Safety Matters - my Safety Blog

Sheffield University

2012-01-29T03:16:00.000-08:00

In addition to running my "normal" Health and Safety Consultancy business, I'm also assisting Sheffield University by acting as Head of Safety Services on a three day a week basis for three or four months. This project is both demanding and challenging and draws upon my knowledge and experience in several areas, including:

asbestos safety and management
legionella safety
work at heights
electrical safety
control of contractors
fire safety
biosafety
record keeping
teaching and training
many other areas and aspects of health and safety.

I'm also responsible for the existing Safety Services Team. Managing this team is very different from managing my team of safety consultants.

Some sensible Christmastime advice

2011-12-19T08:08:00.000-08:00

Information sent on behalf of Leicestershire Constabulary

The main message with the frosty mornings now upon us is aimed at drivers. We always gat an increase in vehicle crime at this time of year as people will start their engines to warm up the car while they go inside to keep warm and finish off their cup of tea.

This is an open invitation to car thieves for them to come and take your car, not only will this leave you without your car, but insurance companies will not payout for vehicles taken in this way, so this could end up very expensive for YOU!

Harborough Police will be out patrolling on frosty morning looking for cars left to “defrost” and will be speaking to the owners, vehicle owners can face a fine for leaving their vehicle running unattended on the highway, so beware!

Other Vehicle tips include

Not leaving Christmas presents on display in your vehicle.
Make sure all your windows and lights are clear of snow before driving.
Don’t drive unless necessary in bad conditions
Keep your washer level topped up with screen wash with an antifreeze
Pack an emergency kit. High Vis jacket, food, water, shovel, boots, de-icer, torch and maybe even some salt grit.
Keep your tires in check with a good level of tread, 3mm instead of the legal minimum if 1.6mm
Keep sunglasses in the car to deal with low sun conditions.

Other winter advice

Leave some lights on in your home, a completely dark house tells thieves that you’re out
In very cold spells leave the heating on but turned right down to between 10 and 15 degrees to stop the pipes freezing.

This information was originally provided for general issue by Leicestershire Constabulary

Leicester company fined for creating fire safety risk

2011-12-18T07:45:00.001-08:00

A Leicester haulage company has been prosecuted for creating a massive fire risk by illegally storing huge quantities of highly flammable aerosols. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found the firm had not properly managed the risks associated with storing large amounts of aerosol products at their Hilltop Industrial Estate site in Leicestershire.The Company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 6(2) of the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 (COMAH) and Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 at Coalville Magistrates Court and were fined £5,000 and ordered to pay costs of £4,900.

The court heard that the company stored large amounts of LPG (liquefied petroleum gas) for around seven months. It failed to notify the authorities of its operations on site, did not complete a risk assessment and then failed to implement many good practices recognised by industry.

HSE Inspector, James Wright, said:"The arrangements this company had in place for the storage of aerosol products fell well below what HSE would expect to find ... On this occasion, with the amount of LPG being stored on site, there was a real risk of a major fire, which would have posed a threat to employees on site and those in the surrounding area ... The company also failed to notify the HSE that they were operating a site which came under the COMAH Regulations ... This case should serve as a reminder to all operators of sites warehousing aerosol products - where there are serious failures to implement suitable arrangements for managing the risks from LPG, HSE will not hesitate to prosecute."

Simple steps to avoid repeating this type of problem

Keep the level of highly flammable materials stored on your premises under review:

keep a simple inventory
review the inventory against the stock on a regular basis
manage by walking about - look to see what is being stored and ensure that the arrangements for the site are suitable for the levels and the types of materials being stored
keep the fire risk assessment and the DSEAR (Dangerous Substances and Explosive Substances Risk Assessments) up to date

If you need any assistance - contact us through our website

Sunday night - before the week ahead

2011-12-04T12:41:00.001-08:00

Update - on Friday 09 December 2012
Team away day - Focus on 2012
The Safety Team met off site for a discussion on the challenges of the year ahead. This proved to be an extremely interesting and useful session. It allowed the Team to be more fully involved in the running of the business and in the process of considering how next year will shape up for us. We even managed to fit in a session of using Fire Extinguishers (carried out by our in house Senior Fire Safety Consultant). We have even filmed this to provide some YouTube footage, to be uploaded shortly.

Many ideas and approaches were raised by the team. These have been captured and a précis of the meeting notes is to be circulated on Monday, with actions and individuals responsible for them clearly identified. I am convinced that we are focussed on 2012 and that we will be able to progress the business in the New Year!

Wednesday's training course went really well. Hagrid did a great job of working the delegates hard and ensuring that they left enthused to achieve. I wonder how contact back with reality has hit them this morning!

For my part, the site visits at the start of the week went without any hitches and the reports have been sent onto the clients for them to action, as appropriate. The Networking session on Tuesday morning was excellent and that group is destined for great things (in my opinion).

Testimonial from a course delegate:

The issue of Health & Safety can be seen to be an obstacle to be overcome rather than an opportunity to be taken. Mike Ellerby and Peter Phillips dispel the myths of Health & Safety and replace them with commonsense. Like it or not, we all have to deal with Health & Safety. Mike and his team will save you time, angst and potentially significant sums of money should you get your Health & Safety wrong.

Testimonial from a course delegate:

I recently attended the Level 2 Health & Safety in the Workplace course at (run by Mike Ellerby and Peter Phillips). The course was interesting with lot's of interaction in very comfortable surroundings, the trainer was very knowledgable re all aspects of H & S in the work place and I came away feeling more confident in my role as Health & Safety office within my work place. I would like to thank (Mike and Peter) and I look forward to working with them in the future.

Initial section of the Blog (now relegated to the rear of this blog)
I can't say that I particularly enjoyed the drive down to Lymington today, but it was reasonably hassle free.

I was pleasantly surprised by the hotel (booked on Late Rooms) and by the balcony overlooking the High Street. The Christmas tree on the balcony was a nice touch. The food (enjoyed from a window table while creating this blog) was pleasant and I enjoyed a Peroni with it.

Tomorrow starts with an early start on Lymington High Street (mainly to carry out an Accessibility Audit) and a then short drive over to Salisbury to look at the common areas of an Industrial Estate.

I'm looking forward to the Networking meeting early on Tuesday morning. There are some excellent relationships being built at that club.

On Wednesday we are running a training course in our offices and on Thursday meeting with three potential new clients.

Friday is an "away day" for the Safety Team to discuss our focus for 2012. I have to admit that I'm looking forward to that.

New Year's Safety Resolutions - are you making any?

2011-12-03T09:00:00.000-08:00

At New Year, many people make resolutions to change - their lifestyle, attitude, eating habits, etc. Do businesses? Do the people who run businesses?

This year, why not make a resolution to "do safety better". I do not mean that you should spend unnecessary sums of money or to carry out unnecessary training or risk assessments. I mean "to think about safety and make some simple, low cost changes for the better". My hope is that some of these changes (or improvements) will become permanent and will permeate the business.

Some simple starters?

Housekeeping standards - about a third of workplace accidents result from slips, trips and falls and about half of these result from poor housekeeping. It is, therefore, simple to avoid most of these accidents just by clearing the place up a bit. This may also make your business a bit more effective and will help to reduce your fire safety risks as well.

Fire Safety - Check exit routes, check emergency lighting, check the fire alarm, do a fire drill, update your fire safety risk assessment, etc. Many businesses think that they are doing this, until they have a check and find sporadic records or records that ceases two years ago when the book was full!

