What you need to do
The law [1] requires that principal contractors (PC) must undertake the following actions:
Project management – plan, manage and monitor the construction phase so that it is carried out safely and without risks to health;
Contractor engagement – provide information and directions whilst facilitating co-operation and co-ordination between contractors;
Workforce engagement – make sure the workforce is being inducted, informed, trained and consulted on health and safety;
What you need to know – three key questions
Question 1: Which projects require appointment of a principal contractor?
Answer: The client must appoint a PC on projects that are likely to involve more than 30 days or 500 man days of construction work (notifiable projects[2]). The client will carry the PC duties if a separate appointment is not made.
Question 2: When should the PC be appointed?
Answer: The client must appoint a PC as soon as practicable and at the latest before the construction phase starts.
Question 3: Who needs to be informed of the PC appointment?
Answer: The co-ordinator must inform HSE of the PC details as soon as practicable after the PC is appointed.
Project management
The PC must plan, manage and monitor the construction phase of the project.
Key actions include:
Planning: preparing a construction phase plan [3] that ensures the work is carried on without risk to health or safety;
Implementing: arranging for the plan to be implemented including facilitating co-operation and co-ordination between all persons on the project;
Reviewing: the PC must from time to time update, review, revise and refine the plan;
Site access: taking steps to prevent unauthorised access to the site by fencing and other controls;
Welfare facilities: making sure that facilities are sufficient throughout the construction phase;
Site rules: drawing up rules that are appropriate to the site and the activities;
Notification: displaying the required formal notice on site (F10) and;
Design: liaising with the CDM co-ordinator regarding any design or change to a design;
Contractor engagement
The PC must ensure the co-operation and co-ordination of contractors carrying out the construction work. Key actions include:
Time for planning: informing contractors of the minimum amount of time alllowed for their planning and preparation before their work begins;
Consultation on the plan: consulting contractors before finalising relevant parts of the plan;
Access to the plan: giving every contractor access to relevant parts of the plan and any other information needed to carry out their work safely and with proper welfare facilities;
Directions: giving directions to contractors to enable the PC to comply with his own duties and;
Health and safety file: letting contractors know what information is required for the file and providing it to the CDM-C.
Workforce engagement
Contractors [4] must provide their workforce with the required information and training to carry out work safely. In addition, the PC must check this happens so that every worker is provided with:
Induction: a suitable site induction on health and safety matters;
Information and training: needed for the particular work to be carried out including information on risks and required control measures. Workers must be able to inspect and take copies of relevant information relating to project health and safety.
The PC must also take steps to secure:
co-operation: arrangements so that workers can co-operate on devising safety measures and checking their effectiveness; and
Consultation: arrangements to consult the workforce on health, safety or welfare matters where they have not been so consulted by any employer.
Friday 17 September 2010
Worker Involvement is key in Health and Safety
Many factors affect how you can engage your employees:
The business
Structure of the business
Management style
Organisational and safety cultures
Trade union recognition and employment relations
The workplace
Size of workplace
Location of sites
Types of work done
Degree and nature of inherent dangers
The workforce
Size of workforce
Diversity of the workforce
Employment structures (for example, direct employees, agency and contract workers)
Work patterns (for example, shift systems, part-time working)
Offsite, remote or mobile workers.
Questions you will need to ask yourself include:
Do we consult individuals or representatives?
How do we consult them?
How can we organise inspections and investigations?
How can we co-ordinate between committees?
For example:
A high-risk workplace with a large unionised workforce spread over multiple sites may have trade union representatives from different sites as members of a site-based health and safety committee that meets regularly, and feeds into a corporate health and safety committee.
A non-unionised smaller workplace located on one small, low-risk site, is more likely to consult directly with employees on a day-to-day basis.
Case study: BSkyB
BSkyB created a single forum for the whole business bringing together separate structures that had previously engaged with staff at their cross UK workplaces. They established an effective two-way communication channels that “plugged in” employees from all over the UK and created a partnership between management and employees...
