Ethentic Ethentic Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data
  • Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data Ethentic Ethentic

    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

    CONCRETE EJECTED BY PUMPING UNIT CLAIMED LIFE

    Company and director failed to train and supervise pumping operations

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 5th December 2018

    HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 5th DEC 2018

    hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices register latest version

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 5th December 2018

    REFRESHED GUIDANCE ON FITNESS TO OPERATE PLANT

    Construction plant medical fitness Good Practice Guide

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 4th December 2018

    MAJOR CONTRACTOR & LUL USED UNSAFE SYSTEM

    Work method to eliminate moving vehicle hazard not adopted

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 4th December 2018

    OVERTURNING LORRY CAUSED DEATH OF DRIVER

    Groundworks project stockpiling arrangements not properly managed

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 3rd December 2018

    FORTH BRIDGE LIFTING OPERATION NOT PLANNED

    Major project PC failed to plan, supervise and carry out lift safely

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 3rd December 2018

    DEVELOPER FAILED ON ASBESTOS ASSESSMENT

    HSE inspection revealed refurb works without asbestos survey

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 28th November 2018

    POST DRIVER HAMMER CRUSHED HAND OF WORKMAN

    Unsafe system of work for vehicle crash barrier installation

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 28th November 2018

    WORKER FELL FROM LOFT THROUGH CEILING

    Major house builder lacked understanding of loft fragile surfaces risk

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 28th November 2018

    NEW SITE DUMPER SAFETY GUIDANCE ISSUED

    Construction plant sector concerns prompts CPA consults on draft

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 28th November 2018

    CCTV INSTALLER FELL THROUGH FRAGILE ROOFLIGHT

    Contractor failed to properly plan and control the risks

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 28th November 2018

    VISITOR DIED FALLING INTO CONCEALED BASEMENT

    Contractor failed to protect basement void on domestic project

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 28th November 2018

    RACKING FALL REVEALED UNSAFE SYSTEM OF WORK

    European firm fined £300,000 after UK sub-contractor employee fell

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th November 2018

    FAILURE TO ACT ON VIBRATION AND SILICA HAZARDS

    Worker health put at risk during stripping of furnace lining

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th November 2018

    MAJOR FM FIRM FAILED TO MAINTAIN BACK-UP POWER

    Power loss at laboratory site created potential risk from biological agents

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th November 2018

    IGNORING HSE PROHIBITIONS COST FIRM £250,000

    CDM 2015 and work at height requirements repeatedly breached

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 16th November 2018

    ROOF COLLAPSED UNDER EXCESS LOADING

    Director and company fined over roof design failures

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 11th November 2018

    FORK LIFT OVERTURNED IN SCAFFOLDING YARD

    Untrained operator suffered life changing crush injuries

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 10th November 2018

    STRUCTURAL SAFETY ALERT: EFFECTS OF SCALE

    SCOSS issues alert after concerns disclosed over ‘large structures’

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 7th November 2018

    ASBESTOS EXPOSED BY UNTRAINED WORKERS

    Contractor failed to act properly despite HSE intervention

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 7th November 2018

    GAS MAIN STRIKE REPAIR CAUSED SEVERE BURNS

    Contractor excavator damage to gas pipe ends in £1.2m fine

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 7th November 2018

    REBAR FELL FROM FLT IN UNSAFE LIFTING OPERATION

    Multiple fractures caused by inappropriate use of fork lift

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 7th November 2018

    POORLY PLANNED LIFT DISMANTLE INJURED WORKMAN

    Counterweight or suspension rope struck worker in lift shaft

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 1st November 2018

    CONSTRUCTION INJURY AND ILL-HEALTH 2017/18

    hselogo1Fatal injury rate in long term decline whilst ill-health trend flat lining

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 1st November 2018

    DUMPER DRIVEN INTO OPEN UNGUARDED EXCAVATION

    Contractor fined over absence of suitable excavation / dumper precautions

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 1st November 2018
    Ethentic Ethentic Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data
  • Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data Ethentic Ethentic