Vehicle movements - review the separation between people and vehicles - people come off really badly when it goes wrong!

Focus - as with all areas that are important to your business, focus your efforts onto those things that will make a big difference for a low cost and for minimal effort. Housekeeping is a nice, easy big hit. It costs little and can reduce the instances of slips, trips and falls and it can reduce the likelihood of a fire.

Records - consider which records are most important to the management of health and safety and make it ease to keep these up to date.

Get involved - walk round the premises and view the operation regularly. Put right those things that do not look right on the walk round or, even better, get those people who should already have addressed these issues to put them right! This is truly management by walking about.

If you do need help, please contact us through our website

Networking Groups, my view point

2011-12-03T07:59:00.000-08:00

Anyone who follows me on Twitter (@Safety_Matters) will know that I am an advocate of Networking Groups. In recent months, I have reviewed critically all of the Networking Groups that I am a member of. The upshot of this review is that it is clear that some Groups are more active and more effective than others.

An obvious point coming out of the review is that attending Networking Groups costs both time and money - these are commodities that all businesses need to review and control.

I have recently left one Networking Group and reduced by attendance at another (by using a reliable substitute). I have also joined one additional Group that meets on a two-weekly basis rather than on a weekly basis and does not provide breakfast. This does help to control costs and time commitment for attendance. This new group is also the most active and vibrant group that I have ever been a member of. The reason for this, I think, is focus: on the Members and on Outcomes.

Like many things (including the provision of health and safety services), the true costs of Networking Groups should be monitored and scrutinised regularly.

Please visit my Health and Safety Website

Plese follow me on Twitter: @Safety_Matters

Health and Safety in 2012 - keeping a competitive edge

2011-12-03T07:40:00.000-08:00

Worried about safety in 2012?
Many people (including business owners, managers and directors) are looking forward to 2012 and wondering what it will have in store for them. Health and safety is one of those things that companies need to get right, but which should not compromise the economic viability of the company.

With many companies worried about expenditure, it is right that they should be worried that the health and safety of their workers may be compromised. We offer a solution to that problem: appoint us to work with you on your health and safety. True: we charge for that service. Also true: we are likely to be more cost effective than you struggling to do it in-house and then not having the time to do it properly. The benefit of appointing us is that we know what we are doing and we will work with you to improve your safety performance.

Contact us through our website

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 extends to the Police

2011-11-30T05:36:00.000-08:00

As of 01 September 2011, police forces, prison services and other authorities holding people in custody can now be charged under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.

Health and Safety in 2012

2011-11-27T07:32:00.001-08:00

Have you thought about health and safety in the New Year? Will be doing anything different next year? Does safety feature prominently in your business plans for the year(s) ahead?

If you want to do things differently and you need support, please contact LRB Consulting.

Can flu be avoided? simple steps

2011-11-25T01:22:00.000-08:00

There are some steps that the employer (and the employees) can take to reduce the number of cases of flu. These steps are largely about providing suitable facilities and passing information to the workforce on how best to use these.

Consider a simple communications campaign informing workers of the benefits to good hand hygiene at this time of year
Promote good hand hygiene practice by providing simple awareness raising materials, such as posters and stickers in the washrooms
Reinforce the "catch it, kill it, bin it" message:

cover your nose and mouth with a clean tissue when you cough or sneeze and then throw away the tissue promptly and hygienically

As well as providing adequate hand washing facilities, promote the use of a suitable hand sanitiser
If appropriate to the type of work that you do, provide some form of "hand hygiene on the move", such as by the provision of a handy personal issue sanitiser
Review your cleaning operations for the winter period and consider moving to damp rather than dry dusting and consider the use of suitable surface sanitisers
Raise awareness to the flu vaccination programme available from the NHS

For general Health and Safety advice, contact us through our website

Do I need a gas safety certificate?

2011-11-23T01:21:00.000-08:00

If you are a Landlord (or Managing Agent) and if you are responsible for gas plant and equipment (such as a gas boiler or a gas fire), you should have the equipment serviced and maintained by a competent person (Gas Safe). Further to this, you should arrange for the equipment to be checked and for a Gas Certificate to be issued. A copy of this Gas Certificate should be made available on request.

Poorly maintained gas appliances can cause carbon monoxide poisoning, which can kill and can also cause serious long-term health problems. Symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning include nausea, dizziness, tiredness, vomiting, collapse and loss of consciousness.

Recent prosecution involving the lack of a gas certificate
A Walsall landlord has been sentenced for failing to provide a gas safety certificate.The Health and Safety Executive prosecuted the landlord following a complaint from a tenant, who rents a house at Raleigh Street, Walsall from him.

The Magistrates heard that the boiler was replaced in October this year, despite having broken down in January. Until recently the landlord did not have a landlord’s gas safety certificate for the appliances in the property, despite having being issued with an Improvement Notice from the HSE in March requiring him to provide the certificate by May. The court also heard that when the new boiler was installed, the gas engineer condemned the cooker in the property as dangerous and isolated it. The Landlord was fined £2000 and ordered to pay costs of £3000.

Contact LRB Consulting through the website if you need help in understanding your duties as a landlord.

Health and Safety - the week ahead

2011-11-13T07:42:00.001-08:00

Ever wondered how those involved in health and safety fill their time? The week ahead is very busy for my consultancy. This is how we think it's going to pan out.

Hagrid, one of my consultants, is travelling up to Leeds on Sunday to spend three days assisting a company that makes training videos with "a shoot". This follows several days work over the last few weeks reviewing and revising the script. All is ready for the final phase of this piece of work.

When Hagrid returns from Leeds, he is off to Bristol and then onto Hungerford to delivery Legionella and Asbestos awareness training. This continues a large training commitment that will take up most of the rest of this month.

John is off to Dorking to carry out some Fire Risk Assessment work and then is back to Leicester to do the same for a series of small blocks of flats with common areas. He then needs to create the reports.

Richard is off down to London, where he has picked up a lot of my Facilities Management Safety work. At least the student protests of last week did not get in the way too much.

For my part, I'm carrying out a project management task for a client on Monday as well as finishing off a paper for the Board of another client (reviewing their health and safety compliance across their sites). I will also be checking in on the progress with an update on my previous review of Health and Safety at the British Library. On Tuesday I will be delivering a day of Legionella awareness training. Wednesday involves a series of client meetings and a dental appointment. On Wednesday evening, I will be presenting my Consultancy Business to several clients of my Bank. I'll be talking about the key factors in running your own business as well as discussing how to manage health and safety.

Thursday starts off nice and early with a breakfast Networking meeting - again, promoting my business. The day continues with two schedules telephone conferences to chase progress with clients. Friday will again have an early start with more Networking.

Within the week, I also need to progress quotations for work with both new and existing clients; I need to check various reports before that are sent out; I need to review news & blog pages and sort out new content; I need to work on new PodCast materials and develop some ideas for further YouTube video; etc. I also need to address any issues as and when they arise.

Monday's Update
Hagrid reports that day one of the shoot went well, but was sapping as it involved a lot of standing around. Day two will involve film kitchen activity - the key is not to be in the way.

The telephone conference calls went well, as did the project manager review. All of the issues seem to be being progressed. The Board paper is nearly complete, it just needs two small pieces of information from the client (promised for tomorrow). Richard's sojourn in London went well, he not has the reports to put together tomorrow. Need to follow up to ensure that John got on okay in Dorking.

