Asbestos News - asbestos industry news – removal, surveying, waste

Bath MP Don Foster’s backing for asbestos dump protest

Asbestos News — Mon, 14 May 2012 08:31:24 +0000

Bath MP Don Foster has added his voice to a campaign to stop the dumping of thousands of tonnes of asbestos in a quarry in the north east Somerset countryside.

His intervention means that politicians in both Bath and Bristol have now raised concerns about the possible impact on water supplies of the plans for Stowey Quarry near Chew Valley Lake.

B&NES Council is considering an application to turn the quarry into a landfill dump for 645,000 tonnes of asbestos and inert waste.

It had approved plans for the landfill site in July but then quashed the decision after procedural errors.

A new application has since been lodged with the council, triggering the relaunch of a major campaign by environmentalists and residents.

Mr Foster has lodged an official objection with the council, pointing to new concerns from the Environment Agency over the risk to groundwater supplies, and the potential for substances to leach out of the quarry.

In his letter of objection, he urges the council to reject what he calls “these flawed proposals”.

The opposition of Mr Foster and politicians in Bristol has been welcomed by the Stop Stowey Quarry group.

One of its leading lights is GP and entertainer Dr Phil Hammond. Bristol Water has also opposed the application.

In a statement, applicant Larry Edmunds, from Matrix Movements, said: “We have engaged in detailed discussions with the Environment Agency with regard to the environmental permit for the proposed activity.

“All necessary studies will be carried out to ensure the site will function without adverse effect on the environment, including water supplies.”

Source: This is Bath

Asbestos Industry News is the online voice for UK Asbestos News. The site covers information about asbestos management, asbestos surveying, asbestos removal, asbestos recruitment, asbestos claims, asbestos waste, asbestos legislation, asbestos inspection, asbestos related disease, asbestos training and much more. Visit www.asbestosindustrynews.co.uk, and subscribe to the RSS feed. or Subscribe to Asbestos Industry News by Email

Follow us on Twitter @UK_AsbestosNews

Somerset widow gets Bristol Water asbestos death payout

Asbestos News — Thu, 10 May 2012 07:58:36 +0000

A Somerset woman is to get £290,000 in compensation from Bristol Water following her husband’s death from cancer caused by his contact with asbestos.

David Bean, from Shepton Mallet, had worked for the company as an engineer.

He had no protection when visiting pumping stations housing boilers covered with asbestos cement lagging.

Bristol Water said “stringent safety measures” had now been introduced for staff working with asbestos.

The solicitor for his wife Jean said the money would compensate her for loss of income resulting from his death last year at the age of 73.

‘No protective mask’

Solicitor Brigitte Chandler said: “Mr Bean visited pumping stations all over the western area.

“They contained large boilers, often the size of houses, which were covered with asbestos cement lagging.

“Mr Bean would have been in contact with the asbestos as he walked around the pumping station.

“He was never given protective masks or clothing and continued to be exposed to asbestos until he left the company in 1992.

“Mr Bean was healthy until September 2010 when he developed chest pains, coughing and breathlessness. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma.”

‘Disturbed and inhaled’

Malignant mesothelioma is a form of cancer which affects the thin membrane that lines the chest and abdomen. About 2,400 people are diagnosed with the condition in the UK each year.

According to Cancer Research UK, up to 80% of cases of malignant mesothelioma are caused by exposure to asbestos fibres.

A spokesman for Bristol Water said: “It is with regret that Mr Bean, a retired former employee of Bristol Water and its predecessors, who started work with the business in the 1950s has passed away as a consequence of mesothelioma.

“Bristol Water’s insurers have made a compensation payment as a result of Mr Bean’s historic exposure from asbestos disturbed whilst carrying out his duties.

“In modern times, stringent safety measures have been introduced to avoid the risk of hazardous substances such as asbestos being disturbed and inhaled by employees.”

