An Irish asbestos removal company has been fined £15,000 after it failed, “by a considerable margin”, to meet safe working standards.
The fine is the result of a trial earlier this year, where Cullen Asbestos Ltd, from Stoneyford, was convicted of three offences under health and safety legislation, including failing to ensure, as far as practicable, the health and safety of employees at work, prevention of exposure to asbestos and preventing the spread of asbestos.
The company was engaged to remove large ceiling sections in the form of tiling from industrial premises in Belfast in April of 2014. The tiles contained white asbestos but were noted as only dangerous when disturbed, so “logically, the greater the disturbance the greater the risk to health”.
Two staff members were witnessed at the site “standing on step ladders, using hammers to pull down and break the tiles” with those tiles left “in various locations” in unsealed bags that “were torn with asbestos material clearly visible”.
“There was lose material and debris on the floor, on top of the bags and surfaces,” said the judge when they ought to have been put into an “appropriate covered receptacle to prevent further spread”.
There were additional safety breaches at the site, including evidence of a lack of staff training, a lack of an appropriate skip or vessel for depositing the asbestos, and failure to cover or protect the exposed areas.
Judge Kinney explained that while the company was a “small undertaking” the offences were “aggravated” because the “breaches went to the top of the structure…there was not prompt acceptance of liability and limited cooperation with the Health and Safety Executive.”
He explained that despite the preparation of an asbestos management plan and method statement, “there was no system of checking that appropriate precautions were being taken”.
“An asbestos survey or method statement are of little value if the staff are not properly trained in asbestos awareness and the process and procedures clearly explains to them and then enforced,” he said.
“I’m satisfied that the company failed to meet an appropriate standard by a considerable margin.”
The company was fined £15,000, with Judge Kinney remarking that the size of the fine should “reflect punishment and deterrence and the removal of gain through the commission of an offence – it should not be cheaper to offend than to take appropriate precautions”.