The business
Structure of the business
Management style
Organisational and safety cultures
Trade union recognition and employment relations
The workplace
Size of workplace
Location of sites
Types of work done
Degree and nature of inherent dangers
The workforce
Size of workforce
Diversity of the workforce
Employment structures (for example, direct employees, agency and contract workers)
Work patterns (for example, shift systems, part-time working)
Offsite, remote or mobile workers.
Questions you will need to ask yourself include:
Do we consult individuals or representatives?
How do we consult them?
How can we organise inspections and investigations?
How can we co-ordinate between committees?
For example:
A high-risk workplace with a large unionised workforce spread over multiple sites may have trade union representatives from different sites as members of a site-based health and safety committee that meets regularly, and feeds into a corporate health and safety committee.
A non-unionised smaller workplace located on one small, low-risk site, is more likely to consult directly with employees on a day-to-day basis.
Case study: BSkyB
BSkyB created a single forum for the whole business bringing together separate structures that had previously engaged with staff at their cross UK workplaces. They established an effective two-way communication channels that “plugged in” employees from all over the UK and created a partnership between management and employees...
What is Reach?
REACH is a European Union regulation concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of Chemicals. It came into force on 1st June 2007 and replaced a number of European Directives and Regulations with a single system.
Aims
REACH has several aims:
To provide a high level of protection of human health and the environment from the use of chemicals.
To make the people who place chemicals on the market (manufacturers[1] and importers[2] responsible for understanding and managing the risks associated with their use.)
To allow the free movement of substances[3] on the EU market.
To enhance innovation in and the competitiveness of the EU chemicals industry.
To promote the use of alternative methods for the assessment of the hazardous properties of substances e.g. quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) and read across.
Scope and exemptions
REACH applies to substances manufactured or imported into the EU in quantities of 1 tonne or more per year. Generally, it applies to all individual chemical substances on their own, in preparations[4] or in articles[5] (if the substance is intended to be released during normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of use from an article).
Some substances are specifically excluded:
Radioactive substances
Substances under customs supervision
The transport of substances
Non-isolated intermediates[6]
Waste
Some naturally occurring low-hazard substances
Some substances, covered by more specific legislation, have tailored provisions, including:
Human and veterinary medicines
Food and foodstuff additives
Plant protection products and biocides
Other substances have tailored provisions within the REACH legislation, as long they are used in specified conditions:
Isolated intermediates[7]
Substances used for research and development
Aims
REACH has several aims:
To provide a high level of protection of human health and the environment from the use of chemicals.
To make the people who place chemicals on the market (manufacturers[1] and importers[2] responsible for understanding and managing the risks associated with their use.)
To allow the free movement of substances[3] on the EU market.
To enhance innovation in and the competitiveness of the EU chemicals industry.
To promote the use of alternative methods for the assessment of the hazardous properties of substances e.g. quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) and read across.
Scope and exemptions
REACH applies to substances manufactured or imported into the EU in quantities of 1 tonne or more per year. Generally, it applies to all individual chemical substances on their own, in preparations[4] or in articles[5] (if the substance is intended to be released during normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of use from an article).
Some substances are specifically excluded:
Radioactive substances
Substances under customs supervision
The transport of substances
Non-isolated intermediates[6]
Waste
Some naturally occurring low-hazard substances
Some substances, covered by more specific legislation, have tailored provisions, including:
Human and veterinary medicines
Food and foodstuff additives
Plant protection products and biocides
Other substances have tailored provisions within the REACH legislation, as long they are used in specified conditions:
Isolated intermediates[7]
Substances used for research and development
Friday 3 September 2010
Asbestos and Shop Fitting...
Five workers were potentially exposed to deadly asbestos fibres while removing old shop fittings at the Arndale Centre in Manchester.
The Health and Safety Executive prosecuted Eastern Regional Shopfitters Ltd after the company ignored a report stating that asbestos was present in the shop.
Two of the company's workers were potentially exposed to the deadly fibres in October 2009 after spending five days ripping out shop fittings before they discovered asbestos had been used in some of the ceiling panels. As well as the workers, three management staff from the Arndale Centre were also potentially exposed after they carried out routine checks on the work at the shop.