Source: BBC News Somerset

Follow us on Twitter @UK_AsbestosNews

Local councils satisfy HSE on asbestos management in schools

Asbestos News — Tue, 08 May 2012 08:14:17 +0000

An HSE survey and follow-up inspection initiative has revealed that 72 per cent of councils in England are managing asbestos in their ‘system-build’ schools in accordance with the appropriate procedures.

A common feature of system-build schools, many of which were constructed between 1945 and 1980, is that structural columns were fire-proofed with asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and enclosed by metal casings, or cladding.

To assess how well local authorities in England are meeting their legal obligations on managing asbestos in such schools, the HSE carried out an online questionnaire. Of the 152 councils in England that have responsibility for providing education, 110 satisfied the HSE, via their answers to the survey, that they have systems in place to comply with the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006.

The remaining 42 local authorities were visited by HSE inspectors to ensure that they were also managing the risks from asbestos. These inspections resulted in 32 councils being given further advice about practical improvements and 10 authorities receiving enforcement notices to improve asbestos-management standards − covering issues such as training and the need to provide information for tradespeople carrying out work on school premises.

Commenting on its findings, head of the HSE’s public-services sector, Rosalind Roberts, said: “We are satisfied that most local authorities were taking their responsibilities seriously when it comes to managing asbestos in system-build schools.

“Where local authorities had fallen below acceptable standards, we took action to secure improvements. There are key lessons for the whole education sector. Those responsible for managing asbestos must be properly trained and management plans, which set out the measures to be taken to manage the risks, must be in place and readily available.”

However, the findings jar with those of a pilot study of 12 schools carried out earlier this year by the Asbestos Training and Consultancy Association (ATAC). According to the organisation, its assessment revealed a lack of clarity between local authorities and schools over who is legally the duty-holder responsible for managing asbestos, and claimed that training on asbestos in schools is poor to non-existent.

Asbestos in Schools (AiS) safety campaigner, Michael Lees, stands by the ATAC report and believes the HSE’s findings include substantial evidence of non-compliance among schools.

He said: “This new HSE report highlights that many schools and local authorities are still not safely managing their asbestos and underlines the urgent need for all the schools and authorities in the country that are not adequately protecting their occupants from the dangers of asbestos to be identified, and then brought up to a safe standard.

“The previous Government recognised that measures have to be taken to improve the asbestos management in schools by establishing an expert steering group under the Department for Education to recommend practical measures that will achieve this. The Coalition Government has not yet confirmed that the steering group will continue. This report shows that it is essential that it does.”

The HSE’s report highlights a number of key actions for local authorities, including:

Ensure that contractors have provided asbestos awareness training for their workforce;
Check that where asbestos management functions are delegated to site personnel those staff are trained and competent for the role; and
Check that site-specific asbestos-management plans are in place, and that these consider ongoing maintenance and refurbishment work and how to deal with unplanned ‘emergency’ work, such as damage caused by burst pipes.

The survey and inspection programme were carried out in conjunction with the Department for Education (DfE). A similar initiative will be undertaken between October and March 2011 to check that those schools that fall outside local-authority control are also complying with the Control of Asbestos Regulations.

Source: SHP

Follow us on Twitter @UK_AsbestosNews

Council neglected to inform tenants of asbestos disturbance

Asbestos News — Tue, 08 May 2012 08:09:19 +0000

A local authority and a building contractor left a family exposed to asbestos for three days during renovation works at a house in Lincoln.

Lincoln Magistrates’ Court heard that City of Lincoln Council had contracted County Waste (Lincs) Ltd to refurbish a bathroom at a residential property. The council had identified that asbestos insulation boards were present in the room and had contacted a licensed company to remove them. But the work was never carried out and the council contacted County Waste to inspect the site to see if it was necessary for a licensed contractor to be brought in.

On 10 June 2008, one of County Waste’s workers visited the property, but instead of inspecting the boarding, he prised off the panels with a crowbar and broke them into pieces. Some of the debris was left on the bathroom floor, and the worker walked around the property for the rest of the day in clothing that may have been contaminated with asbestos fibres.

