A.D. Scott Asbestos Consultancy Ltd is one of the latest group of successful companies to join a leading edge scheme, designed to help industry improve its safety record.

The North East-based firm recently received accreditation from SAFEcontractor, a programme which recognises very high standards of health and safety practise amongst UK contractors.

Specialising in the Asbestos and environmental risk industries, A.D. Scott Asbestos Consultancy Ltd’s most recent clients have included major players such as Northern Gas Networks, R.J. Utility Services Ltd, Farmfoods Ltd and Done Plc.

The company’s application for SAFEcontractor accreditation was driven by the need for a uniform standard across the business.

“ It is increasingly important to be able to have a good health and safety work ethic and to be able to demonstrate competence within the business to existing and potential clients through and auditable system, we believe that SAFEcontractor will enable us to this.

SAFEcontractor accreditation is expected to enhance the company’s ability to attract new contracts and its commitment to safety will be viewed positively by its insurers when the company liability policy is up for renewal.

SAFEcontractor is applicable to most sectors although it is particularly relevant to food manufacture, property, facilities management, retail and leisure sectors, all of which are big users of contract services.

John Kinge, Head of Risk at SAFEcontractor said, "Major organisations can no longer run the risk of employing contractors who are not able to prove that they have sound health and safety policies".

"More companies need to understand the importance of adopting good risk management in the way that A.D. Scott Asbestos Consultancy Ltd has done. The firm’s high standard has set an example, which hopefully will be followed by other companies within the sector".

Under the SAFEcontractor system, businesses undergo a vetting process, which examines health and safety procedures and their track record for safe practice. Those companies meeting the high standard are included on a database, which is accessible to registered users only via a website, www.safecontractor.com

Employer-organisations who sign up to the scheme can access the database, enabling them to vet potential contractors before they even set foot on site. These employers agree that, as users of the scheme, they will engage only those who have received accreditation.

Over one hundred and fifty major nation-wide businesses, from several key sectors, have signed up to use the scheme when selecting contractors for services such as building, cleaning, maintenance, refurbishment or electrical and mechanical work.

Nottingham City Council has been fined £30,000 for failing to manage the risk of asbestos after around 150 people were exposed to the potentially lethal material at one of its depots.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted the council after a visiting contractor spotted debris on the floor of a building at the Woolsthorpe depot in Bilborough and suspected it may be asbestos-containing material.

When the discovery was made on 23 May 2009 the building was occupied by the council's Street Scene team, part of the council's neighbourhood services section responsible for maintaining and improving the city's environment. The building was used as offices, garages, a mess room and storage.

The HSE investigation found that when the city council purchased the depot in February 2005, an asbestos survey was carried out and the majority of the asbestos removed. However, due to the design of the building there was no guarantee that all the asbestos had been removed particularly, from joints in the roof. The council took the decision to contain any remaining asbestos in the building by painting the affected areas.

The specialist company that managed the asbestos removal gave the city council a plan which told them where any remaining asbestos was located and how to manage its condition. The city council failed to follow this plan. Health and safety inspections of the depot took place but these did not identify that the city council's own policies on the management of asbestos had not been implemented. This included failing to identify that Street Scene's management had not been properly trained in these policies.

The HSE's investigation found that for more than four years during which the asbestos deteriorated, the council did nothing to prevent the exposure to asbestos of those working in, or visiting, the building.

HSE principal inspector Frank Lomas said:

"The latest health and safety statistics show that more people are dying as a result of asbestos related diseases than are killed in accidents at work. This situation will not change unless organisations take their duty to manage asbestos seriously.

"The council failed to identify that its own asbestos policy had not been implemented at the depot. It's all well and good having policies in place but they are meaningless unless they are put into practice and in this case, around 150 people were needlessly exposed to a potentially fatal substance."

Nottingham City Council pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4(10) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and Regulation 5(1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. Nottingham magistrates today fined the council £15,000 for each offence and ordered them to pay costs of £12,000.

A construction company has been fined after failing to carry out work correctly or properly manage asbestos while demolishing an old church in Snodland, Kent.

