• Total Access Total Access Ethentic Ethentic
    Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data

    SITE WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS ENFORCEMENT RISING

    Environment Agency becomes pro-active in inspecting and enforcing compliance

    The Environment Agency (EA) is becoming more pro-active in inspecting and enforcing compliance with Site Waste Management Plans (SWMPs).

    Fines for non-compliance are potentially unlimited. Significantly, the EA can prosecute a number of separate offences arising out of one plan.

    Nabarro LLP has prepared a briefing covers the requirements of SWMPs for both the client and the principal contractor and the consequences of non-compliance. The contents are reproduced below.

    Summary
    • SWMPs must be prepared on construction projects in England with an estimated worth of more than £300,000;
    • SWMPs must be prepared before construction work begins and must be updated whenever waste is removed from the site; and
    • SWMPs must comply with the Site Waste Management Plans Regulations 2008;
    • failure to comply will result in fixed penalties, prosecution or fines, for which directors, managers and company officers can be personally liable.
     
    1. Preparation of the SWMP

    The client must prepare the SWMP before any construction work begins. This includes any fitting out, alterations, demolition or on site assembly. If the client appoints a principal contractor, it is still the client who is legally responsible for the preparation of the SWMP.

    However, both the client and the principal contractor will be guilty of an offence if the project starts without a plan in place.

     
    2. The content and format of the SWMP

    There is no formal requirement to adopt a specific template for an SWMP. However, guidance issued by Defra contains a specimen template. In summary, certain details that must be included in the plan:

    1. The identity of the client, principal contractor and person who drafted the plan;
    2. The site location and the estimated cost of the project;
    3. Design information as to waste minimisation;
    4. A description of type and estimated quantity of waste;
    5. Any plans to reuse, recycle or recover different wastes; and
    6. A declaration of compliance with the waste duty of care regime.

     

    3 . Ongoing obligations

    Which projects are caught?

    • Projects planned before 6 April 2008 with construction work beginning after 1 July 2008.
    • All projects planned after 6 April 2008.

    The Regulations do not apply to projects planned before 6 April 2008 with construction work starting before 1 July 2008.

    Whenever waste is removed from the site it is the principal contractor’s duty to update the SWMP with the following information:

    • The identity of the person removing the waste;
    • The types of waste removed; and
    • The site to which the waste has been taken.

    There are additional, more detailed requirements for SWMPs where the project costs are more than £500,000. Both the client and the principal contractor must also:

    • Review, revise and refine SWMPs as necessary; and
    • Take reasonable steps to prevent illegal waste disposal from the site.

    Duty to reuse, recycle or recover waste – Section 1(4) of the Schedule to the Regulations, requires the principal contractor to “ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, that waste produced during construction is re-used, recycled or recovered”.

    This obligation will assume greater significance given the requirement in the Revised Waste Framework Directive that by 2020, 70 per cent of construction and demolition waste by weight (excluding naturally occurring materials) must be recycled.

    Under section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, anyone concerned with controlled waste must ensure that the waste is:

    • Managed properly;
    • Recovered or disposed of safely;
    • Does not cause harm to human health or pollution of the environment;
    • Is only transferred to someone who is authorised to receive it. No more than three months after the work is finished

    The principal contractor must add to the plan and:

    • Confirm that the plan has been monitored and updated; and
    • Explain any deviation from the plan.

    The principal contractor must also retain the SWMP for two years after completion of the project.

     
    4 . Additional requirements for client and principal contractor

    The principal contractor has the following additional duties:

    • Undertake training and site induction on the SWMPs.
    • Promote and develop measures to ensure waste is dealt with in accordance with the SWMP.

    The client is also responsible for giving reasonable directions to any contractor to enable the principal contractor to comply with its SWMP obligations.

    Penalties

    • Fixed penalty notices on failure to produce SWMPs – £300.
    • Summary conviction in the Magistrates’ court – fine up to £50,000.
    • Conviction on indictment in the Crown Court – unlimited fine.

     

    5 . Offences and enforcement

    The key offences are:

    • Failure to comply with any of the SWMP Regulations.
    • Making a false or misleading statement in an SWMP.
    • Obstructing or failing to assist a regulator.

    The EA, local authorities and councils have the power to enforce the SWMP Regulations. Any authorised officer of these organisations also has the power to issue a fixed penalty notice of £300 for failure to produce a copy of an SWMP when requested.

