestos-related diseases ... Anyone working with these sorts of materials must commission an asbestos survey to ascertain the level of work needed and then have asbestos removed in a controlled manner by a licensed contractor.”

The contractor pleaded guilty to breaching the following Regulations, for which he was fined a total of £19,300 and ordered to pay full HSE costs of £7654:

• reg.8(1) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, by undertaking work with asbestos without a licence – fine £8000; 


• reg.5 of the same Regulations, by not conducting an asbestos survey – fine £6000; 


• reg.4(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007, by not appointing a competent site manager – fine £2650; and 


• reg.22(1) of the same Regulations by not managing construction work to ensure safety – fine £2650.

In mitigation, the contractor commented that he had made a mistake of ignorance and had not acted for profit motives. He had not deliberately broken the law on asbestos, but had not been aware of it. He had done what he had been asked to do to improve matters since the incident.

The site was cleared after the investigation and has since stood empty behind a first-floor façade. Inspector Seabrook explained that the site is located next to a Sainsbury’s store, which would have potentially exposed shoppers to asbestos while the demolition had been taking place. 

Need help with Health and Safety? Contact us through our website!

Birmingham-based university fined following exposure to asbestos fibres

A Birmingham-based university has been fined, along with a security systems firm, after two workers were exposed to dangerous asbestos fibres while fitting CCTV cameras.

The worker and a 17-year-old trainee were installing the cameras in the reception area at the university's Recreation Centre on 21 July 2009 when they drilled into material containing asbestos fibres.  Both the university and the contractor carrying out the work were prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) following the incident.

Birmingham Magistrates' Court heard the university failed to follow its own procedures on managing, planning and preparing for the installation and the arrangements were unclear and not widely known within the university.

The university pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5(1) of the Management of Health and Safety Regulations 1999 and Regulation 4(9)(c) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and was fined £4,000 and ordered to pay £2,000 costs.

The contractor pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5(a) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £1,000 costs.

The investigating inspector from the HSE said:

"While the amount of asbestos involved in this incident was small, two people now have to live with the knowledge that they may become ill from lung disease in the future.

"The university failed to ensure employees and others working across the site were aware of the presence of asbestos fibres.

"Surveys on the location and conditions of asbestos and materials containing asbestos had been carried out across the university but there was no procedure for communicating the details to contractors.

"The contractor, who had been working for the university for many years, had never been given any information about asbestos - and had never asked for it. They also failed to assess whether asbestos was present, what type of asbestos was involved and what condition it was in, before undertaking work."

If you need help with the management of health and safety in your workplace, please visit our website.

Changes to asbestos legislation, 2012

Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012

These new regulations came into force on 05 April 2012. In practice the changes arising from the new Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 are fairly limited. They mean that some types of non-licensed work with asbestos now have additional requirements, i.e. notification of work, medical surveillance and record keeping. This can be considered as notifiable, non-licensed work.  All other requirements remain unchanged.

The Changes:

• From 6 April 2012, some non-licensed asbestos work needs to be notified to the relevant enforcing authority.
• From the same date, brief written records must be kept of non-licensed asbestos work that has to be notified e.g. copy of the notification with a list of workers on the job, plus the level of likely exposure of those workers to asbestos. This does not require air monitoring on every job, if an estimate of degree of exposure can be made based on experience of similar past tasks or published guidance.
• By April 2015, all workers (and self employed) doing notifiable non-licensed work with asbestos must be under health surveillance by a Doctor. Workers who are already under health surveillance for licensed work need not have another medical examination for non-licensed work. 
• Note that medicals for notifiable non-licensed work are not acceptable for those doing licensed work.

For further information about the services that we can provide, place visit our website.

The HSE has produced a chart to assist in determining which of the (now three possible) catergories work with asbestos falls into:

• Licensed Asbestos Works
• Notifiable, Non-licensed work Asbestos Works
• Notifiable Asbestos Works

Sourced from HSE Website

Personal Protective Equipment - an Overview

Personal Protective Equipment

In this blog article, Mike Ellerby (LRB Consulting Limited) highlights some of the issues concerning the provision and use of personal protective equipment at work, including the duties and responsibilities of employers and employees.

Introduction

Personal protective equipment (PPE) is used widely in many occupational activities and in most workplaces. PPE is diverse and includes eye and face protection; hand and arm protection; protective clothing; high-visibility clothing; foot protection and leg, head protection; hearing protection; respiratory protection; drowning protection and personal fall protection. Personal protective equipment should be considered as a last resort and not as the first port of call when protecting workers from harm.  It is, however, often used as a secondary, back up or additional control measure.

Defining Personal Protective Equipment - PPE

Personal Protective Equipment (or PPE) refers to all equipment and clothing that is intended to be worn or held by a person at work and which affords protection against one or more health or safety risks. PPE includes clothing designed to protect against adverse weather conditions, aprons, gloves, safety footwear, safety helmets, high visibility jackets, eye protectors, safety harnesses, respirators, hearing protectors and life jackets.  PPE does not include items such as ordinary working clothes and work uniforms that do not offer specific personal protection (such as caterer's overalls and similar clothing provided solely in the interests of food hygiene) and does not include other items such as "rape alarms" and crash helmets or VDU filters and spectacles provided in accordance with the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992.