Eastern Regional Shopfitters was fined £4,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,215 after admitting three breaches of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and one of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
Mark Green, 45 from Cambridge, was one of the two shop fitters to be exposed to asbestos fibres. He said: "It plays on my mind. I am more aware of the possibility I may become ill and that my life has unwittingly been put on the line. I hope that companies in the construction industry, no matter what their size, now begin to take asbestos more seriously. They should put everyone who works for them on asbestos awareness courses because workers need to be more aware."
Mr Green concluded: "When I go on a job now, the first question I ask is 'Have you done an asbestos report?' and then, if it is present, 'What will your actions be?'."
Tom Merry, the investigating inspector at HSE, said: "Eastern Regional Shopfitters knew asbestos was present in the shop but it didnÃt inform its workers and it didnÃt ensure it was dealt with safely. Abestos only becomes a risk if it is disturbed so the shop fitters could have worked safely if they knew where the asbestos was. It should either have been sealed or removed by a licensed contractor before the work started."
Inspector Merry concluded: "Five people now have to live with the knowledge that they may become ill with a life-threatening lung disease. Shop fitting and property maintenance companies must treat the risks from asbestos seriously so more lives arenÃt put in danger in the future."
The Health and Safety Executive prosecuted Eastern Regional Shopfitters Ltd after the company ignored a report stating that asbestos was present in the shop.
Two of the company's workers were potentially exposed to the deadly fibres in October 2009 after spending five days ripping out shop fittings before they discovered asbestos had been used in some of the ceiling panels. As well as the workers, three management staff from the Arndale Centre were also potentially exposed after they carried out routine checks on the work at the shop.
Eastern Regional Shopfitters was fined £4,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,215 after admitting three breaches of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and one of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
Mark Green, 45 from Cambridge, was one of the two shop fitters to be exposed to asbestos fibres. He said: "It plays on my mind. I am more aware of the possibility I may become ill and that my life has unwittingly been put on the line. I hope that companies in the construction industry, no matter what their size, now begin to take asbestos more seriously. They should put everyone who works for them on asbestos awareness courses because workers need to be more aware."
Mr Green concluded: "When I go on a job now, the first question I ask is 'Have you done an asbestos report?' and then, if it is present, 'What will your actions be?'."
Tom Merry, the investigating inspector at HSE, said: "Eastern Regional Shopfitters knew asbestos was present in the shop but it didnÃt inform its workers and it didnÃt ensure it was dealt with safely. Abestos only becomes a risk if it is disturbed so the shop fitters could have worked safely if they knew where the asbestos was. It should either have been sealed or removed by a licensed contractor before the work started."
Inspector Merry concluded: "Five people now have to live with the knowledge that they may become ill with a life-threatening lung disease. Shop fitting and property maintenance companies must treat the risks from asbestos seriously so more lives arenÃt put in danger in the future."
CDM in brief...
If it is accepted that good management involves;
•The use of competent persons/organisations
•The availability of background information
•The pre-planning of work activities
•The recording of crucial data
•Reviewing work on completion to learn from mistakes and experiences
Then one needs look no further than the CDM Regulations for an ideal management model to follow (notwithstanding the statutory obligation to do so). Pragmatic application of the Regulations will bring business benefits as well as compliance and will also go a long way to achieving the aims of the ‘rethinking construction’ agenda.
The Approved Code of Practice for the CDM Regulations makes it very clear that the client has a major role to play in the management of risk. This is particularly so during the design stage when the tone of the project is often set by the client, and a number of important actions are carried through, for example,
•Appointment by client of competent organisations
•Provision of information
•Provision of any existing Health and Safety Files
The Client may have little involvement during the construction phase, unless the site is an integral part of his business – or undertaking as the HSW Act calls it – when there will be an obligation to monitor the contractor to a greater extent. The law is complex in the area of monitoring and checking of those engaged to undertake work and has been largely determined by various landmark cases (see Port of Ramsgate Case: ‘Ramsgate Walkway Collapse: Legal Ramification’ The Structural Engineer Vol 76, No 1, Jan 98 ).