    As with most environmental offences, where a company has been found guilty under the SWMP Regulations, directors, managers and officers of the company can be personally liable. This occurs where they have connived or at acted negligently in breach of the SWMP Regulations.

     
    6. Beware – the honeymoon period is over

    The Environment Agency is becoming more pro-active in inspecting and enforcing compliance with SWMPs.

    They began “Agency trials” in August in Bedford and are now targeting areas such as Milton Keynes and Runnymede in Surrey.

    Fines are potentially high with the ability of the regulators to prosecute for a number of separate offences arising out of one plan.

    Latest Construction Health and Safety News

    HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 13th JUNE 2018

    hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices register latest version

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 13th June 2018

    DIRECTOR FAILED COMPLY WITH HSE PROHIBITION

    Precautions not taken to prevent excavation collapse and falling

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 11th June 2018

    SCAFFOLD NOT TO INDUSTRY STANDARD OR DESIGN

    Specialist and contractor in court over unsafe work at height

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 7th June 2018

    ROAD WORKER RUN OVER BY ROAD ROLLER

    Reversing alarm not working and warning light not fitted

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 5th June 2018

    CLIENT AND SURVEYOR FINED OVER ASBESTOS SURVEY

    Refurbishment and demolition asbestos survey proved inadequate

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 5th June 2018

    FATALITY: ROAD WORKER DRAGGED ALONG ROAD

    Night shift worker loses life when struck by road sweeping vehicle

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 3rd June 2018

    CDM PRINCIPAL DESIGNERS AVOID HSE ENFORCEMENT

    Regulator enforcement database reveals few notices involve CDM PDs

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 3rd June 2018

    PROPERTY MANAGERS FINED WITH CONTRACTOR

    Defendants failed to check for asbestos during soffit replacement works

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 29th May 2018

    EXCAVATION CAUSED RETAINING WALL COLLAPSE

    Precautions not taken to secure stability of free-standing wall

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 29th May 2018

    OVERHEAD CABLE STRIKE FIRM FINED £500,000+

    Inadequate system caused risk of harm despite lack of worker injury

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 29th May 2018

    CDM 2015 PRINCIPAL DESIGNER FINED OVER FIRE RISK

    PD and PC failed to comply with CDM 2015 responsibilities

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 23rd May 2018

    SENTENCING GUIDELINES UNDER THE MICROSCOPE

    Lawyer argues guidelines undermine reduction in ‘regulatory burden’

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 23rd May 2018

    PANEL STRUCK WORKMAN DURING LIFTING OPERATION

    Third party contractor falls victim of poor lift planning

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 21st May 2018

    DIRECTOR LED HAZARDOUS WORK AT HEIGHT

    Three occasions when work lacked suitable and sufficient precautions

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 21st May 2018

    RISK ASSESSED BUT CONTROLS FOUND WANTING

    Joiner fell through unprotected opening on roof of new building

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 21st May 2018

    RIBA CRITICAL OF HACKITT REVIEW FINAL REPORT

    High rise residential review dismissed as “major missed opportunity”

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 21st May 2018

    CONSTRUCTION SECTOR DEATHS: THE ‘BIG THREE’

    HSE in-year fatalities for 2017/18 may indicate upward trend

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 16th May 2018

    SCAFFOLDING SITE ACCIDENTS AT RECORD LOW

    NASC Annual Report reveals all time low in 2017 incidents

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th May 2018

    DUMPER TRUCK HAND-BRAKE NOT MAINTAINED

    Workman injured when pinned against stack of concrete blocks

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th May 2018

    SPARE POWER INTERLOCK KEY CAUSED DEATH

    Dangerous machinery safety precautions defeated for maintenance tasks

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 10th May 2018

    COLLAPSED CAR PARK WAS UNDER REPAIR

    Rusted steel supports triggered collapse of fascia and floor

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 8th May 2018

    DUMPER OVERTURN CAUSED FATAL INJURIES

    Precautions during spoil heap creation were inadequate

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 8th May 2018

    HARDWOOD DUST CONTROL NOT MAINTAINED

    Manufacturer failed to examine and test local extraction system

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 8th May 2018

    SCAFFOLD CONTRACTOR OVERLOOKED MAJOR HAZARD

    Well-known risk unidentified during scaffold erection project

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 8th May 2018

    THREE FIRMS FINED £1/2M FOR FRAGILE RISK FAILURES

    Fall through rooflight hazard poorly planned and managed

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 2nd May 2018
    Total Access Total Access Ethentic Ethentic
    Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data