The Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick said:

The government is committed to bringing about the biggest change in building safety for a generation. Progress on improving building safety needs to move significantly faster to ensure people are safe in their homes and building owners are held to account. That’s why today I’m announcing a major package of reforms, including establishing the Building Safety Regulator within the Health and Safety Executive to oversee the new regime and publishing consolidated guidance for building owners.

He then went on to add a tough call for action:

Unless swift progress is seen in the coming weeks, I will publicly name building owners where action to remediate unsafe ACM cladding has not started. There can be no more excuses for delay, I’m demanding immediate action.

The Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick said that from next month he will start to name building owners where remediation has not started to remove unsafe Aluminium Composite Material (ACM) cladding from buildings, identified after the Grenfell Tower disaster in June 2017. As the Government says, other high-rise fires, including in a block of student flats in Bolton in November 2019, highlighted that many building owners have still not taken measures to ensure the safety of residents in buildings at all heights.

Jenrick confirmed that the Government will consult on extending the ban on combustible materials to buildings below 18 metres and will seek views on how risks are assessed within buildings to inform policy. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has written to the chairman of the Grenfell Public Inquiry, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, updating him on the government’s response to Phase 1, as published in November.

The British Safety Council haver welcomed the proposals to set up a new Building Safety Regulator within the HSE but warned that it must be adequately resourced and funded.The British Safety Council Chief Executive Mike Robinson said:

We all share a determination that the tragic fire at Grenfell must never, ever happen again. I am glad that the government has accepted the inquiry’s recommendations and that there is now a sense of urgency to implement them. We await the detailed proposals in the Fire Safety Bill with interest.

The post Building Safety Regulator appeared first on LRB.

The post Worker died after fall from a scaffolding access ladder appeared first on LRB.

HSE inspectors will, over the next few weeks, be focusing some of their time and effort on construction, woodworking and food manufacturing where occupational lung diseases, including in some cases occupational cancers, are more common. They will be asking what measures have been put in place to protect workers’ lungs from the likes of asbestos, silica and wood dust.

Inspectors are visiting businesses across the country to see what measures have been put in place to protect workers’ lungs from the likes of asbestos, silica, wood and flour dust. They will be looking for evidence of businesses and their workers knowing the risks, planning their work and using the right controls. Where necessary, HSE will use enforcement to make sure people are protected.

HSE chief medical officer David Fishwick said:

Exposure to asbestos, silica, wood, flour and other dust can have life-changing consequences. Each year work-related lung diseases linked to past exposures are estimated to kill 12,000 workers across Great Britain. In many cases, these diseases take a long time to develop after exposure, so the damage done may not be immediately obvious. Others, such as occupational asthma and acute silicosis, can occur more quickly.

These conditions can and do have a significant impact on both the individuals affected and those closest to them, so it is imperative that workers take the necessary precautions to protect their lungs.

HSE chief inspector of construction Sarah Jardine added:

We are carrying out this series of inspections to ensure businesses are fulfilling their legal duties to protect workers from harm. This includes controlling the levels of dust in workplaces.

We want to ensure employers and their workers are aware of the risks associated with any task that produces dust. Such work needs to be properly planned and use the right controls, such as water suppression, extraction and masks.

The bottom line is we want everyone, workers and their employers, to be protected from harm and ill health so they can go home healthy to their families.

HSE Publication: Construction Dust

Construction Dust

Construction dust is not just a nuisance; it is a real risk to your lungs. Regularly breathing construction dust can cause diseases like lung cancer, asthma, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and silicosis. Construction workers have a high risk of developing these diseases because many common construction tasks can create high dust levels.

These diseases cause permanent disability and early death. Over 500 construction workers are believed to die from exposure to silica dust every year.

Construction Dust is a general term used to what may be found on a construction site. There are three main types:

• Silica dust – Silica is a natural mineral present in large amounts in things like sand, sandstone and granite. It is also commonly found in many construction materials such as concrete and mortar. The silica is broken into very fine dust (also known as Respirable Crystalline Silica or RCS) during many common tasks such as cutting, drilling and grinding. It is often called silica dust (see also Control of exposure to silica dust: A guide for employees).
• Non-silica dust – There are a number of construction products where silica is either not found or present in very low amounts. The most common ones include gypsum, cement, limestone, marble and dolomite. This dust is also mixed with silica dust when cutting things like bricks.
• Wood dust – Wood is widely used in construction and is found in two main forms; softwood and hardwood. Wood-based products are also commonly used including MDF and chipboard (see also Wood dust).