The tenant family complained to the council about the debris and a council worker visited the house on the same day to inspect the damage. He identified that the debris contained asbestos but didn’t inform the family, which was not moved to another property for three days.

City of Lincoln Council appeared in court on 3 June and pleaded guilty to breaching reg. 8(1)(a) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, for failing to put adequate procedures in place to protect workers, and s3(1) of the HSWA 1974. It was fined a total of £10,000 and ordered to pay £12,000 in costs.

The council’s director of housing and community services, John Bibby, said: “The council has cooperated fully with the HSE in its investigation into this matter and reiterates that it is committed to achieving and maintaining the highest levels of health and safety management.

“On this occasion the council accepts that it fell below its own high standards. That failing needs to be looked at in the context of the council’s previous good safety record. The incident itself occurred in June 2008 and the council has undertaken a full review of the relevant policies and procedures, sought appropriate advice, and, where necessary, put in place changes to its procedures so that there can be no repetition of an incident of this nature.”

County Waste attended the same hearing and pleaded guilty to breaching reg. 10(1) and reg. 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, for not providing adequate training to workers in contact with asbestos, and for not taking steps to prevent the spread of asbestos. It also pleaded guilty to reg. 24(1)(b) of the same legislation, for failing to safely package and dispose of the debris. It was fined a total of £4250 with costs of £6000.

In mitigation, the firm said it had no previous convictions and regretted the incident. It added that the incident occurred due to an employee deciding to remove the boards, which went against the instructions it had issued. The company has subsequently provided employees with additional asbestos awareness training.

Following the hearing, HSE inspector Martin Giles said: “The council failed to ensure the contractor was competent to carry out the work and had no procedures in place to be followed in the event of serious and imminent danger to its employees. It failed to protect its tenants and ensure that they were not exposed to risks to their health following the release of asbestos fibres.

“Not informing the family about the seriousness of the problem and leaving them in the property for three days before re-housing them was an irresponsible and unacceptable act for a landlord.

“Because County Waste failed to provide adequate information, instruction and training to ensure employees liable to be exposed to asbestos were able to safeguard themselves and others, it did nothing to prevent the spread of asbestos from the bathroom and removed the material from the property without being in an appropriately sealed receptacle, or wrapping.”

Source: SHP

Follow us on Twitter @UK_AsbestosNews

Parent firm liable in “historic” asbestos case

Asbestos News — Thu, 03 May 2012 09:19:06 +0000

In a judgement that could have far-reaching ramifications for UK companies with subsidiaries, the Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of an asbestosis sufferer, who sought damages against the parent company of his former employer.

The Court upheld a decision by the High Court in April last year, which ruled that Cape plc, as the parent company, was liable for the activities of its subsidiary, Cape Building Products Ltd. The appeal judgment, handed down last week (25 April), could have significant consequences for companies in the UK with domestic-based subsidiaries, as well as multi-national companies headquartered in the UK with subsidiaries in developing countries, where their operations have greater potential to cause direct harm to workers, the local environment, and consumers.

The case centered around David Chandler, 71, who was employed by Cape Building Products Limited (formerly Uxbridge Flint Brick Company), between 1959 and 1961, during which period he suffered heavy asbestos exposure. Diagnosed with asbestosis in 2007, he was unable to pursue a claim against Cape Building Products, owing to an ‘asbestosis exclusion clause’ in its insurance policy. Mr Chandler’s lawyers, Leigh Day & Co, instead decided to pursue his claim against Cape plc.

In their judgement, the Appeal Court judges stressed: “There is no imposition or assumption of responsibility by reason only that a company is the parent company of another company. The question is simply whether what the parent company did amounted to taking on a direct duty to the subsidiary’s employees.”

Leigh Day & Co provided evidence that the parent company was directly involved in, and knew about, the health and safety effects from asbestos exposure on workers at Cape Building Products Ltd. The law firm pointed out that Cape plc employed group medical and safety officers, who oversaw health and safety at its subsidiaries, and that it had close involvement with governmental organisations concerned with asbestos safety.