Designers are, of course, at the heart of the process during the design stage; in most projects however they are also still involved during the construction phase, as not all design is complete prior to commencing on site. Their responsibilities however stretch beyond these phases into the operational life of the facility and its eventual de-commissioning.
It is the manner in which this responsibility for risk is managed that makes the difference between a mediocre designer and a good one. The latter will:
•Think as a contractor or maintenance engineer when considering the risks introduced as a consequence of his design. (How would I wish to construct/maintain this item safely?)
•Liaise with other designers, and if at all possible the contractor and specialist suppliers, in order to ensure that the best expertise is brought to bear and that issues are viewed from a broad perspective.
•Consult with the client and end user, if known, in respect of assumed maintenance philosophies.
•Have a particular regard to site wide issues (site access, contamination, adjacent third parties) and the adequacy of the site and its services for the contractor.
This holistic approach is often best implemented through ‘risk management’ meetings where all those present may contribute, and ‘thinking out of the box’ is encouraged.
The role of CDM Coordinators is largely one of Management; it is the duty of the CDM Coordinators for example to ‘ensure that designers communicate and co-operate’. The effective CDM coordinator therefore is able to significantly influence the management of risk and encourage best practice.
The role of Principal Contractor is wholly devoted to the management of risk. Although the duty holder will often also be the ‘main contractor’, and hence be involved in construction itself, there is no requirement for this. As is the case for the CDM Coordinator, the manner in which this role is implemented has a major impact upon the management of the project. A pro-active principal contractor that understands the needs and benefits of good health and safety management will bring the same added value to the project as has been described elsewhere. This is likely to be manifested through:
•Regular meetings with sub contractors to discuss work activities, interfaces, access to the workplace etc.
•Involvement of the workforce.
•Review of accidents and near misses.
•Provision of training and appropriate inductions.
Contractors, as employers in their own right, will have their internal procedures for managing health and safety risk, and are also obliged to liaise with other contractors and the principal contractor. The good contractor will see this obligation as a benefit rather than a burden, and will seek to gain advantage from close working relationships.
The essence of good management is clearly set out in the Management of Health and Safety at Work (MHSW) Regulations, Regulation 5 ‘Health and Safety Arrangements’ which emphasises that the arrangements should be integrated with management for other purposes. The four elements are, quoting from the Regulations:
Planning:
Adopting a systematic approach which identifies priorities and sets objectives. Whenever possible, risks are eliminated by the careful selection and design of facilities, equipment and processes or minimised by the use of physical control measures.
Organisation:
Putting in place the necessary structure with the aim of ensuring that there is a progressive improvement in health and safety performance.
Control:
Ensuring that the decisions for ensuring and promoting health and safety are being implemented as planned.
Monitoring and Review:
Like quality, progressive improvement in health and safety can only be achieved through the constant development of policies, approaches to implementation and techniques of risk control.
It will be noted that although this advice is directed at health and safety issues, it will apply equally to any aspect of management eg ordering goods, employing sub contractors, programming the works. This again emphasises the benefits of treating health and safety risk as an integral part of project risk management.
Summary
Construction projects are complex technological processes involving the management of people, processes and products. Although in respect of health and safety issues there is a legal obligation to manage the risks emanating from the project, this note demonstrates that there is a business advantage in doing so, and furthermore, that health and safety frameworks such as the CDM regulations, provide an excellent tool for achieving this overall aim.
Current industry initiatives such as Rethinking Construction are providing additional management tools in the form of key performance indicators and benchmarking standards in order to facilitate the essential monitoring and review associated with all good management systems.
•The use of competent persons/organisations
•The availability of background information
•The pre-planning of work activities
•The recording of crucial data
•Reviewing work on completion to learn from mistakes and experiences
Then one needs look no further than the CDM Regulations for an ideal management model to follow (notwithstanding the statutory obligation to do so). Pragmatic application of the Regulations will bring business benefits as well as compliance and will also go a long way to achieving the aims of the ‘rethinking construction’ agenda.
