Supporting the HSE 'Hidden Killer Campaign' for Asbestos Awareness

To learn more about Asbestos from the HSE go to;

Talk to us about an ASBESTOS COURSE today

Members of BOHS ( British Occupational Hygiene Society )


Legislation Change for Notifiable Non-Licensed Works on Asbestos
As of the 1st May 2015 medical examinations will be required for all workers carrying out notifiable non-licensed work on asbestos.

The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 requires medical surveillance for workers undertaking licensed asbestos work, and from 1st May 2015, will also cover workers carrying out Notifiable Non-Licensed Work (NNLW) on asbestos.
A worker planning to carry out any NNLW, on or after 1st May 2015, must have a medical examination before this work can be commenced, unless the worker has had a suitable examination in the previous three years.
These examinations are to be carried out by an appropriate fully registered medical practitioner and must be repeated at least every three years while this type of work is undertaken or excepted to be undertaken.

For more information please visit: http://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/licensing/notifiable-non-licensed-work.htm#medical

We conduct ASBESTOS AWARENESS TRAINING 1/2 day. Make sure that your tradesmen are aware of the hazards. Some everday materials contain Asbestos, even some floor tiles.

8. Course Content
The following core topics from the following modules are delivered:
Module 1 – A.A. Types, Uses & Risks of ACMs
 Types of products that may contain asbestos
 ACMs friability/conditions when they will release fibres
 Recognition of when fibres may be released – the need for control
Pictures were then shown and delegates asked to identify the ACM’s in the pictures
Module 2 – A.A. Health Hazards of Asbestos,
 Need for dust/fibre suppression to control exposure
 Need for correct use/maintenance of RPE
 Risks of taking home asbestos-contaminated equipment/clothing
Module 3 – A.A. Legislation,
 Overview of CAR 2012
 Regulation 4 – “The Duty to Manage ACM’s in Buildings”
 Control of exposure – as low as ‘reasonable practicable’
 Requirements of ACOP L143 and associated guidance.
 The definition and standing of the ACoP and guidance in law.

Module 4 - A. A. Working safely when ACM’s are present
This module covered the following core topics:
 Actions to be taken when working with ACM’s.
 Procedures and Equipment for working with specific ACM’s.
 Procedures for Dealing with accidental releases and emergencies.
 Personal hygiene procedures
 Personal protective equipment.
 Controlling fibre exposure.
In order to deliver this module the course tutor utilises specific extracts from HSG 210 to illustrate his points and to raise the appropriate issues, the specific extracts referred to all of the materials the delegates were likely to work with or encounter based on complete surveys of their work place.
Additionally the following topics are introduced:
 Risk Assessments: what a risk assessment is why it is required and how to carry one out on every project.
 Plan of Work: what it is how to compile a POW from a risk assessment and the importance of the need for a plan of work
 Control Limits: What control limits were and what they were used for.
 Air Monitoring: Requirements for air monitoring and types of monitoring carried out.
 General site hazards were covered which included working at height, slips trips, electrical working, and working in confined spaces.


Generally the whole set up and management of the training was very good indeed, Greg Ball demonstrated a sound and thorough knowledge of the asbestos industry and delegates appeared to obtain a very good grasp of their subject following the training course, feed back from the delegates indicated a strong satisfaction with the way the course had been delivered and the knowledge they had gained from the course.
In my view the course was presented professionally and competently and fully complied with the requirements of current asbestos legislation.

Mike Keeligan. AMAC  for IATP

ASBESTOS AWARENESS TRAINING is a legal requirement for anyone who may be
exposed to asbestos eg.

Heating & Ventilation Engineers
Demolition Workers
Carpenters, Joiners and Construction Workers
Roofing Contractors
Fire and Burglar Alarm Installers
Painters, Decorators & Plasterers
Shop Fitters
Gas Fitters
General Maintenance Staff
Computer Installers & Telecoms engineers
Electricians and Cable Layers


A contractor in Northern Ireland has been fined for disturbing asbestos during the demolition of a bungalow in Dromore. http://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/dromore-demolition-breached-asbestos-regs#.UUMJOI2DBEw.twitter

  Stroud MP Neil Carmichael calls for action on asbestos http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/Stroud-MP-Neil-Carmichael-calls-action-asbestos/story-18414650-detail/story.html#ixzz2NcIu52bn

 Tragic woman’s final warning http://www.lep.co.uk/news/education/tragic-woman-s-final-warning-1-5496684
                                                                                                             Get checked for asbestos http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/10287416.Get_checked_for_asbestos/ 

 Asbestos campaign backed by man after wife's cancer death http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-21778128

Every breath you take... http://www.builderandengineer.co.uk/feature/every-breath-you-take

                                                                                                      FLY-TIPPERS have been condemned after leaving huge piles of asbestos at a beauty spot http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/fury-as-asbestos-is-dumped-on-the-side-of-the-road-1-4886664

  What’s New at HSE http://news.hse.gov.uk/

Safety failings led to asbestos exposure at Dorset schoolDate:13 July 2012The unsafe removal of asbestos insulation boards at a large independent school in Dorset led to several people being exposed to asbestos fibres, Dorchester Crown Court heard today (13 July).