Maidstone Magistrates' Court heard the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) received a complaint from a member of the public about demolition works taking place on the corner of Holborough Road in the town.
The site was owned by Bernard Berry of Berry Estates Development Limited that was also carrying out the demolition of the building.

On 23 April 2010, two HSE inspectors attended the site and discovered the majority of the building had already been demolished but debris containing asbestos was blocking the pavement on one side and had also spilled out onto the pavement on the other side.

Principal contractor, Mr Berry, could not provide paperwork such as a demolition plan, method statements or risk assessments when asked. No asbestos survey had been completed prior to the demolition and site security was very poor. A Prohibition Notice was served preventing any further work onsite.
After the notice was served Mr Berry commissioned a pre-demolition asbestos survey, which highlighted a number of asbestos containing materials across the site.

A HSE investigation showed that the building was being knocked into pedestrian areas and broken up with an excavator. It showed no evidence of employee training, no personal protection or respiratory equipment and no plan of work on site. It also revealed no provision to prevent dust spreading during demolition and crushing.

David Fussell, HSE Inspector, said:
"The company failed to take any measures aimed at controlling the workers' exposure to asbestos and reduce any future incidence of related diseases.
"This is a shocking case as it was foreseeable that a building of this age may have had asbestos-containing materials in the building fabric, as the subsequent survey highlighted.
"If the company had carried out a survey and prepared a plan of work prior to demolition, the risk of exposure to the workers onsite or the general public could have been avoided."

Berry Estates Development Limited, of Red Hill, Wateringbury, Maidstone, Kent, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 5, 7 and 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, at Maidstone Magistrates' Court today (8 February 2011). It was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,391.

Bernard Berry, director of the company also pleaded guilty to breaching the same regulations at Maidstone Magistrates' Court today. He was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,391.

A property management company was fined £30,100 today after admitting a series of offences which led to workers being exposed to asbestos fibres.

MA Estates Limited of Holmfield, Halifax, the owner and landlord of a factory building in Holdsfield Road, was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for failing to properly manage the removal of asbestos-containing materials when employees were replacing a roof at the factory in June 2007.

Halifax Magistrates' Court was told that up to 15 employees from two businesses, both part of the same group as MA Estates and both occupants of the building, were working to upgrade the roof. This included stripping materials from support beams which, when later tested by HSE, were found to contain asbestos in limpet/spray form.

A local business complained to HSE after seeing the stripped materials, suspecting that they included asbestos fibres. After visiting the premises, HSE served a Prohibition Notice on MA Estates to stop work immediately.

The HSE investigation found the company had failed to carry out an asbestos survey or risk assessment, had no licence to remove asbestos, had given staff no instruction or training in removing it, and had left workers exposed - with no attempts to limit the spread of asbestos or exposure to it.
HSE inspector, Rachel Brittain, said:
"The dangers of asbestos should never be underestimated and are well known in the property industry and beyond. For a company to put workers at this level of risk shows a total disregard for their safety and welfare.

"I can't stress enough how important it is for anyone carrying out building work to obtain the proper asbestos surveys and then act upon them."

MA Estates Limited pleaded guilty to seven charges under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and of breaching Section 3(1) of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was also ordered to pay £2,475.40p in costs.

Asbestos is the biggest single cause of work-related deaths in the UK, with an estimated 4,000 people dying every year. Information on working safely with asbestos is available at www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos

A company set up by Rotherham Council to manage and improve council houses has been fined, after allowing a plumber to be exposed to up to 50 times the legal limit for asbestos.

The firm, 2010 Rotherham Limited, was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Rotherham Magistrates heard that the company employed a sub-contactor, Nugas of Barnsley, to remove an old bathroom and install a level-access shower room at a house in Orchard Place.

Despite an asbestos survey carried out for 2010 Rotherham on a similar property next door eight weeks earlier that highlighted the presence of asbestos in the bathroom, the results were not passed on to Nugas. The result was that their worker unknowingly removed tiles bonded to a wall of asbestos insulating board (AIB), causing significant damage to the wall. He was not wearing any protective clothing nor respiratory protection.

At the same time, a licensed asbestos removal company was in the process of removing the same wall in the flat next door after being appointed by 2010 Rotherham Ltd.