Tuesday's Update
Today's Legionella training course was well received by the delegates. There was lots of discussion on the risk assessments and also on record keeping. It never ceases to amaze me how tiring training is. Some time was devoted during the evening to preparing the business to business presentation (B2B) for tomorrow evening with the Bank and some of its clients. I'm hoping that this leads to contact with some interested new (potential) clients.

Feedback from Hagrid on today's filming for the training video was, again, encouraging. I'm a little envious of him for the experience, but I could spare the three consecutive days out of the business. I've been carrying out a little background research to assist him tomorrow - the power of the Internet can be useful sometimes.

Richard attended "Get Bizzing" on my behalf and reported that it was both interesting and (potentially) beneficial. In other news - report writing continues unabated and Richard has been dealing with various phone calls, and general client issues.

Wednesday's Update
Today started for me with a quick trip into the office to touch base with Richard and "delegate" a few tasks to him. I then met with a local client at 08:15 hrs to attend the start of their Board Meeting (where Health and Safety is discussed). My return to the office saw me finishing off the presentation for tonight (more later) and checking through several reports before sending them on to various clients. I dealt with a couple of enquiries and sent off one proposal for client support.

Before leaving the office to attend a dental appointment, I sorted out some invoices for some of the project clients - this is a routine task that I keep rather than delegate. Following the dental appointment, I made a few phone calls and drove over to Blaby (Leicester) where I was giving a Business to Business at a branch of HSBC to about 35 local organisations. This finished at about 20:30 hrs making today a long one. I found the experience rewarding and I'm looking forward to talking to some of the people that I met.

John enjoyed a day off and Richard was working in the office - and picking up delegated tasks! In the afternoon he set off to see a client only to have them phone and cancel while he was in transit. It doesn't happen too often, but it is frustrating. Fortunately, it was a local client.

Hagrid enjoyed the last day of the filming project, after which he called by to collect the training materials for the next two days (in Bristol and in Hungerford). Busy day for all, except John.

Thursday's Update
Well, with the working 4/5 the way through, it's good to say that most things have been achieved.
I made it to the Early Morning Breakfast meeting and renewed several good contacts. This is not a meeting that I attend regularly (it is one where I substitute into a few times a year).

I managed to chase up a lot of information for one particular client and update them in many areas. This involved an extremely long telephone discussion with one of their suppliers. The information was distilled down into a suitable spreadsheet and then emailed over.

Richard and I planned out service delivery to several clients (with a view to keeping him busy until Christmas). We discuoveed a couple of things that had been missed previously and have put things in place to keep the clients happy.

Hagrid delivered a day of Legionella Awareness training in Bristol and is travelling over to Hungerford to spend another training another group in the same subject. Five more of these sessions to be delived this month! We are alos hoping for some follow on training work.

I have put together a proposal for Food Safety Training fo nearly 250 people for next year -fingers crossed on that one!

I will have to miss the early morning Networking tomorrow as I will be taking the car into the garage for servicing. Real life intrudes on health and safety (whatever next).

Friday's Update
I was in the office early after dropping the car off for a service. So far, so good. While contemplating the day ahead, I have noticed that my writing needs to be smaller to get the ideas and actions up on the whiteboard.

Well, Hagrid completed a tough week of filming and training. He carried out the Legionella training in Hungerford and is making his week home for a well earned rest at the weekend.

Richard and John worked through various reports, submitting them in to the office for the formatting to be checked by Janice before being sent on to the client. One of these Fire Safety Risk Assessments was needed by a care home to show to the Fire Officer.

For my part, I finalised a few reports and spreadsheets for several clients and did my stint of chasing up to ensure that clients are receiving their reports on time.

I also had an interesting conversation with an Enforcement Officer with respect to an issue involving a sub-contractor to one of my clients.

Fire Safety - How To Reduce The Risks (Podcast)

2011-10-30T09:28:00.000-07:00

This is a five minute podcast covering some important aspects of fire safety: introducing the duties of the "Responsible Person" and the talking about what we can all do within our premises to assist with fire safety.

Link to download the Podcast

Ignorance of asbestos continues to be a problem

2011-10-29T03:53:00.000-07:00

A contractor has been found guilty of potentially exposing workers and shoppers to asbestos on a busy high-street construction site because he flouted the rules on working with this hazardous material.

The contractor was fined for several breaches of asbestos and construction design legislation on the Bromley High Street site. In this case the contractor was a private individual. An HSE inspector who investigated the case,commented that the project had not been properly planned. The project involved the demolition of a building that comprised a restaurant on the ground floor with flats above it. Three workers, whose qualifications could not be proved, were overseen by the contractor.

During the demolition, the workers, who did not recognise that the insulating boards in the restaurant’s ceiling contained asbestos and they used sledgehammers and hand-operated tools to break them up, so they were “more than likely” to have been exposed to asbestos fibres (according to the Inspector).
The investigating HSE Inspector said:

“Sadly, this kind of incident is all too familiar. The dangers of asbestos are well known; it is the single greatest cause of work-related deaths in the UK, with around 1000 tradesmen dying each year from asbestos-related diseases ... Anyone working with these sorts of materials must commission an asbestos survey to ascertain the level of work needed and then have asbestos removed in a controlled manner by a licensed contractor.”

The contractor pleaded guilty to breaching the following Regulations, for which he was fined a total of £19,300 and ordered to pay full HSE costs of £7654:

reg.8(1) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, by undertaking work with asbestos without a licence – fine £8000;
reg.5 of the same Regulations, by not conducting an asbestos survey – fine £6000;
reg.4(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007, by not appointing a competent site manager – fine £2650; and
reg.22(1) of the same Regulations by not managing construction work to ensure safety – fine £2650.

In mitigation, the contractor commented that he had made a mistake of ignorance and had not acted for profit motives. He had not deliberately broken the law on asbestos, but had not been aware of it. He had done what he had been asked to do to improve matters since the incident.

The site was cleared after the investigation and has since stood empty behind a first-floor façade. Inspector Seabrook explained that the site is located next to a Sainsbury’s store, which would have potentially exposed shoppers to asbestos while the demolition had been taking place.

If you need help to meet your asbestos legislation duties, contact us through our website

The need for records - health and safety (revisit)

2011-10-28T16:38:00.000-07:00

I first posted this blog about two years ago. It is still true (and simple) now.

Recently, I spent a morning in Birmingham visiting a neat little site for a major client. There were a few niggly areas to address, but the main one (which seems to affect a huge number of sites) was the retrieval of relevant records. While almost everything was in place, it was difficult to establish this with the paperwork trail. The importance of the paperwork trail can be seen by considering safety to be split into two simple things:

The things that we do to protect ourselves, employees and others
The proof of what we have done

Clearly, it is the things that we do that are most important for protecting people from harm. The proof element becomes important after things have gone wrong or when there is an enforcement visit. The proof element is essential for protecting the Company from harm. By way on schoolboy analogy: "if you are called into the Head's office to be caned, ensure that you have book down the back of your trousers".

The records are those books - your corporate protection.

Need help to get things straight? Contact us through our website

Need help with COSHH for small business?

2011-10-25T07:28:00.000-07:00

I address some of the issues facing smaller businesses when faced with undertaking COSHH risk assessments and introducing and enforcing the use of appropriate control measures in the workplace. Most of the businesses in the UK are small or medium sized enterprises.

The same health and safety laws apply to small businesses as apply to big ones, with a few exemptions on written risk assessments and written policy documentation for very small companies. It should be noted that these size based exemptions are not exemptions from the risk assessment itself, but from the need for a written record of the assessment.