The post HSE Campaign – Workplace Dust appeared first on LRB.

Two contractors have been fined after a worker suffers a fatal injury following a fragile roof fall during construction work.

Wolverhampton Crown Court heard how in September 2015, at the Norton Aluminium foundry site in Norton Canes, a scaffold company employee was fatally injured after falling approximately eleven and a half metres through a fragile roof. The employee was working on the corrugated asbestos cement roof to move and fit temporary scaffold guardrails as part of a larger roof refurbishment project at the site.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that Stephen John Brennan, trading as SB Scaffolding, failed to ensure the health and safety of his employees in relation to the work taking place on the fragile roof at the site. The investigation also found that Sandwell Roofing Limited, a contractor in overall control of the roof refurbishment project, failed to ensure that people not in its employment were not exposed to risks arising from work on the fragile roof.

Stephen John Brennan pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. He was sentenced to six months imprisonment suspended for two years, 180 hours of unpaid community service and ordered to pay costs of £14,000.

Sandwell Roofing Limited of New Wood Farm Stourton, Stourbridge, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £41,125 and ordered to pay costs of £33,000.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Andrew Bowker said:

Falls through fragile roof materials remain one of the most common causes of work-related fatalities during construction work. These risks are well known, and the required control measures well documented in both HSE and industry guidance. This was a tragic and wholly avoidable accident that led to the death of a young man. This death could easily have been prevented if suitable safe systems of work had been in place.

The post (Yet another) fatal injury arsing from a fall from height appeared first on LRB.

The construction firm BAM Nuttall has been fined more than £800,000 after a worker was struck by a large expanded polystyrene (EPS) block.

[AS] was working on the construction of a piling platform (used for construction plant such as rigs or mobile cranes) at Redhill Station in Surrey in 2017 when one of the blocks hit him on the head, fracturing three of his vertebrae. On 20 January an EPS block slipped from the excavator bucket whilst being lowered into place. An investigation by the HSE found that the lifting operation had not been properly planned and the block was simply held between the arm of the excavator and the bucket.

This incident could so easily have been avoided by simply using appropriate lifting accessories such as chains and strops to carry out the lifting operation.

Note:

• BAM Nuttall was fined £900,000 in April last year after a painter fell through a fragile railway station ceiling into a passenger waiting room and sustained severe ligament damage.
• In July 2017 BFK, a joint venture between BAM Nuttall, Ferrovial and Kier, was fined more than £1m over three separate accidents during the construction of the western tunnels for London’s Crossrail project.
• It was also fined £56,000 in 2014 after workers were exposed to lead during the refurbishment of the Nab Tower, and £140,000 over an incident in 2010 in which a construction worker was crushed under a six-tonne concrete and steel beam.

The post Failure to plan (a second article) and to do the basics – lifting operation appeared first on LRB.

Inspectors are visiting businesses across the country to see what measures have been put in place to protect workers’ lungs from the likes of asbestos, silica, wood and flour dust. They will be looking for evidence of businesses and their workers knowing the risks, planning their work and using the right controls. Where necessary, HSE will use enforcement to make sure people are protected.

HSE chief medical officer David Fishwick said:

Exposure to asbestos, silica, wood, flour and other dust can have life-changing consequences. Each year work-related lung diseases linked to past exposures are estimated to kill 12,000 workers across Great Britain. In many cases, these diseases take a long time to develop after exposure, so the damage done may not be immediately obvious. Others, such as occupational asthma and acute silicosis, can occur more quickly.

These conditions can and do have a significant impact on both the individuals affected and those closest to them, so it is imperative that workers take the necessary precautions to protect their lungs.

HSE chief inspector of construction Sarah Jardine added:

We are carrying out this series of inspections to ensure businesses are fulfilling their legal duties to protect workers from harm. This includes controlling the levels of dust in workplaces.

We want to ensure employers and their workers are aware of the risks associated with any task that produces dust. Such work needs to be properly planned and use the right controls, such as water suppression, extraction and masks.

The bottom line is we want everyone, workers and their employers, to be protected from harm and ill health so they can go home healthy to their families.