The provision of personal protective equipment

In certain employment situations, personal protective equipment (PPE) is provided in order to offer protection against identified risks.  The need for personal protective equipment should be identified by the risk assessment process, such as that required by Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. Risk assessments carried out under other sets of regulations will also identify the need for personal protective equipment. Other regulations include:
•      The Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002
•      The Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999
•      The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006
•      The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH)
•      The Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005
•      The Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005
•      The Work at Height Regulations 2005
Further to this, the risk assessments should identify the appropriate standards that the personal protective equipment should meet.

Where personal protective equipment is required, it is the employer’s duty to provide this to the employee free of charge to their employees (Section 9 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974).  This prohibits employers from charging for any personal protective equipment required to be provided under any health and safety legislation.  Employers should make suitable arrangements by which employees can inform them of any damage to, or defects in, the PPE issued, so that PPE can be repaired or replaced as appropriate.

Enforcing the appropriate use of the personal protective equipment provided

Employers and employees both have duties and responsibilities relating to the appropriate use of PPE.  The employer has a responsibility to ensure that any PPE provided is worn as appropriate.  This duty is made clear in regulation 10 of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, which states that employers must take all reasonable steps to ensure that personal protective equipment provided is used. Further to this, failure to manage the health, safety and welfare of employees, to ensure the appropriate use of control measures and adherence to policies and procedures is an infringement of Regulation 5 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.  This regulation requires employers to have effective arrangements for the management of health and safety at work.  Effective arrangements, in this context, means working and not merely notional or written, but require the employer to take positive steps to ensure their effectiveness.  This means, for example, getting managers and supervisors to enforce the appropriate use of PPE in the workplace.  This may, eventually, result in disciplinary actions being taken against persistent offenders.  It should be noted, that getting an employee to sign any form of disclaimer will not stand up to scrutiny in court, as under section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 the employer has a duty to ensure the health, safety and welfare of employees so far as is reasonably practicable. 

The situation is not entirely one sided.  Employees must make appropriate use of all personal protective equipment provided, as indeed they must of all control measures identified in the risk assessment process.  In this respect, personal protective equipment is no different from any other control measure identified by the risk assessment process.  Section 7 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 places a duty of employees to insure their own health and safety whilst at work; failure to wear personal protective equipment (as appropriate) is clearly a breach of this duty. Employees also have a duty under (Regulation 10 of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992) to use personal protective equipment appropriately.  Employees who persist in not wearing personal protective equipment may find themselves at risk of prosecution from enforcing authorities as well as also at risk of disciplinary action from their employer.

Factors that must be considered in determining if PPE is suitable

Several factors must be considered in determining whether personal protective equipment is suitable, these include whether:

• it the equipment CE marked, as appropriate;
• it conforms to the appropriate British or European standard (see below);
• it is appropriate for, and effective against, the risks that it intended to protect against;
• it is suitable for the environment in which it is intended to be used;
• it is adjustable to fit the user comfortably and securely;
• it may be worn with all other items of personal protective equipment that are required to be worn;
• it is compatible with other pieces of personal protective equipment that also need to be worn (see below)

As the need for PPE is determined by a risk assessment process, it follows that any PPE issued should not create new risks that are greater than the risk the equipment is intended to protect against.

When more than one item of personal protective equipment is required to be used once (such as hearing protection and a safety helmet), the individual items of equipment must be compatible with each other and must not reduce the level of protection offered by each item individually.  When more than one piece of personal protective equipment must be worn at any one time consideration of compatibility should be made at an early stage and appropriate, compatible equipment should be provided.

Appropriate European standards for PPE

The following table cross references typical items of PPE against the European Standards that they should conform to.

Protection	Typical PPE	Typical European standard
Head	Helmet	EN397
Face	Visor, Face Shield	EN166
Eyes	Goggles, glasses	EN166 - F/F low energy impact B/B medium energy impact A/A high energy impact C/3 protects against chemical liquids D/4 protects against large dust particles G/5 protects against gas and fine particles M/9 protects against molten met
Ears	Hearing (ear muffs, ear plugs)	EN352
Hands	Gloves	EN388, EN374, EN407, EN420, EN511, etc.
Respiratory system	Respiratory protective equipment, such as: respirator, dust mask, etc.	Non-disposable: EN140 (EN141 – 143); Disposable: EN149 Self contained breathing apparatus: BS EN 145 and BS EN 1146:2005 Compressed air line breathing apparatus: BS EN 14593:2005 Fresh air hose apparatus: BS EN 138:1994
Body	Cut resistant clothing, high visibility clothing, thermal clothing, Buoyancy aids, etc.	High-visibility: EN471 Buoyancy: EN395, 396 & 399 Harness: EN361 Lanyard: EN354/355
Feet	Safety shoes, safety boots, riggers boots.	EN345

Training

In addition to the general requirement for training in health and safety, employees must be shown how PPE is to be used.  Although this sounds obvious, some forms of PPE must be used the right way up, etc. (such as ear muffs).  Employers must arrange for suitable training and instruction for employees in the use, storage, maintenance and cleaning of PPE.  It is required that employees be given adequate and comprehensible instructions, information and training in:

• the purpose for which the PPE has been provided
• the risks that it will protect against, including any restrictions or limitations of use, etc
• the correct method of use
• recognising wear, tear and defects
• the employee's role in ensuring the effective maintenance of PPE (e.g. simple user maintenance tasks, such as the replacement of filters on respiratory protective equipment).