The court was told that the company had received previous advice and enforcement action regarding the risks from asbestos during refurbishment work including two enforcement notices in 2005 and 2008.
The company pleaded guilty to breaching the Health & Safety at Work Act and was fined £7,000 with £3,418 costs.

After the case, HSE Inspector Dave Bradley said:
“The method of removal of the tiles by Nugas’s plumber, and the subsequent cleaning and bagging of the debris, are liable to have resulted in a significant exposure to asbestos fibres.

“It is imperative that information on the location of asbestos is provided to contractors before they are allowed to begin work. In this case 2010 Rotherham could have done this as they had the results from an asbestos survey on an identical property next door, and probably entirely prevented the asbestos fibre exposure.

“It is not enough for companies to have asbestos surveys carried out, they must take the necessary action and telling the contractor you employ is an obvious first step.”

Asbestos is the biggest single cause of work-related deaths in the UK, with an estimated 4,000 people dying every year. Information on working safely with asbestos is available at www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos

Around 213,200 people died of mesothelioma between 1994 and 2008, according to the latest estimate of asbestos-related disease burden reported this week online in Environmental Health Perspectives. In decades to come, the number of cases of the disease will increase further as many countries have increased asbestos use since the data used to make the estimation were collected, the researchers warn.

“As our estimation is based on asbestos use until 1970, the many countries which increased asbestos use since then should anticipate a higher disease burden in the immediate decades ahead,” write Eun-Kee Park, of the University of Occupational and Environmental Health in Kitakyushu City, Japan, and colleagues.

Mesothelioma is a rare cancer of the protective lining of the body’s organs. The disease is caused almost exclusively by exposure to asbestos and develops 20 to 50 years after exposure. Little is known about the global incidence of mesothelioma. Many developing countries that use asbestos heavily do not report the number of cases of the disease.

A study published in 2005 suggests that globally 43,000 people die of mesothelioma each year, but this figure has not been validated by further research. The figures published this week put the death toll lower, but they point to a jump in the use of asbestos, which suggests mesothelioma deaths will rise in coming years.

To come to their conclusions, Park and colleagues collected data from countries describing the use of asbestos from 1920 to 1970 and mesothelioma deaths reported between 1994 and 2008. As mesothelioma rapidly turns fatal, they used a country’s death toll to represent the number of cases of the disease.

Between 1994 and 2009, health authorities from 56 countries reported 174,300 cases of mesothelioma. Park and colleagues found that the cumulative use of asbestos within a country in the past reliably predicted the number of recent mesothelioma deaths.

Using a model, they calculated the number of mesothelioma deaths expected in 33 countries that did not report fatal cases of the disease, based on their history of asbestos use. A further 38,900 cases may have occurred in these countries between 1994 and 2008. These figures suggest that for every four to five reported cases of mesothelioma reported worldwide at least one further case goes undetected, they say.

The cumulative use of asbestos worldwide has doubled, from 65 million metric tonnes up to 1970 to 124 million metric tonnes to the present day, according to the researchers. “[The] 33 countries not reporting mesothelioma frequency quintupled asbestos use,” they write.

The number of countries where cumulative use of asbestos exceeds 3 million metric tonnes has risen from five in 1971 to eight in 2011. These countries are Russia, China Kazakhstan, Japan, USA, Brazil, Germany, India and Thailand. “[Health authorities in these countries] should anticipate the need to deal with a very high burden of mesothelioma in the immediate decades ahead.”

 

A SOUTH Tyneside widow won £74,000 in compensation after her late husband was exposed to lethal asbestos.

George Combe was exposed to the dust as apprentice turner at an engineering firm.

The grandfather, from Whitburn, died aged 69, four months after doctors told him he had developed the respiratory condition, mesothelioma.

Mr Combe's widow, Marjorie, said: "It was horrible. He was such a good man and husband.

"In a matter of months he went from a fit, healthy man, who was still able to work part-time and carry out jobs around the house, to receiving palliative care to help reduce his pain and to make him comfortable."

Mesothelioma is a fatal cancer of the lung lining. It develops from inhaling asbestos dust, but can take decades to develop. The disease kills almost 2,000 a year in the UK.