HSE Publication: Construction Dust

The post HSE Campaign targeting dust appeared first on LRB.

I think that we would all accept that “those in control of work” have a responsibility to ensure that the work is carried out safely. Part of that responsibility is ensuring that there is a safe way of doing it (usually referred to as a safe system of work). The responsibility does not end there; they also need to ensure that workers are aware of this safe system of work and that they adhere to this safe system of work.

When you see headlines like the one above, it raises questions. What happened? Why were they doing the work like that? Were they following the procedure?

In this case, a house building company was fined after a sub-contracted worker suffered serious facial injuries when struck by a falling beam. Llandudno Magistrates’ Court heard how the self-employed, joinery sub-contractor was injured when he was struck on the head by a steel beam that fell during construction of a timber frame home at a site on Tremeirchion Road, Bodfari, resulting in serious facial injuries.

The post CDM – Those in control of work appeared first on LRB.

Reliance on the use of contractors has increased dramatically over recent years in most employment sectors.

Organisations are increasingly concentrating on core activities and operations and are taking on contract staff for chore activities as well as for specific (construction) projects. Many organisations, for example, make use of contract cleaning staff in place of their own cleaning operatives.  Many organisations also take advantage of the increased flexibility with respect to labour that comes from the appropriate use of contract staff.  Many seasonal activities, such as fruit picking have always relied on temporary labour.  In recent years this trend has increased, with more and more organisations taking advantage of the increased flexibility from the use of contract or agency workers.  This increased use of contract staff may present the organisation’s management with various challenges, but in most situations, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.  It is essential, however, that the health and safety implications of this increased use of contract staff are considered and appropriate controls implemented.

Although there are many reasons for using contractors, there are also some disadvantages, including unfamiliarity of the contractor with the employer’s: business, Health and Safety management systems, procedures, work processes, premises, and plant and equipment.

The principles of effective management of contract staff are effectively the same whether the organisation (referred to as the client) uses one individual or a variety of different contract organisations.  It should be remembered, however, that self-employed contractors and contractors working for small organisations may be less aware of health and safety.

A common misconception about responsibility

There is a common, but flawed, belief that appointing a contractor absolves the client from liability for the health and safety aspects of that contracted work. Managers and Directors within organisations can be heard to voice the opinion: “they are the experts in what they do; surely all of the health and safety is down to them to sort out”.

The House of Lords addressed this issue in R v Associated Octel Ltd, 1996. In this appeal case, Octel Ltd argued that section 3 did not involve liability for the actions of independent contractors. The appeal failed, and the court ruled that Octel Ltd was liable under section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act, 1974.  This case clarified that work carried out for a company, such as the work of a contractor, was still regarded as a part of their undertaking and so they retain a duty of care even when the work has been contracted out.

A better understanding of the position

Work undertaken for a client by a contractor is covered by a civil contract. It is good practice for health and safety requirements to be written into such a contract. Health and safety responsibilities, however, are defined by the criminal law and they cannot be passed on from one party to another by a contract. In a client/contractor relationship, both parties will have duties under health and safety law. Similarly, if the contractor employs sub-contractors to carry out some or all of the work, all parties will have some health and safety responsibilities. The extent of the responsibilities of each party will depend on the circumstances.

Controlling Contractors

Setting up to control the work of contractors can be broken down into five steps:

• Identification and the work to be done
• Selection of the Contractor
• Site work by the contractor
• Monitoring the activities of the contractor
• Reviewing the process

Identification of the work to be done

The client should identify all aspects of the work that they want the contractor to do. This should also include work falling within the preparation and completion phases of the project. This information should then be used to identify the hazards associated with the work, allowing the risks arising from that work to be assessed and then avoided, eliminated and reduced. If a contractor has been selected, this is a good time to start discussions with them. The client must provide the contractor with relevant information about site hazards, such as: a copy of the asbestos register, copies of site plans, location of underground services, etc.