Such information, etc must be kept available for employees. Demonstrations in the correct use of PPE must be organised at suitable intervals, where appropriate.

Keeping PPE safe, clean and available

It is a duty of the employer to ensure that any personal protective equipment provided to employees is maintained in an efficient state inefficient working order and in good repair, and this includes replacement of personal protective equipment.  One simple practical method by which employers can reduce the rate of loss and damage to personal protective equipment is by the provision of suitable accommodation for that equipment when it is not in use, as required by Regulation 8 of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992.  This may involve the provision of suitable lockers or of pegs or even of wall mounted boxes as is appropriate to the workplace and to the equipment provided.

Provision of PPE to non-employees

There is no specific requirement to provide personal protective equipment for non-employees.  In certain circumstances, however, the need to provide personal protective equipment for non-employees may arise from the employers duties under section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (duty to ensure the health and safety of non-employees, so far as is reasonably practicable).  Typical examples may include the provision of high visibility jackets for use in yard areas or the provision of safety helmets for use in areas where construction activities are being carried out.

Summary
Although PPE should be viewed as the last resort with respect to keeping employees from harm, the selection and use of PPE is important, as are the appropriate use of the PPE provided and the enforcement of that use by managers and supervisors.  PPE should be selected to protect employees from identified risks and should not create new risks that are greater than those being protected against.  Employees must be provided with PPE free of charge and must be trained in the appropriate use, storage, cleaning and maintenance of the PPE provided.  Employees must make appropriate use of the PPE provided.

Michael Ellerby

LLB BSc CMIOSH MIIRSM MIFSM CChem MRSC CSci
Director
LRB Consulting Limited
www.lrbconsulting.co.uk 
Michael@Lrbconsulting.co.uk

Twitter and me

I will be giving a short business to business (B2B) presentation on Twitter at the end of this month. This is causing me to think about how and why I use Twitter.

How I use Twitter
I use Twitter to promote my business. I do this by:
- talking about what I do
- talking about the type of clients that I work with
- discussing some of the issues that clients face and describing how I am able to help them
- posting photographs of some of the issues that have a visual element
- promoting general services
- promoting training courses
- providing links to interesting and useful articles that I have written
- providing links to news articles relevant to my business and the and services that we provide
- sundry other ways

I use Twitter to follow developments relevant to me that are posted by others. I have stumbled upon great articles and posts while browsing Twitter when on the train or while waiting for a client. This makes the short forays into the "Twitter-sphere" good use of time that is otherwise not productive.

I occasionally use Twitter to "socialise" with others in an informal manner. This is a rarer excursion for me, but can be very handy for staying in touch with other busy people.

Fire Safety, Do you know what you are responsible for? Part 1

Fire Safety, Do you know what you are responsible for? Part 1

Landmark Fire Safety Trial, London Hotel and Director

A London hotel has paid over £260,000 in fines and costs in what is believed to be the first jury trial of a case under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRO).

The Chumleigh Lodge Hotel Limited and its sole director, Michael Wilson, pleaded not guilty to 12 offences under the RRO. The offences date back to 18 May 2008 when the London Fire Brigade was called to a fire at the hotel in Finchley, north London. The blaze had spread quickly from a first floor guest bedroom, up a staircase to the floor above and along a corridor. 3 people escaped from the fire, two by using the stairs and a third by climbing out of a second floor window.

Following the blaze, fire safety inspectors visited the hotel and raised a number of concerns. These included defective fire doors, blocked escape routes and no smoke alarms in some of the hotel’s bedrooms. Mr Wilson was also unable to produce a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment and was also found not to have provided staff with adequate fire safety training.

The fine was divided between the individual defendant, Michael Wilson (£180,000) and the corporate defendant, Chumleigh Lodge Hotel Limited (£30,000). The defendants were further ordered to pay prosecution costs of £50,000, and compensation of £2,000 to the guest who escaped through a second floor window.

The company was found guilty of six offences, while Mr Wilson was found guilty of ‘consent or connivance in the commission’ of those same offences:

• Failure to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of risk (article 9);
• Failure to provide staff with adequate safety training (article 21);
• Failure to ensure emergency routes from the premises are kept clear (article 14);
• Failure to adequately equip premises with fire detectors (article 13);
• Two counts of failure to ensure premises, facilities, equipment or devices are maintained in an efficient state, in working order and in good repair (article 17)
;

Brian Coleman (chairman of London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority) said:

“Business owners have a clear responsibility under fire safety law to ensure that both the public and their employees are as safe as possible from the risk of fire,”

“This verdict sends out a clear message that if these responsibilities are ignored we will not hesitate in prosecuting and people will face serious penalties.

If you need help with Fire Safety, please contact us through the website