MARCH 2017

The Construction Skills Certification Scheme (CSCS) is reminding the industry to be prepared for the withdrawal of the Construction Related Occupation (CRO) card.

CSCS will stop issuing CRO cards from 31st March 2017 and all CRO cards issued since October 2015 will expire on 30th September 2017.

CSCS Head of Communications Alan O’Neile said: “The Construction Leadership Council (CLC) announced (via the Industrial Strategy: Construction 2025) that skills certification card schemes carrying the CSCS logo must only certify those occupations with nationally recognised construction related qualifications, i.e. NVQs or approved equivalents.

“The CRO card is issued without the requirement to demonstrate the applicant has achieved an appropriate qualification and as such does not meet the requirements of the CLC.”

The removal of the CRO card will impact over 230,000 CRO card holders and the alternatives available will depend on the qualifications held by the applicant and whether their occupation is categorised as construction related.

In many cases CRO card holders will be required to register for existing or newly developed qualifications before their CRO cards expire. In others CRO card holders will be moved to one of CSCS’s Partner Card Schemes that are more appropriate for their occupations. For some, where their occupation is not construction related or no suitable qualification exists, a CSCS card will no longer be issued and it will be the responsibility of site supervisors and managers to ensure these workers are properly supervised and managed.
 

If you are a CRO cardholder visit www.cscs.uk.com/cro to find out what steps you need to take.

There is a consultation document out asking for feedback from interested parties and industry leaders on the proposed changes to the Ionising Regulations 1999 likely to become the Ionising Regulations 2017.

Briefly the main changes are:
Dose Limit for exposure to the lens of the eye and implementation of the Directive – the Directive introduces a reduction of equivalent dose from 150 mSv to 20 mSv in a year. Currently exposure to ionising radiation is calculated and assessed on a calendar year basis, this would require individual dose limits to be re-calculated for the remainder of the year. HSE propose to transpose the 1996 Basic Safety Standards Directive (96/29/Euratom) (BSSD) early, on 1st January 2018, to avoid confusion and any additional cost burden to businesses.

Graded Approach - introduction of a new three tiered risk-based system of regulatory control. The Directive refers to these levels as notification, registration, and licensing -  the higher the radiation protection risk associated with the work, the greater the requirements. It requires HSE to have in place a positive system of authorisation whereby permission is granted to dutyholders for higher risk activities through registration and licensing.

Additional new proposed key requirements for stakeholders are:
Weighting factors: Introduction of new weighting factors for dosimetry. HSE will adopt the new radiation and tissue weighting factors. Guidance on methodology will be provided.

Record retention: Change from 50 years to not less than 30 years retention after the last day of work. HSE propose to accept the BSSD approach.

Notification and recording of significant events: HSE have interpreted ‘significant event’ as an event which results in an accident. Currently, IRR does not require the recording and analysis of an accident and so HSE propose to link this to the IRR requirement for contingency plans.

Outside workers: the definition of outside workers in the regulations to be amended to include all those who work with radiation to ensure outside workers are afforded the same protection as those workers employed by the employer responsible for the work.

Public dose estimation: Procedures are required that estimate the does to members of the public. Although environmental regulations cover most practices, IRR will be amended to cover those that do not. Guidance on methodology will be provided.

Appointed doctor: HSE intend to remove the requirement for a registered medical practitioner to be appointed ‘in writing’ for the purposes of these Regulations.

Authorisation of the whole body dose limit in special cases:  HSE will authorise the application of an effective dose limit of 100 mSv over five years (with no more than 50 mSv in a single year) rather than dutyholders only giving prior notification.

Dosimetry services: The BSSD requires the recognition of the ability of dosimetry services to perform certain dosimetry functions by the competent authority. HSE is to adopt the BSSD terminology of “recognition” in place of “approval” as part of revising the current dosimetry service regime. The timing of this change will draw industry and wider stakeholder attention to the differences between old procedures and the new one.

Authorisation of 5 year averaging for dose limit to lens of the eye: Dutyholders can make use of this flexibility but this will be subject to conditions specified by HSE.

Radon: IRR expresses the radon reference level over a 24 hour period, while the BSSD expressed the reference level on an annual basis. Calculations show the current IRR requirement is equivalent to the annual average in BSSD. HSE will therefore adopt the value in the BSSD

Click here to visit the HSE website or download the consultation document
 

Asbestos is a hot topic. The risks posed by its uncontrolled release into the atmosphere are well documented and for those at risk from accidental exposure, training is mandatory.

Licensed contract work is completed with a very high degree of control during the removal process and includes the issuing of an ‘Asbestos Clear Certificate’.  A certificate issued by an analyst, independent of the contractor, ensures the minimum acceptable levels of fibres in the atmosphere has been achieved, before entry is permitted for general occupation.

It is therefore extremely concerning that an asbestos analyst has been fined after he falsified an asbestos air clearance certificate, following licensed asbestos removal in Manchester.

Greater Manchester Magistrates’ Court, sitting at Manchester and Salford Court House, heard how, on 19^th November 2015, Mr Barrie Lyons, a well-trained asbestos analyst with 29 years of experience, was contracted to carry out the final inspection and air testing, following asbestos removal at a construction site in central Manchester.
 
Mr Lyons’ task included a thorough examination of the area where asbestos had been removed from, within the defined enclosure itself and the areas surrounding it. He also had a series of air samples to collect and evaluate, to ensure that the air was substantially free of asbestos.

The investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) revealed that Mr Lyons had failed to carry out a suitable inspection of the site and had not carried out the correct amount of air sampling, despite his report to his employer and the client indicating that he had. In effect, Mr Lyons had deliberately falsified his report and so his published results could no longer be relied upon. The asbestos removal contractor had no option but to have a second clearance test carried out which incurred significant delays and additional expense.

Mr Barrie Lyons, of Bishops Stortford, Hertfordshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 7(a) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was fined £2000 and ordered to pay costs of £3905.73

Dutyholders, contractors and the public at large place their trust in the skills and competencies of these individuals, on the basis that they know more about the expectations of the appointment and the risk posed by not meeting the requirements of the service, than they do. 

 

 

The HSE has announced that it is to consult on proposals to make its cost recovery scheme dispute process fully independent.

The scheme, Fee for Intervention (FFI) was introduced in October 2012 to shift the cost of regulating workplace health and safety from the public purse to businesses which break the law and ensures the cost burden of HSE intervention is picked up by those companies and not taxpayers. 

If an inspector identifies serious health and safety failings in the workplace about which they need to write to the dutyholder, then that dutyholder has to pay the costs of the HSE visit. If the inspector simply issues verbal advice there is no charge.  Charges have recently increased to £129.00 per hour for the time spent by an inspector to resolve material breaches observed during their attendance. Charges are applied whilst the inspector is involved in the process, waiting time for client action is not chargeable. If there is disagreement on HSE’s decision the dutyholder can dispute it.

Until now, disputes were considered by a panel which consisted of two members from HSE and one independent person. However, after reviewing the current process HSE will consult with relevant stakeholders with a view to making the process fully independent.