Selection of the Contractor

The client must select a contractor who can carry out the work successfully, not only in terms of delivery but also from the point of view of health and safety. The client needs to be satisfied that the contractors are competent to do the work. This means that they have sufficient skills and knowledge to do the job safely and without risks to health. The degree of competence required will depend on the work to be done.  Typically, the client should ascertain and/or obtain:

• the contractor’s experience in the type of work to be done,
• what their health and safety policies, arrangements and practices are,
• their recent health and safety performance (e.g. number of accidents, recent and pending prosecutions or enforcement notices, etc.),
• what qualifications and skills they have
• the level and type of health and safety training and supervision they provide,
• if the contractor will use sub-contractors and, if so, what selection procedures will be used,
• a copy of the contractors(proposed) safety method statement,
• their arrangements for consulting their workforce;
• if they have any independent assessments of their competence,
• if they are members of a relevant trade or professional body,

Some client organisations routinely operate an “approved contractor” list where the answers to these questions have already been established. Some clients will accept new contractors onto this list if they have registered with a third party accreditation scheme (such as: CHAS, Safecontractor, Contractor Plus, Constructionline, Exor, etc.).

The client must ensure that the contractors know and understand what performance is expected and should explain their health and safety arrangements to the contractors. The client should familiarise the contractor with any relevant procedures and permit systems, as well as with the health and safety policy statement and should establish that the contractors understand these and will act in accordance with them.

Site work by the contractor

The client should agree with the contractor, before work starts, how site access is to be obtained and what rules are to be in place, etc.  In most cases, contractors will be required to sign in and also to sign out from the site. It is important for the contractor to have a named site contact and also for the client to have the name and contact details for the contractor’s representative (such as foreman, leading hand, etc.). The contractors should undergo some form of site induction process, to ensure that they are aware of the site rules, fire alarm and evacuation points, etc. It is also in the client’s interests for the contractor to have their own site safety rules relating to the project work being undertaken.

If a formal Permit to Work (see later) system is in operation, these should be addressed and completed before the work is started.

Monitoring the activities of the contractor

Different projects will require different levels of monitoring activities, as will different contractors (established as the relationship develops). The client should monitor the activities of the contractor to ensure that the work is proceeding safely and as planned. This can take many forms, but it should always be recorded as this forms part of the client’s due diligence defence if things do go wrong. Part of the process may involve a formal inspection of the work activity to ensure that safety standards are being maintained and that the contractors’ risk assessments and method statements are being adhered to. The client should, where appropriate, ask to see supporting documentation (such as scaffolding inspection sheets, induction training registers). The client should also establish that other control measures are in place, such as: physical barriers, appropriate use of PPE (hard hats, high vis clothing), etc. The client and contractor should investigate any accidents, incidents or concerns that arise and formulate a suitable corrective action.

The use of a Permit to Work system should also be monitored/audited. This is discussed in a separate article.

Control of Contractors: How much can failure cost?

In a UK court case from a few years ago, a major high street retailer and three of its contractors have been fined for putting people (including members of the public, staff and construction workers) at risk of exposure from asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) during the refurbishment of stores in Reading and Bournemouth. The client was fined £1 million (with costs of £600,000), while the contractors were fined £200,000, £100,000 and £50,000 and were also ordered to pay costs.

During the three month trial, the Crown Court heard that construction workers at the two stores removed ACMs that were present in the ceiling tiles and elsewhere. The court heard that the client did not allocate sufficient time and space for the removal of ACMs at the Reading store. The contractors had to work overnight in enclosures on the shop floor, with the aim of completing small areas of asbestos removal before the shop opened to the public each day. The HSE also alleged that the client failed to ensure that work at the Reading store complied with the appropriate minimum standards set out in legislation and approved codes of practice. The company had produced its own guidance on how asbestos should be removed inside its stores. The court heard, however, that this guidance was followed by contractors inappropriately during the major refurbishment. One contractor failed to minimise the spread of asbestos to the Reading shop floor. Witnesses said that areas cleaned by the company were re-contaminated by air moving through the void between the ceiling tiles and the floor above, and by poor standards of work.

The principal contractor at the Reading store admitted that it should not have permitted a method of asbestos removal which did not allow for adequate sealing of the ceiling void, which resulted in risks to contractors on site. The principal contractor at the Bournemouth store failed to plan, manage and monitor the removal of asbestos-containing materials. It did not prevent the possibility of asbestos being disturbed by its workers in areas that had not been surveyed extensively.

The fines, in this case, were large, but so also was the time investment from the various parties, including the client, to prepare for and attend the trial. Control of contractors is an important area that clients need to address. This situation may be exacerbated by the HSE Fee for Intervention scheme.

Control of Contractors: How much can failure cost (2)?