The Appeal Court also found it significant that the boards of both parent and subsidiary companies shared directors.
Based on such evidence, the Court found that Cape plc “assumed a duty of care either to advise Cape Building Products on what steps it had to take, in the light of knowledge then available, to provide those employees with a safe system of work, or to ensure that those steps were taken”.

The judgement concluded: “In summary, this case demonstrates that in appropriate circumstances the law may impose on a parent company responsibility for the health and safety of its subsidiary’s employees.

“Those circumstances include a situation where, as in the present case, the businesses of the parent and subsidiary are in a relevant respect the same; the parent has, or ought to have, superior knowledge on some relevant aspect of health and safety in the particular industry; the subsidiary’s system of work is unsafe as the parent company knew, or ought to have known; and the parent knew, or ought to have foreseen, that the subsidiary or its employees would rely on its using that superior knowledge for the employees’ protection.”

Following the ruling, Vijay Ganapathy, senior solicitor at Leigh Day, said: “This historic judgment gives hope to thousands of victims, not just of industrial disease, but also those injured or who have been denied justice in the past through the complexity – and sometimes cruelly contrived nature – of corporate structuring.

“It’s no longer an excuse for parent companies to hide behind an aged legal principle in circumstances where they know that workers are at risk, but still chose to do nothing to help them. This is of particular relevance in asbestos-disease cases, as many sufferers face insurmountable challenges in identifying and locating insurers for their former employers.”

Cape plc declined to comment on the case.

Source: SHP

Follow us on Twitter @UK_AsbestosNews

A building contractor in Dorset has been fined for demolishing a building without first carrying out an asbestos survey.

Asbestos News — Thu, 03 May 2012 08:55:53 +0000

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Stuart Pearson at Guildford Magistrates’ Court for breaching the Control of Asbestos Regulations between the 20^th of April and 1^st of May 2011.

On the 30^th of April 2012 the court was told that he had been employed to carry out the demolition of a house in Woking, Surrey, before groundwork’s were laid for a new property.

The previous homeowner had an asbestos survey carried out after a plumber refused to repair the boiler due to the presence of asbestos; this survey was given to Pearson to make him aware of the area which contained asbestos.

The survey highlighted that there were 12 metres of asbestos in poor condition within the house, with two of three areas classified as ‘high risk’. It went on to state: ‘This material is in very poor condition and debris now exists around the boiler and the floor within the rest of the room. This room must not be accessed until a full environmental clean and removal of all asbestos-containing materials has been carried out by a licensed asbestos contractor.’

The report also stated that the asbestos removal had to be undertaken in controlled conditions with the use of ‘enclosures, airlocks, negative pressure units and decontamination units’.

Pearson however, carried on with the demolition of the property without having a pre-demolition survey carried out on the entire property to ensure all asbestos was identified and removed.

HSE began an investigation after a scientific officer from Woking Borough Council visited the site and raised concerns about possible asbestos contamination.

Pearson pleaded guilty to a breach of Regulation 5 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. He was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay costs of £7,500.

Russell Beckett, an HSE inspector spoke after the hearing:

“Before any demolition work is undertaken a survey must be carried out to identify any asbestos present and prevent exposure to anyone working on site and to those who subsequently process the waste. Any asbestos must be removed in the correct manner.”

He went onto say:

“Asbestos is the single greatest cause of work-related deaths in the UK and the dangers are well known in the construction and property industries. Asbestos is not an historical threat. It is current and it faces tradesmen all the time. This man has risked his own health and the health of others who were on the site.”

Follow us on Twitter @UK_AsbestosNews

Asbestos Uses and Regulations timeline by Silverdell Plc. Updated to include the (CAR) 2012 Regs

Asbestos News — Thu, 03 May 2012 08:12:47 +0000

History of Asbestos in the UK

Earlier this year Silverdell PLC took the lead as the first company, (who major on the management of asbestos and other hazardous materials) to publish an historic timeline on the subject of asbestos, in a visual and easily shareable format.