Q - We don’t have hazardous substances, do we?

Many (smaller) businesses do not consider that they have any substances hazardous to health, often because they believe that this refers to chemicals associated with industrial processes.

In truth, there are few workplaces that do not store, use or generate any substances that are hazardous to health. In many cases, employers overlook or do not consider the hazards associated with some substances, particularly those with which they are very familiar.

A useful way to avoid this oversight is to draw up a list (or an inventory) of all of the substances that are stored, used or generated in the workplace. This inventory must be comprehensive and should include:

cleaning and premises maintenance materials (such as lubricants, drain cleaning chemicals, paints, thinners, etc.),
waste materials and by-products (such as wood dust and welding or soldering fume) and
should consider water supplies (for water treatment chemicals and for Legionella).

Q - Do I really need to get safety data sheets for everything?

Having completed an inventory of what we have, the next stage is to determine whether any of the substances on the inventory are ‘hazardous to health’. This includes substances

that are labelled as hazardous (i.e. very toxic, toxic, harmful, irritant or corrosive) under the CHIP regulations or other statutory requirements
as well as all substances that are identified as hazardous on the safety data sheet for the substance.

Once the inventory has been created, it is a relatively simple matter to obtain further information of potentially hazardous substances. Substance data sheets may be obtained from the manufacturer or supplier of the substance. These substance data sheets contain, amongst other things, information on the hazards associated with the substance.

Safety data sheets are particularly useful for determining if a substance is hazardous to health and are amongst the pieces of information that must be made available to employees who are exposed to substances hazardous to health. The safety data sheets will also provide the assessor with information about the hazards associated wiht the substances to which people may be exposed.

In the event of a person becoming ill while (potentially) exposed to a hazardous substance, the safety data sheet can provide a source of information to the person treating the ill person, such as a first aider. If that person needs to be sent to the hospital, then a copy of the safety data sheet should be sent with them.

Q - COSHH Assessments are very complicated, aren’t they?

Small businesses need a considered approach to COSHH, but must not assume that it does not apply to them or does not affect them. A simple process would be:

review the substances present of site
assess the hazards associated with them
reduce the number of hazardous substances
replace hazardous substances with safe (or at least safer) alternatives
assess the risk from the use of the reduced inventory of substances
implement suitable and sufficient control measures
enforce the use of control measures

The COSHH assessment can be simplified in many cases by the simple expedience of reducing the number of substances. Businesses should look critically at the inventory of substances and consider two basic questions:

Do I really need to use this substance at all (avoidance of the hazard); and
If I need to use a substance, if there a safer alternative available (reduction of the severity of the hazard).

Once the number of substances (and their associated hazards) has been reduced, if is time to carry out the COSHH assessment.

One of the main points of the risk assessment is to identify the measures that are to be used to avoid a hazard or reduce the level of risk associated with a hazard. Employers must ensure that exposure to hazardous substances is prevented or, if this is not reasonably practicable, adequately controlled.

Ideally, this will mean preventing exposure by:

removing hazardous substance, by changing the process;
substituting it with a safe or safer substance, or using it in a safer form.

Where this is not reasonably practicable, then the employer needs to ensure that they are controlling exposure by, for example:

totally enclosing the process (such as a shot-blasting box);
using partial enclosure and/or extraction equipment (such as a spray painting booth);
general ventilation;
using safe systems of work and handling procedures (written procedures, etc.).

It is for the employer to decide on the method of controlling exposure. The COSHH regulations, however, limit the use of personal protective equipment (e.g. respirators, dust marks, protective clothing), as the means of protection to only those situations where other measures cannot adequately control exposure.

Q - Our process risk assessments already cover hazardous substances; do I need to write new COSHH assessments?

For small businesses, it is often sensible to combine risk assessments to reduce paper work. It is possible to create an “Office Risk Assessment” that deals with all of the general risk assessment issues, COSHH issues and fire safety issues in one simple assessment.

Although several pieces of legislation may require the employer to carry out a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to employers and/or others, there is no requirement for these assessments to be carried out separately and called:

COSHH assessments
general risk assessments or
manual handling assessments, etc.

It is important that risk assessments cover all relevant areas in sufficient depth and detail. In the event that your current risk assessments (such as those that are required under Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999) address adequately all of the issues required under COSHH, then there is no need to produce new risk assessments to comply with the requirements of COSHH.

As with all other risk assessments, COSHH risk assessments must be kept up to date and reviewed in the event of any significant change or if thought to be out of date for any reason.

Still feel you need help? Contact us through the website

Are cleaning chemicals dangerous - how should I store them?

2011-10-25T05:38:00.000-07:00

Simple guidelines

Cleaning Materials

Consideration should be given to the safe storage of cleaning chemicals. This is not difficult or onerous, but may be important (as the case below demonstrates). Some cleaning materials are corrosive and can cause burns (especially to the eyes and face). Storage should be considered as part of the COSHH and/or workplace risk assessment.

The storage location should be secure
Display a warning (if hazardous substances are stored there) a warning notice should be displayed.
The bottles of cleaning chemicals should be sealed and labels should be visible.
The storage area should not be overcrowded.
Efforts should be taken to avoid storing corrosive substances (such as drain or oven cleaner) at head height or above.

For more detailed advice, or help with risk assessments, etc, please contact us through our website.

Unpleasant case
A waitress at a hotel suffered burns to her eyes, face, and chest when an open bottle of oven cleaner splashed on her. The waitress, aged 22, was working at Whitworth Hall Hotel in Spennymoor, County Durham, when the incident took place in May 2009.

The hotel was hosting a wedding and the waitress was asked by the hotel’s trainee manager to help find a roll of mop-up tissue. While searching for the roll inside an unlit storage cupboard, she disturbed a bottle of oven cleaner had been stored on a shelf three feet above ground level, without a lid and with the warning labels pointing away from her. As she moved the bottle, the liquid splashed on to her face and she suffered corneal abrasion on her eyes and burns to her face and chest. She was unable to return to work for two weeks, but has subsequently made a full recovery.
The owners of the hotel appeared at Darlington Magistrates’ Court on 12 October 2011 and pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) of the HSWA 1974 and reg.8 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, for failing to adequately light the cupboard. It was fined a total of £8700 and £3229 in costs.

In mitigation, the company said it had adequate procedures in place and its staff should have followed them. It has subsequently put a light in the cupboard and installed signs to warn that dangerous chemicals are stored inside. The oven cleaner is now kept at the bottom of the cupboard and the company monitors who has access to the storage area.

After the hearing, the council’s head of environment, health and consumer protection, Joanne Waller, said:

“This case should serve as a warning to other businesses that they need to take their responsibility for the health, safety and welfare of their staff seriously... It is not enough for employers to simply have risk assessments and procedures written down – they must also make sure their staff are aware of them and follow them properly.”

Cost Recovery: HSE Proposal

2011-10-22T09:01:00.000-07:00

This 3 minute podcast will explain in simple terms the effects of the controversial HSE cost recovery proposals, which will take effect from April next year. Find out how these proposals will effect you and your business.

Cost Recovery: HSE Proposal

2011-10-22T08:46:00.000-07:00

http://soundcloud.com/safety_matters/hse-cost-recovery-proposal/download.mp3

Safety Matters, HSE Cost Recovery Proposals

2011-10-22T08:35:00.000-07:00

This podcast will explain in simple terms the effects of the controversial HSE cost recovery proposals, which will take effect from April next year. Find out how these proposals will effect you and your business.

