Latest News

Welcome to our Latest Health and Safety Brief – your plain  health and safety update. Further information on all featured articles is available.

BUILDER FAILED TO HEED ASBESTOS WARNING

Firm carried out unlicensed asbestos removal work despite being warned

The company was fined a total of £2,500 and ordered to pay £1,250 costs.

Caerphilly Magistrate heard that the firm were replacing a central heating boiler when their carpenters removed a cupboard door clad with asbestos insulation board (AIB) in order to take out the boiler.

A supervisor from a licensed contractor working in a nearby property approached the men when he saw the door outside and warned them of the presence of AIB.

Company well aware of duties

HSE Inspector Steve Richardson said: “The company was well aware of its legal duties in terms of asbestos work as, prior to this incident, it carried out removal of the asbestos boiler flue in a safe manner using qualified personnel.

AIB poses less of a risk if not damaged, but this work exposed the edges of the board increasing the risk of releasing asbestos fibres which could be inhaled by the workers and anyone else using the premises.

This is one of the main reasons why this type of work must be carried out by a licensed contractor, and the work should have stopped as soon as the company was made aware it was AIB.”

FAILED INSPECTION PROMPTS PRE-EMPTIVE PROSECUTION

Firm ignored warnings from safety consultants and HSE Inspectors

Principal contractor Gee Construction Ltd has been ordered to pay over £14k in fines and prosecutions costs after failing to take effective steps to prevent falls on a site at Castlegate, Caerphilly.

The prosecution follows the vist by an HSE inspector on 22 October 2009. The inspector found a number of shortcomings including unguarded lift shafts on the first and second floors, and inadequate edge protection.

Prohibition notices issued at earlier visits. The company,  which is based in Basildon Essex, had received two prohibition notices for work at height issues in 2008 and 2009.

HSE inspector David Kirkpatrick said:

“When we visited the site, we found clear failings that left workers at risk of falling from height, and it was necessary to stop all activity above ground floor level until safe systems of work were put in place.

As principal contractors, the company was responsible for the safety of everyone on the site. It had previously received warnings from HSE and its own safety consultants about safely working at height, but clearly this advice had been ignored.

 Fortunately, despite the increased risk no-one was injured on this site, but this case must serve as a warning to companies of the need to ensure working at height is properly managed.”

REVISED GUIDANCE ON RESPIRATOR FACE FITTING

HSE Inspectors to take action where RPE face fit testing inadequate

Revised HSE guidance to Inspectors on the fitting of respirator protective equipment (RPE) suggests a tougher line on RPE face fit testing.

The Guidance states that: “inspectors are advised to consider formal enforcement action where persons wearing tight-fitting facepieces and have not undergone and passed an appropriate fit test or where fit test results are not readily available”

Face fit test must be appropriate  HSE Inspectors will in the first instance press for suitable control measures e.g. water suppression, exhaust ventilation, to minimise exposure to hazardous substances.

Where RPE is used inspectors will check that a management system exists for correct selection, use, storage and maintenance of RPE.

For tight-fitting face pieces the selection process must include an appropriate fit test. A fit test report should include the following information:

• name of the person fit tested;


• make, model, and size of the face piece;


• whether the wearer’s own mask, company pool mask or a fit test service provider’s test mask was used;

• the test exercises performed during the test;


• fit test method employed;


• measured fit factor values for each exercise (if applicable);


• pass level used;


• date of the test;


• the details of the person carrying out the fit test.

Comment: Where reliance is placed on RPE to protect person from hazardous substances it is no longer acceptable to ’hand out a respirator’.

A tougher enforcement line by the regulator suggests that elimination at source or use of engineering controls is preferable where practicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT OUR HEALTH & SAFETY TEAM