They have adapted the timeline and accompanying article to reflect the recent supreme court landmark ruling and the changes to the (CAR) 2012 regulations.

The content, in the form of an infographic and detailed article, aims to highlight the ‘History of Asbestos’, the use of asbestos and asbestos legislation, since the first recorded asbestos-related death in 1906.

Read the article here.

Click to view The History of Asbestos Infographic

The infographic and article chart the history of asbestos and although it is not exhaustive, it communicates how asbestos has had such a profound effect on society as a whole, since the worldwide consumption of asbestos began.

Silverdell PLC has captured key dates and events, together with covering information in the form of an article.

Silverdell PLC is encouraging readers to share this infographic here.

Silverdell Plc works with major organisations both in the UK and overseas, whose executives have a duty to protect people, assets and reputation.

Silverdell Group provides peace of mind through its Specialist Environmental Support Services, majoring on the management of asbestos and other hazardous materials.

Which means our customers know that their interests are always protected.

Further information on Silverdell Plc can be found at www.silverdell.plc.uk

Download the full (CAR) 2012 Regulations here.

Asbestos FAQs – What you need to know

Asbestos News — Wed, 02 May 2012 07:55:52 +0000

Redhills is one of the UK’s leading asbestos and environmental consultancies.

We have produced this document to answer the following asbestos related questions.

What is the health risk from exposure to asbestos?

What is the Control of Asbestos Regulations?

What is the ‘duty to manage’ and who has it?

What kinds of building are affected by asbestos regulations?

How do I become asbestos compliant?

What is an asbestos management survey and do I need one?

What is an asbestos register?

We are planning to refurbish or demolish some buildings do I need a survey?

What are my responsibilities in relation to asbestos training?

What should I do if someone has disturbed and damaged asbestos?

Where is asbestos found in buildings?

For answers to all these questions, download the document here.

Redhills is part of the Silverdell PLC Group of companies We work with major organisations in the UK whose executives have a duty to protect people, assets and reputation. Redhills provides peace of mind through its Specialist Environmental Support Services, majoring on asbestos management and compliance monitoring.

Which means that our Clients know their interests are always protected.

For further information please visit www.redhills.co.uk

Further information on Silverdell Plc can be found at www.silverdell.plc.uk

Subscribe to our asbestos surveyors guide blog here

Indoor Air Quality FAQ’s – What you need to know

Asbestos News — Tue, 01 May 2012 08:32:04 +0000

Redhills is one of the UK’s leading asbestos and environmental consultancies.

We have produced this document to answer the following indoor air quality related questions.

What is meant by indoor air quality?

Is there a relationship between indoor and outdoor air quality?

How serious a problem is poor indoor air quality?

What contributes to poor indoor air quality?

What is Sick Building Syndrome?

What regulations exist to control Indoor Air Quality?

How do I measure workplace air quality?

For answers to all these questions, download the document here.

Which means that our Clients know their interests are always protected.

For further information please visit www.redhills.co.uk

Further information on Silverdell Plc can be found at www.silverdell.plc.uk

Subscribe to our asbestos surveyors guide blog here

COSHH FAQ’s – What you need to know

Asbestos News — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:00:03 +0000

Redhills is one of the UK’s leading asbestos and environmental consultancies.

We have produced this document to answer the following COSHH related questions.

What is COSHH?

What is a substance hazardous to health?

What regulations exist to control substances hazardous to health?

Does COSHH cover all hazardous materials?

What does our organisation need to do to be COSHH compliant?

What does the term Workplace Exposure Limit mean?

How do I know if employee exposures are below a WEL?

How do I limit or prevent exposure to hazardous substances?

What should I do in the event of an emergency?

For answers to all these questions, download the document here.

Which means that our Clients know their interests are always protected.

For further information please visit www.redhills.co.uk

Further information on Silverdell Plc can be found at www.silverdell.plc.uk

Subscribe to our asbestos surveyors guide blog here