Do you manage buildings? What about asbestos?

2011-10-21T00:53:00.000-07:00

Does the duty to manage asbestos affect me?

Yes, if you are responsible for maintenance and repairs. You are a ‘dutyholder’ if:

you own the building;
you are responsible through a contract or tenancy agreement;
there is no formal contract or agr eement but you have control of the building;
in a multioccupied building, you ar e the owner and have taken responsibility for maintenance and repairs for the whole building.

asbestos

From the HSE web publication - Manage Buildings?

Fire Safety Fine for Landlords

2011-10-14T05:11:00.000-07:00

There is a lot of interest in fire safety from the enforcing bodies, as can be seen below:

Two private residential landlords have been found guilty of breaching fire safety regulations and fined £23,000. Each were each found guilty of five breaches of the Housing (Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Regulations 2006 at a house in French Horn Lane, Hatfield, after pleading not guilty to the offences at Watford magistrates court.

The defendants were each fined £11,500, ordered to pay £2,225 each towards the council's costs.

They were found guilty of failing to:

ensure that all means of escape from fire were free from obstruction
ensure that all means of escape were maintained in good order
ensure that any fire fighting equipment and fire alarms were maintained in good working order
take measures to protect the occupiers from injury
ensure that all the common parts of the house were maintained in good and clean decorative repair.

The Chief Executive of Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council said:

“These severe breaches of fire safety regulations could have resulted in fatalities. It is something that this council, as the responsible authority for private sector housing, takes very seriously and we are working hard to ensure that high standards are maintained to ensure the safety of our residents.”

Want to avoid making the news in this way?
Let us help you! We are very experienced in helping Landlords and Managing Agents look after fire safety in their buildings. We can carry out the fire risk assessment and advise on (often) simple steps to improve fire safety.

Visit our website

Kant in Health and Safety

2011-10-13T04:24:00.000-07:00

Health and safety is an area that all companies must maintain, but what is it that obliges them to do so? Reasons could be legal, professional, financial, social or moral to name a few. The papers contain lots of evidence of the cost to the employer of "being caught out".
What are the moral reasons for upholding a high standard of health and safety in the workplace? I shall endeavour to name a few reasons why businesses should be concerned with this aspect of health and safety.

From a Kantian perspective, we all have duties which we ought to act upon. Regarding health and safety we have a duty not to harm others, to prevent unnecessary risks and not to kill. Poor health and safety can result in both minor and major injuries and sometimes even death. We have a duty to protect the wellbeing of others and poor health and safety maintenance ignores this duty; by not upholding a safe work environment, the employer is acting immorally. Thus, because we ought to protect others from unnecessary harm and remain moral, we ought to endorse high standards of health and safety in the workplace.

The Bible teaches ‘love your neighbour as you love yourself’. Although limited by the field of religion, this statement still holds true in a secular environment - we should treat others in a way we would want to be treated. If we take a bad employer who cuts corners and exposes his staff to dangerous conditions, would he want to be treated in this manner? Imagine an employee suffered severe acid burns and was blinded due to poor upkeep of the work environment and subsequently could not work again. This would be the fault of the employer for not accounting for risks and doing his best to provide a safe environment. Would they really want to suffer a similar fate as a result of their negligence? One would assume not, thus in regards to our own self interest as well as the welfare of others around us, good quality health and safety is a must.

Taking on a utilitarian perspective, the ethic is to provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number; once again, our concern here is wellbeing. Poor workplace maintenance could lead to many hazards- trips, spills, electrical, chemical and mechanical. A worker who is constantly under at the mercy of his environment is not a happy worker. Thus, for the greatest happiness of the workers, a safe work environment should be provided. Regarding the employer, poor health and safety standards affect them also. Dangerous conditions could result in severe injury. Imagine an employee was injured at work and an inquiry showed it to be due to the negligence of the manager. Penalties would be enforced, be they fines, sentences or loss of licence. The potential impact is on the employer as well as the employee. Thus, in order to prevent both parties suffering, it would be in the best interests of everyone’s wellbeing to uphold a safe workplace.

To conclude, all three points made point strongly to wellbeing, be it wellbeing of the employer or employees. Health and safety is a moral requirement in any field of work in order to maintain a constant sense of safety and security.

Asbestos prosecution for High Street Retailer

2011-09-28T01:08:00.000-07:00

Marks and Spencer plc, along with 3 of its contractors, have been fined for putting people (including members of the public, staff and construction workers) at risk of exposure from asbestos-containing materials during the refurbishment of two of its stores in Reading and Bournemouth.

M&S were fined £1 million and ordered to pay costs of £600,000. In addition, three contractors were fined £200,000 £100,000 and £50,000 and were also ordered to pay costs.

During the 3-month trial which ended in July 2011, the Crown Court heard that construction workers at the two stores removed asbestos-containing materials that were present in the ceiling tiles and elsewhere. The court heard that the client, Marks and Spencer plc, did not allocate sufficient time and space for the removal of asbestos-containing materials at the Reading store. The contractors had to work overnight in enclosures on the shop floor, with the aim of completing small areas of asbestos removal before the shop opened to the public each day. The HSE also alleged that Marks and Spencer plc failed to ensure that work at the Reading store complied with the appropriate minimum standards set out in legislation and approved codes of practice. The company had produced its own guidance on how asbestos should be removed inside its stores, and the court heard that this guidance was followed by contractors inappropriately during major refurbishment. One contractor failed to reduce to a minimum the spread of asbestos to the Reading shop floor. Witnesses said that areas cleaned by the company were re-contaminated by air moving through the void between the ceiling tiles and the floor above, and by poor standards of work.

The principal contractor at the Reading store, admitted that it should not have permitted a method of asbestos removal which did not allow for adequate sealing of the ceiling void, which resulted in risks to contractors on site. The principal contractor at the Bournemouth store failed to plan, manage and monitor removal of asbestos-containing materials. It did not prevent the possibility of asbestos being disturbed by its workers in areas that had not been surveyed extensively.

The HSE's Southern Head of Operations for Construction, Richard Boland said:
"This outcome should act as a wake up call that any refurbishment programmes involving asbestos-containing materials must be properly resourced, both in terms of time and money - no matter what.
"Large retailers and other organisations who carry out major refurbishment works must give contractors enough time and space within the store to carry out the works safely. Where this is not done, and construction workers and the public are put at risk, HSE will not hesitate in taking robust enforcement action."

Cost Recovery: HSE Proposal CD235

2011-09-23T08:21:00.000-07:00

From April next year, the HSE will charge companies if they visit them and that visit results in some form of enforcement action. This is not something that the HSE will have discretion about, it will be mandatory.

Gordon MacDonald (the HSE's programme director), said:

"The Government has agreed that it is right that those who break the law should pay their fair share of the costs to put things right - and not the public purse. These proposals provide a further incentive for people to operate within the law, levelling the playing field between those who comply and those who don't. Compliant firms will not pay a penny in intervention fees."

How much might I be charged by the HSE?

Cost recovery would be at an averaged hourly fee for intervention rate, currently estimated at £133, for nearly all HSE staff. The actual costs that will recovered by the HSE will be dependent on the complexity of the investigation that is required to follow all reasonable lines of enquiry, but some guideline figures have been offered:

• Inspection with no action taken - No costs will be recovered
• Inspection which results in a letter - Approximately £750
• Inspection which results in Enforcement Notice - Approximately £1500
• Investigations carried out by the HSE - Ranging from approximately £750 through to several thousands of pounds to, in extreme cases, tens of thousands of pounds.