The Approved Code of Practice for the CDM Regulations makes it very clear that the client has a major role to play in the management of risk. This is particularly so during the design stage when the tone of the project is often set by the client, and a number of important actions are carried through, for example,
•Appointment by client of competent organisations
•Provision of information
•Provision of any existing Health and Safety Files
The Client may have little involvement during the construction phase, unless the site is an integral part of his business – or undertaking as the HSW Act calls it – when there will be an obligation to monitor the contractor to a greater extent. The law is complex in the area of monitoring and checking of those engaged to undertake work and has been largely determined by various landmark cases (see Port of Ramsgate Case: ‘Ramsgate Walkway Collapse: Legal Ramification’ The Structural Engineer Vol 76, No 1, Jan 98 ).
Designers are, of course, at the heart of the process during the design stage; in most projects however they are also still involved during the construction phase, as not all design is complete prior to commencing on site. Their responsibilities however stretch beyond these phases into the operational life of the facility and its eventual de-commissioning.
It is the manner in which this responsibility for risk is managed that makes the difference between a mediocre designer and a good one. The latter will:
•Think as a contractor or maintenance engineer when considering the risks introduced as a consequence of his design. (How would I wish to construct/maintain this item safely?)
•Liaise with other designers, and if at all possible the contractor and specialist suppliers, in order to ensure that the best expertise is brought to bear and that issues are viewed from a broad perspective.
•Consult with the client and end user, if known, in respect of assumed maintenance philosophies.
•Have a particular regard to site wide issues (site access, contamination, adjacent third parties) and the adequacy of the site and its services for the contractor.
This holistic approach is often best implemented through ‘risk management’ meetings where all those present may contribute, and ‘thinking out of the box’ is encouraged.
The role of CDM Coordinators is largely one of Management; it is the duty of the CDM Coordinators for example to ‘ensure that designers communicate and co-operate’. The effective CDM coordinator therefore is able to significantly influence the management of risk and encourage best practice.
The role of Principal Contractor is wholly devoted to the management of risk. Although the duty holder will often also be the ‘main contractor’, and hence be involved in construction itself, there is no requirement for this. As is the case for the CDM Coordinator, the manner in which this role is implemented has a major impact upon the management of the project. A pro-active principal contractor that understands the needs and benefits of good health and safety management will bring the same added value to the project as has been described elsewhere. This is likely to be manifested through:
•Regular meetings with sub contractors to discuss work activities, interfaces, access to the workplace etc.
•Involvement of the workforce.
•Review of accidents and near misses.
•Provision of training and appropriate inductions.
Contractors, as employers in their own right, will have their internal procedures for managing health and safety risk, and are also obliged to liaise with other contractors and the principal contractor. The good contractor will see this obligation as a benefit rather than a burden, and will seek to gain advantage from close working relationships.
The essence of good management is clearly set out in the Management of Health and Safety at Work (MHSW) Regulations, Regulation 5 ‘Health and Safety Arrangements’ which emphasises that the arrangements should be integrated with management for other purposes. The four elements are, quoting from the Regulations:
Planning:
Adopting a systematic approach which identifies priorities and sets objectives. Whenever possible, risks are eliminated by the careful selection and design of facilities, equipment and processes or minimised by the use of physical control measures.
Organisation:
Putting in place the necessary structure with the aim of ensuring that there is a progressive improvement in health and safety performance.
Control:
Ensuring that the decisions for ensuring and promoting health and safety are being implemented as planned.
Monitoring and Review:
Like quality, progressive improvement in health and safety can only be achieved through the constant development of policies, approaches to implementation and techniques of risk control.
It will be noted that although this advice is directed at health and safety issues, it will apply equally to any aspect of management eg ordering goods, employing sub contractors, programming the works. This again emphasises the benefits of treating health and safety risk as an integral part of project risk management.
Summary
Construction projects are complex technological processes involving the management of people, processes and products. Although in respect of health and safety issues there is a legal obligation to manage the risks emanating from the project, this note demonstrates that there is a business advantage in doing so, and furthermore, that health and safety frameworks such as the CDM regulations, provide an excellent tool for achieving this overall aim.
Current industry initiatives such as Rethinking Construction are providing additional management tools in the form of key performance indicators and benchmarking standards in order to facilitate the essential monitoring and review associated with all good management systems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)