A global drinks (AD) firm has been ordered to over £277,000 in fines and costs after a contractor was killed as a result of falling six metres through a fragile skylight on a warehouse roof.

Further to this, the worker’s employer (P) must pay just over £30,000 for his failure to protect his staff.

Mr Rogers was working for P in November 2010 on a contract from AD to fix a leak in the warehouse roof and to clean gutters. The judge said the eight-metre high roof was made of corrugated asbestos panels which were fragile along with skylights. The Judge commented: “Yet neither of the brothers (who had to travel a significant distance) was given the proper crawling boards despite the dangers “being blindingly obvious as a matter of common sense”.

Mr Rogers suffered fatal injuries when he fell through one of the 80 skylights on the roof and hit the warehouse’s concrete floor. His brother Trevor, who was also employed by P, had been working alongside him on the roof.

Canterbury Crown Court heard that even though P’s employees went up on the roof as often as every month, there were no crawling boards or scaffolding, harnesses or nets.

As the warehouse owner, AD was responsible for the site and should have ensured its contractors planned and executed work safely.

P was fined £26,667 with £4000 costs after he admitted breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act. AD pleaded guilty to a charge under Section 3(1) of the same Act, was fined £266,677 plus costs of £10,752. AD had responsibility for the site and should have ensured contractors planned their work to ensure it was done safely.

HSE inspector Guy Widdowson said:

P should have provided his workers with suitable equipment” and added “AD could not contract out its health and safety responsibilities just by contracting out a particular job. This is a tragic case in which a devoted husband and father and grandfather lost his life at work … It is sickening that such incidents happen despite the widespread industry knowledge of the risks of working at height and on fragile roofs with equally fragile skylights. His death was entirely preventable.

Need help? Contact us and discuss your problems – 01509 550023

The post Selection and Control of Contractors appeared first on LRB.

Leeds Crown Court heard that in November 2015 Mr Smith was contracted to carry out some roof repairs to a Guest House roof in Northallerton. Scaffolding was erected along the full length of the roof at the front of the property. There was a conservatory structure at the rear of the property and the company erected only a partial scaffold at the rear. The scaffolding erected at the rear failed to take the conservatory into account which left approximately two-thirds of the rear roof edge unprotected.

Health and safety risk managers at North Yorkshire County Council saw the project from their office window and were concerned for the safety of two workers on a roof. The workmen were under the control of Mr Smith and at risk of falling approximately 7m from the unprotected edge of the roof at the rear of the property.

Prison Sentence for Roofing Contractor – Chris Smith pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 6 (3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. The Court sentenced Mr Smith to an eight-month prison sentence (suspended for two) years and ordered that he complete 200 hours of community service and pay £5800 in prosecution costs.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Tania Shiffer commented:

Work at height, such as roof work, is a high-risk activity that accounts for a high proportion of workplace serious injuries and fatalities each year.

There were not suitable or sufficient measures in place to prevent the risk of a person falling a distance liable to cause personal injury.

This is a good example of HSE working closely with local authority partners, helping Great Britain work well.

The post Prison Sentence for Roofing Contractor appeared first on LRB.

In a prosecution brought by the Health & Safety Executive (HSE), Dudley magistrates heard how people were working on the roof for Woodhull Roofing had no safety measures in place to prevent them from falling. Woodhull Roofing Ltd was contracted to carry out work for Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council. The work was to coat roofing bolts in an asbestos cement roof, to seal leaks. While working on the corrugated roof a worker misplaced his footing when moving a board and stepped onto a fragile roof light. He fell through the roof onto a concrete floor approximately four metres below. He broke several ribs and suffered spinal injuries.

An HSE investigation found that the roof work was not undertaken with inadequate precautions to provide support or protection – unsafe roof work. Woodhull Roofing Ltd of Stratford Road, Shirley was fined £40,000 and ordered to pay costs of £495.27 after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 9 (2) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.

HSE inspector Gareth Langston said after the hearing: “Falls from height remain one of the most common causes of work-related fatalities in this country and the risks associated with working at height are well known. In this case, suitable measures such as sufficient platforms, handrails and netting should have been provided to ensure the health and safety of people working at height on the roof.”

Unsafe roof work is a significant (but avoidable,) cause of workplace death and injury.

The post Unsafe roof work appeared first on LRB.