Want to avoid the HSE Charges?

Ensure that you are (and remain) compliant with the relevant Health and Safety legislation and this will help you to avoid attracting the attention of the HSE:

• Keep your risk assessments reviewed and up to date.
• Ensure that you have adequate control over your contractors.
• Take prompt action to prevent situations developing that may attract the interest of the HSE.
• Ensure that you keep suitable records.
• Keep that employee training is kept up to date.Keep your policies and procedures up to date.

Want to see more detailed information?

Have a look at the HSE's Consultative Document on this subject - Click here

The underlying policy of recovering costs for the HSE’s intervention through the introduction of fees where there is a material breach of the law has already been agreed by the Government. This is, therefore, not in question in this consultation. The consultation document seeks views on the systems being proposed by HSE for how it would implement this policy.

Update (21 October 2011)
The Chemical Business Association (CBA) has branded the Health & Safety Executive’s (HSE) plans to extend cost recovery as the equivalent of seeking a blank cheque from industry to compensate for cuts in its departmental budget. This would see plant owner/operators charged for any ’material breach’ found by its Inspectors and for any ’formal intervention’ required

Mike Ellerby
LRB Consulting Ltd
01509 550023
Web address

Changes in Labels for Hazardous Substances

2011-07-05T08:14:00.000-07:00

In different countries all over the world there are different laws governing the identification or classification of the hazardous properties of chemicals and different ways in how information about these hazards is made available to users (through labels, and safety data sheets for workers). Not surprisingly, this leads to confusion as the same chemical can have different hazard descriptions in different countries.

Enter the "Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals" (GHS)

The aim of GHS is, on a worldwide basis, the same:
• criteria for classifying chemicals according to their health, environmental and physical hazards; and
• hazard communication requirements for labelling and safety data sheets

The GHS is not a formal treaty, but is a non-legally binding international agreement. This means that countries must create local or national legislation to implement the GHS.

What does this mean to you?
If you use hazardous substances, then you have probably noticed that some of those you have bought recently have some different symbols on their labels. The purpose of these new symbols is to enable those who are using the product to determine if there are any health or safety risks with the substance in a (worldwide) uniform manner.

New Symbols?
Very simply, the new symbols are a new version of the traditional orange and black warnings that have been around for many years. They are new because they are starting to be “phased in”.

New Legislation?
The changes are being introduced as a result of the EC Regulation No 1272/2008 on Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures (CLP). This new Regulation currently exists alongside the UK legislation: the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2009 (CHIP4). It should be noted, however, that by 2015 the UK legislation will have been replaced by the EC Regulation No 1272/2008.

More Information to follow - or visit our website http://lrbconsulting.co.uk/

Some advice for Landlords of Houses of Multiple Occupation

2011-06-12T09:24:00.000-07:00

If you're a Landlord of a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO), you may have some serious fire safety responsibilities, as shown by a recent prosecution (see below). This article is intended to provide some simple advice on what to do.

What should you do?

Step 1

First of all, gain a good understanding of the fire safety needs of the premises by conducting a Fire Safety Risk Assessment, or by having one carried out for you.

Step 2

Read the report and carry out the recommendations. Sometimes there are alternatives to the actions presented, but "doing nothing" is not a sensible option. Prioritise the recommendations and make improvements in a sensible manner.

Fire compartmentation is essential, but can be expensive.
Fire doors (with smoke seals) are effective at stopping the spread of fire and smoke.
Keeping escape routes clear of obstructions does not cost much.
Fire signage is relatively simple and cheap to put right.
Maintenance of existing systems is simple and effective.
Determining the actions that should be taken in the event of a fire requires consideration of the premises, the residents, and rescue service policies.
Providing residents with a fire safety action plan can be an effective way to avoid confusion.

Step 3

Keep the property and the fire safety precautions in a good and serviceable condition. Ensure that the fire detection and fire alarm system and fire fighting equipment and emergency lighting are serviced and maintained.

Step 4

Keep the premises under review. Visit premises at regular intervals and ensure that standards are not deteriorating. Liaise with residents and involve them, particularly if they have a say in how money (such as service charge) is spent.

Step 5

Don't end up in court, like the case below.

Details of a recent prosecution

Steve Turek (the assistant commissioner for fire safety regulation at the London Fire Brigade) commented:

"This verdict sends out a clear message that if landlords ignore fire safety then they will face serious penalties. [The Landlord] was given plenty of time to improve fire safety inside the property but failed to comply. The London Fire Brigade works hard to make companies and individuals understand their responsibilities under fire safety law and only uses prosecution as a last resort."

If you need help with your fire safety risk assessment, please contact us.

Help me to increase my client base!

2011-06-11T05:22:00.000-07:00

Like many people, I'm looking for ways to increase the number of (Health & Safety) clients that I have.

How to do this?

Direct mail?
email campaign? DOING, MailChimp
(Even more) Networking? LIMITED POTENTIAL FOR THIS
On selling to existing clients?
COSHH (Bio)
MHO to Charn F
Targeting bigger clients? TRYING TO DO SO
BL
Shef U
Various London FM Co's
Web-site makeover - DONE
PR campaign?
Seminars? - DOING
Teasing out suitable client contacts from existing sources? - NEED TO DEVELOP FURTHER

Ideas welcome

Landlord gets Suspended Prison Sentence for Fire Safety failures

2011-05-18T07:57:00.000-07:00

A landlord has received a suspended sentence following various failures. Following a fire in March 2009 it has been reported that the landlord who owned a house of multiple occupation (or HMO) has received a 6-month suspended prison sentence and been ordered to pay £10,000 in costs. Following the blaze, fire safety investigators found several breaches of Fire Safety Legislation (the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005) at the building. These breaches included included not having suitable fire doors installed and not conducting a sufficient fire safety risk assessment.

Steve Turek (the assistant commissioner for fire safety regulation at the London Fire Brigade) commented:

"This verdict sends out a clear message that if landlords ignore fire safety then they will face serious penalties. [The Landlord] was given plenty of time to improve fire safety inside the property but failed to comply. The London Fire Brigade works hard to make companies and individuals understand their responsibilities under fire safety law and only uses prosecution as a last resort."

If you need help with your fire safety risk assessment, please contact us.

RIDDOR - A change not in the consultation

2011-05-12T07:15:00.000-07:00

The HSE have recently closed their Consultation on changes to RIDDOR and, almost immediately, have announced a change to RIDDOR (without consultation).

From September this year, work-related injuries and incidents that are reportable under RIDDOR will have to be notified to the HSE by its website. It is understood that over half of reportable injuries are already notified to the HSE through the website and that this proportion has been increasing steadily over the past seven years.

The reporting of fatal and major incidents will still be able to be done by phone, in recognition of the need for a more personal response in such circumstances.

Fall through a fragile roof - serious injury

2011-05-05T00:39:00.000-07:00

A father and daughter who own and run a farm in Hertfordshire have been fined after an employee fell through a fragile barn roof and suffered multiple fractures.

In August 2010, two employees were cleaning the roof of a barn by standing on scaffold boards placed over the roof and brushing the area with brooms (as they had been instructed by their employers). The asbestos cement roof cracked and one of the employees fell 5m onto the concrete floor below. He suffered multiple fractures to his pelvis and ribs and was unable to walk for several months.