Mr Combe worked at John Brown Engineering, on the River Clyde, from 1956 to 1961. He died in 2009 in St Clare's Hospice, Jarrow.

Before his death, Mr Combe, who had two daughters, turned to solicitors Irwin Mitchell to secure compensation.

When her husband died, Mrs Combe, 69, continued the battle and said she was relieved to have won for her husband.

She said: "Although it will never bring George back, I am pleased they been made to pay for what they have done to an innocent man who worked for the company."

Roger Maddocks, partner at Irwin Mitchell, said: "Unfortunately, this victory has come too late for Mr Combe.

"He did not work directly with asbestos, but was exposed to substantial levels of the dust when other men in the workshop worked on asbestos-lagged equipment, through the workshop's heating system and also when he would occasionally visit the factory's shipyard.

Public liability insurance holders have been told that a man has been compensated by BT after he claimed he was exposed to asbestos.

The telephone operator has agreed to pay Bernard Mottram, 82, of Somerset, £115,000 in compensation, despite refusing to admit that he was exposed to asbestos while in the company's employ.

A statement from the company read: "For the purpose of this case BT has agreed to make a compensation payment to Mr Mottram in respect of his mesothelioma. The agreement has not been specific to any part of his employment. BT does not admit there was any exposure in the 1990s in Corsham."

Mr Mottram, who is suffering from mesothelioma, was employed fitting telephone wires at a former government bunker in Wiltshire in the 1990s.

He told the BBC that he was not warned to take precautions when working with asbestos fibres, public liability insurance holders have been told.

The Health and Safety Executive said that around 4,000 people die every year from diseases caused by inhaling asbestos fibres.

An engineering company in Teesside where two workers were potentially exposed to asbestos fibres was fined £3000 yesterday for failing to protect their employees.

Darchem Engineering Ltd, was prosecuted by The Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 10(1) and 4(3) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 at Teesside Magistrates Court.

It was told to the court that on 13 November 2008 two maintenance workers were repositioning a junction box in the Aerospace reception area. In doing this the workers were required to drill into asbestos board and without taking the proper precaustions into consideration.

Darchem Engineering Ltd did not adequately manage the risks from asbestos on site and as a result the two workers were potentially exposed to harmful asbestos fibres.

When asbestos containing material becomes damaged or disturbed, it can release fibres that, if inhaled, can cause a number of fatal or serious respiratory conditions.

When the case was over HSE Inspector Andrew Mulligan said: "Around 20 tradesmen a week are dying from asbestos-related diseases. Darchem Engineering Limited failed to manage the risks from asbestos on the site, potentially exposing two of its workers to these hazardous fibres".

"A suitable and sufficient assessment should have been carried out and the company should have made sure that their employees had adequate information, instruction and training".

"Fortunately a contractor who had asbestos awareness training identified the potential for asbestos to be present and work was stopped. He knew the key message: if in doubt stop and check."

Emloyers and employees responsible for maintenance activities must check for the presence of asbestos material and, depending on its condition, either manage or remove it. If they choose to manage it they must make sure that information on the location and condition of the material is given to anyone whose work might disturb it. They must also ensure that any work carried out does not expose anyone to asbestos fibres.

The new asbestos survey guide issued by the HSE and titled: Asbestos – The Survey Guide. And is published under Health and Safety Guidance note HSG264.

The new document is directed at surveyors and persons responsible for the detection and management of asbestos containing materials in the non domestic and domestic properties.

It serves to clearly lay down what the legal requirements and positions are for the responsible persons, including, duty holders, building and estate manag ers and surveyors, and measures required in selecting an appropriate competent contractor. Moreover the new document gives some clear guidance on what is required as part of any asbestos survey. However, perhaps the most talked about change is that HSG264 no longer recognises type 1, type 2, and type 3 surveys and instead introduces the Management asbestos Survey, which is a legal requirement for all non domestic properties built prior to the year 2000, and the Refurbishment/Pre Demolition survey, which is a legal requirement prior to all works which could disturb the fabric of a building built prior to 2000. This includes works in domestic properties and works may be deemed as quite minor, such as a kitchen or bathroom refurbishment.

Signed
Dave Scott