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Sherborne School and Peter Eldridge, the director of a company responsible for the refurbishment project, after an investigation found they had failed to identify and prevent the risk of asbestos exposure at the school.

Asbestos insulation boards were removed in an unsafe way, exposing building contractors and a teenage work experience student to asbestos fibres, and leaving them at risk of developing serious and potentially fatal diseases later in life.

The HSE investigation found that from the initial design stages in May 2008 right through to undertaking the construction work in July 2009, there was inadequate planning and a failure to carry out a full asbestos survey.

This was despite the fact that a sample taken from the building in 2008 had identified its presence and asbestos had previously been removed from other parts of the school. An asbestos register was also kept for the school buildings.

The court heard that neither Mr Eldridge nor the school had appointed a Construction Design and Management (CDM) coordinator for the refurbishment project, despite it being a requirement of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 for a project of this size.

The CDM coordinator would have ensured a full refurbishment and demolition asbestos survey was completed in advance of construction work. Licensed asbestos contractors could then have been appointed to safely remove it.

Sherborne School pleaded guilty breaching Regulation 4(8) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and Regulation 14 of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 at a previous hearing before Weymouth Magistrates. The school was fined a total of £60,000 and ordered to pay £13,000 in costs.

Peter Eldridge, of Long Street, Sherborne, Dorset, also pleaded guilty at Weymouth Magistrates to breaching Regulations 11(3) and 18(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 by virtue of his neglect as an individual director. He was fined a total of £10,000 with costs of £6,000.

Speaking after the prosecution, HSE Inspector Joanna Teasdale, said:

"Both Peter Eldridge and Sherborne School knew about the risks posed by the presence of asbestos in the school buildings, and yet they failed to manage the risk of exposure to asbestos fibres during the refurbishment project.

"As a result several people, including at least one teenager, were put at unnecessary risk. In being exposed to asbestos fibres they could develop a serious and potentially fatal illness.

"Although Sherborne School was the client, it still had a duty to manage the control of asbestos on its site, and to be aware of the requirements of removing asbestos safely.

"This incident and the risk to those involved could have been easily avoided if competent people had been engaged during the planning of the refurbishment project to advise the school, such as a CDM coordinator."

Exposure to asbestos fibres is the single greatest cause of work-related deaths in the UK; it is responsible for around 4,000 deaths a year. For more information on asbestos, visit www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos

++ Workers needlessly exposed to deadly asbestos dust ++
Brewery, building contractors and director fined a total of £20,000

++ Asbestos fibres spread in shop by unqualified workmen ++
Timber repair firm fined a total of £18,000 for four offences

++ Workers put at risk of asbestos exposure ++
Licensed asbestos removal contractor fined £10,000

++ Firm failed to control asbestos ++
Sussex company director fined £8,000

Cape Asbestos Legacy: Alice Fight For Life (Video)

Mike Holmes: DIY Video

BLF: Take 5 and Stay Alive Campaign

Action Mesothelioma Day 6th July 2012

IBAS: Eternit's 'Annus Horribilis

Clydebank Asbestos Group: Recipients of the Queens Award for Voluntary Service

Can we save Asia from Asbestos?

MOD pay cancer care costs after legal ruling

Whats New at HSE

Parent firm liable in “historic” asbestos case 01 May 2012
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.

++ Workers exposed to asbestos ++
Knitwear company and site foreman fined a total of £29,000

++ Workers put at risk of asbestos exposure ++
Cardiff company fined £5,000 for failing to identify asbestos

++ Workers exposed to asbestos at Redditch industrial unit ++
Freight firm, managing director and contractor fined a total of £62,500

++ Property manager failed to manage asbestos risks ++
Cardiff man fined £12,000 for leaving tenants at risk of exposure

 Every week 20 tradesmen die from Asbestos related disease. If you carry out work on a building that was built or refurbished prior to the year 2000, you could have been exposed to Asbestos without even knowing it. Asbestos is a 'Hidden killer' so now is the time to get clued up on the facts so that your employees, workmates, friends and their families are protected.

Many situations are quite safe as long as they are managed correctly. Phone us today to discuss your individual situation


                  07814 422362  OR 07790 486839           8am to 7 pm

                               ONE CALL TRAINING LTD

               Our instructor is a Qualified Asbestos Surveyor under the

              National Asbestos Training & Accreditation Scheme  NATAS

                          Accredited PASMA Training Centre

                                Audited Members of IATP                                                   

        Affiliate members of BOHS ( British Occupational Hygene Society )

              Members of The Newcastle Construction Safety Group

                 AND  The Midland Construction Safety Association