After the hearing an HSE Inspector said:

Working at height without any safety precautions in place will always put employees at risk. In this case there was an added risk as the surface the men were working on was fragile. Standards for working on fragile roofs are well-established and extensive guidance is available on HSE's website.

This incident could easily have been avoided if these had been followed. Falls from height are among the biggest causes of workplace deaths in the UK and the outcome of this incident could have been even more serious.

Last year, more than 4,000 workers suffered major injuries as the result of falls from height and 12 workers lost their lives.

The employers pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 9(2) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and each were fined £4,000 and ordered to pay £2,083 in costs between them.

Are You Responsible for Fire Safety?

2011-05-04T08:13:00.000-07:00

If you are responsible for fire safety, do you know what you are responsible for?

The responsible person is someone who has control (or a degree of control) over the premises or fire-prevention systems within the premises. If you are the responsible person, you must make sure that everyone who uses your premises can escape if there is a fire. You need to consider anyone who might be on your premises, including employees, visitors or members of the public. You need to pay particular attention to those who may need special help, such as elderly or disabled people or children.

You must:

- carry out a fire-risk assessment and identify possible dangers and risks
- think about who might be particularly at risk (including disabled employees or people working with flammable substances)
- avoid and/or reduce the risk from fire, as far as is reasonably possible
- implement suitable fire precautions to deal with any risks that remain
- make sure there is protection if you use or store flammable or explosive materials have a plan to deal with emergencies
- record your findings and review them as and when necessary

As the responsible person, you must ensure that the fire-risk assessment is carried although you may appoint some other competent person to do the actual assessment.

The enforcing authority (usually the local fire authority) must be satisfied with your fire safety arrangements. If they are not, they will tell you what you need to do. If they find major problems they may serve an enforcement notice on your business requiring you to improve safety (or they can even restrict the use of your premises or close them altogether in certain circumstances).

If you need help, contact us.

Innocent until proven guilty? Or Section 40 HASAWA?

2011-05-03T04:49:00.000-07:00

We are generally of the opiniopn that we are innocent until proven guilty. In the case of Health and Safety, this is not always the case. It is often the case that we need to (be able to) prove our innocence!

Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 - Section 40 Onus of proving limits of what is practicable, etc.

In any proceedings for an offence under any of the relevant statutory provisions consisting of a failure to comply with a duty or requirement to do something so far as is practicable or so far as is reasonably practicable, or to use the best practicable means to do something, it shall be for the accused to prove (as the case may be) that it was not practicable or not reasonably practicable to do more than was in fact done to satisfy the duty or requirement, or that there was no better practicable means than was in fact used to satisfy the duty or requirement.

What does this mean?
In real terms it means that it is not for the prosecution to prove guilt, but for the defense to show that they are not guilty. Ouch! How are you set up the demonstrate that you have reduced the risks "to as low a level as is reasonably practicable"? Need Help? Contact us

Institute of Fire Safety Managers

2011-04-19T04:56:00.000-07:00

I received notification today that I have been accepted as a Member of the Institute of Fire Safety Managers. I am pleased by this acceptance as Fire Safety reflects a significant and (hopefully) growing part of my business.

Michael Ellerby, MIFSM

Website

Beware of Section 40

2011-04-14T07:35:00.000-07:00

Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 - Section 40 Onus of proving limits of what is practicable, etc.
In any proceedings for an offence under any of the relevant statutory provisions consisting of a failure to comply with a duty or requirement to do something so far as is practicable or so far as is reasonably practicable, or to use the best practicable means to do something, it shall be for the accused to prove (as the case may be) that it was not practicable or not reasonably practicable to do more than was in fact done to satisfy the duty or requirement, or that there was no better practicable means than was in fact used to satisfy the duty or requirement.
What does this mean? In real terms it means that it is not for the prosecution to prove guilt, but for the efense to show that they are not guilty. Ouch! How are you set up the demonstrate that you have reduced the risks "to as low a level as is reasonably practicable"? Need Help? Contact us

Residential Landlord fined after tenants flee from fire

2011-04-08T08:15:00.000-07:00

A residential landlord has been found guilty of fire safety breaches (under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety Order) 2005) following a fire where his tenants were forced to flee for their lives.

Following an appearance at Exeter Crown Court in March 2011, The Landlord was ordered to pay a total of £135,000 in fines and a further £23,000 in costs.

This fine follows a fire at the four-storey building that had been subdivided into flats. The fire started on the ground floor and spread throughout the property and forced some of the 13 tenants to make their escape by clambering over the roof.

After the fire Devon and Somerset fire investigators carried out a safety audit of the premises. The investigation found that the door giving entrance to the ground floor flat was inappropriately constructed to resist fire and this allowed a fire in that flat to spread into the escape route. The offence carried a fine of £75,000.

There were a further three offences (£20,000 each) for three doors that had no self closing device fitted. This also impacted on fire spread to the means of escape.

Devon and Somerset area manager Nick Manning, said:

“Landlords and owners of properties used as flats should take notice of the outcome of this case - it has sent a clear message with the level of the fine awarded."

Fine for residential Landlord - Fire Safety

2011-04-08T07:57:00.000-07:00

Outcome
A London based landlord has been prosecuted and fined £10,000 for a planning offence and also a maximum £5000 for failing to comply with a prohibition order (Housing Act 2004). Costs of £3585 were also awarded.
The Problem
The layout of a second-floor flat was so bad that there was no safe means of escape in the event of a fire, according to the Council. This state of events prompted the council's environmental health officers (EHOs) to impose a prohibition order banning people from living at the flat. Despite being aware of the fire safety risks, the landlord placed a family with two young children in the property - in direct contravention of the prohibition order.
Speaking on behalf of the Council
The Council’s executive member for planning, economic development and housing, said:

"These were blatant contraventions, which placed the lives of vulnerable tenants at risk ... The fines issued are extremely high and reflect the seriousness of the offences and the disregard shown by (the Landlord) to the law and the safety of his tenants".

Managers need to manage (even when it comes to safety) - Part 4

2011-03-30T08:45:00.000-07:00

Part 4: Control of Contractors

Many people assume that when they appoint a contractor to carry out work for them that they have not further responsibility for the safety of the contractor. There have been many cases over the last few years that involve organisations paying out large fines for failing to ensure the safety of contractors. In a recent case, a paper maker was fined £260,000 (under Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974) following the death of a contractor who felt through a fragile roof. When being appointed, the contractor said that crawling boards would be used. After the accident occurred, it was established that crawling boards were not used and it was also established that the paper maker had not made reasonable efforts to ensure that the contractors were carrying out the work safely, in the manner proposed. “Companies must make sure work contractors do for them is properly planned and organised, and monitor what actually happens when the work takes place”.

Managers need to manage (even when it comes to safety) - Part 3

2011-03-30T08:41:00.001-07:00

Part 3: Food Safety

Although Food Safety is often seen as a different discipline to health and safety, many of the principles are the same. Good management involves looking at what is going on in the business, understanding the implications (i.e. the risks) and responding in an appropriate and proportionate manner. When warning letters are received from the local authority highlighting some food hygiene failures within the business and also suggesting some simple and low cost ways of rectifying the situation it is not appropriate or proportionate to ignore the situation. As a result of such (lack of) action, the operator of a takeaway outlet in North Wales has been jailed for eight months following an outbreak of E. coli attributed to the premises.

Managers need to manage (even when it comes to safety) - Part 2

2011-03-30T08:38:00.000-07:00

Part 2: Fire Safety

The fire safety arrangements of businesses are under scrutiny from the Fire and Rescue services. The fire safety risk assessment for the premises is a starting point, but it needs to be acted upon and turned into something meaningful. Poundland has recently been fined more than £20,000 for having obstructed or blocked fire escape routes. A fire officer found three of the four potential exit routes from a three storey premises were blocked from the outside by stock crates. As a result, the fire officer took the unusual step of evacuating the premises until the situation had been made safe and the exit routes were cleared. The Company pleaded guilty to three charges of failing to keep the fire exits clear (as required by Article 14(1) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005). The Company was also fined for not properly training the temporary manager (as required under Article 21(1)(b)) and was subject to costs of over £7000.

Managers need to manage (even when it comes to safety)

2011-03-30T08:26:00.000-07:00

Part 1: Machinery Safety

There is a problem with safety features: they can often be bypassed. Many safety professionals will have seen instances of safety interlock systems on equipment, such as CNC machines, being defeated by fixing the key into the lock part of the system either by using a spare key or by detaching the main key from the frame of the equipment. Often this is justified by the site management as being the “only way the work can be done”. This state of mind does not stand scrutiny as many other companies manage to achieve safe operation with same equipment doing the same job. The failing is often the attitude or approach to safety management in the minds of the managers, supervisors and workers.

This (lack of safety) practise has recently cost a manufacturing firm over £26,000 in fines and costs. The company was fined after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. This regulation requires employers to ensure effective measures are taken to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery.

Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings has become the first company to be convicted of the new offence of corporate manslaughter.

2011-02-16T05:47:00.000-08:00

Back in September 2008 a young geologist was killed whilst working for Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings. He died while investigating soil conditions in a deep trench on a development plot in Stroud, when it collapsed and killed him.

The Crown Prosecution Service told the court that the geologist was left working alone in the three and a half metre-deep trench to 'finish-up' when the company director left for the day. The two people who owned the development plot decided to stay at the site as they knew the geologist was working alone in the trench. About quarter of an hour later they heard a muffled noise and then a shout for help. While one of the plot-owners called the emergency services, the other one ran to the trench where he saw that a surge of soil had fallen in and had buried the geologist up to his head. He climbed into the trench and removed some of the soil to enable him to breathe. At that point, more earth fell so quickly into the pit that it covered the geologist completely. Despite the plot owner’s best efforts, the young geologist died of traumatic asphyxiation.

The prosecution's case was that the geologist was working in a dangerous trench because Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings' systems had failed to take all reasonably practicable steps to protect him from working in that way. The jury found that their system of work in digging trial pits was wholly and unnecessarily dangerous. The company ignored well-recognised industry guidance that prohibited entry into excavations more than 1.2 metres deep, by requiring junior employees to enter into and work in unsupported trial pits, typically from 2 to 3.5 metres deep. The young geologist was working in just such a pit when he died.

There was no person in the dock during the three-week trial as it is the company, rather than an individual, that is charged with corporate manslaughter. The case was investigated by Gloucestershire Constabulary and supported by the Health and Safety Executive.

Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings were sentenced on Thursday 17 February 2011 and were fined £385,000.

Please vsit our website

Latest (mid March 2011) - an appeal may be launched!

If you need to tackle a fire (simple rules)

2011-01-06T01:28:00.000-08:00

Lots of people put out small fires in their homes and at their businesses quite safely. Some people, however, are killed or injured as a result of tackling a fire that is beyond their capabilities. Here are some simple rules to help you decide whether you should tackle a fire:

- Only tackle a fire when it is in its very early stages.

- Give consideration to your own safety and to the safety of other people and make sure you can escape from the fire if you need to. Never let a fire block you exit.

- think about the position of yourself, the fire and the escape route.

- Remember that fire extinguishers are only for fighting a fire in its very early stages. Never tackle a fire if it is starting to spread (of has spread) to other items in the room or if the room is filling with smoke. More people are killed by the smoke than by the fire (in the order of 70% of fire deaths are caused by smoke and fumes).

- If you cannot put out the fire or if the extinguisher becomes empty, get out and get everyone else out of the building immediately, closing all doors behind you as you go.

- Telephone the fire brigade.

Visit our website

2011-01-05T04:45:00.000-08:00

A worker at a Glossop packaging manufacturer was killed when a machine he was working on was activated while he was still inside. The Company was fined £50,000 with £76,150 costs.

A fifty year old maintenance worker suffered fatal head injuries back in September 2006. Following an investigation into the death by the HSE the company was prosecuted and later sentenced at Birmingham Crown Court. The Court heard that the father of three was carrying out maintenance work to the inside of a 'cut and crease' machine, used to manufacture packaging, when it was switched on by the operator. The maintenance worker, who had been working for the company for less than two months, was struck on the head by bars that transfer cardboard through the machine and was killed instantly.

At an earlier hearing at Chesterfield Magistrate's Court on 21 May 2010, Glossop Carton and Print Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching Sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 by putting workers at risk. The firm was fined £50,000 with £76,150 costs.

The maintenance man’s ex-wife and mother of two of his children, said:

His children have been totally devastated by Clive's death and continue to miss him terribly ... The hardest thing was telling them their dad had been killed. I remember it vividly and they still find it difficult to accept he's gone. He was a good dad and loved them very much ... The last few years have just been horrendous. His children now have to live without a father for the rest of their lives because of the company's negligence.

After sentencing, the investigating HSE inspector commented:

Mr H tragically died because simple measures were not taken by Glossop Carton and Print to prevent the machine being switched on while he was inside. The maintenance of machinery often involves people working in dangerous situations not encountered during normal production work. People will continue to die in horrific circumstances if employers don't plan, control and monitor maintenance work to machinery. Both machine operators and maintenance workers should be given adequate training. If a simple procedure for cutting the power supply to the machine had been followed then Mr H's death could have been avoided.

Visit our website

New Year - Resolutions?

2010-12-31T09:27:00.000-08:00

We are moving into (yet another) New Year.

Many people make resolutions to change - their lifestyle, attitude, eating habits, etc. Do businesses? Do the people who run businesses?

This year, why not make a resolution to "do safety better". I do not mean to spend unnecessary sums of money or to carry out unnecessary training or risk assessments. I mean "to think about safety and make some simple, low cost changes for the better".

Some simple starters?

Housekeeping standards - about a third of workplace accidents result from slips, trips and falls and about half of these result from poor housekeeping.

Fire Safety - Check exit routes, check emergency lighting, check the fire alarm, do a fire drill, update your fire safety risk assessment, etc

Vehicle movements - review the separation between people and vehicles - people come off really badly when it goes wrong!

Records - consider which records are most important to the management of health and safety and make it ease to keep these up to date.

Employer without Insurance

2010-12-30T12:39:00.000-08:00

A Bradford takeaway owner has been fined for failing to insure his staff against work-related injuries and illnesses. The owner was approached by the HSE on two occasions and asked to provide his employers' liability insurance certificate and failed to do so on both occasions. The owner also fails to turn up for a formal interview and later failed to turn up to court.

He was found guilty of breaching Section 1(1) of the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 and fined £2,500 for failing to insure his employees against injury arising from their work. He faces a further £1,000 penalty for failing to producing an insurance certificate and was also ordered to pay full costs of over £2,500

The HSE inspecton commented:

It's wholly unacceptable for employers not to arrange insurance to cover their employees for incidents or illnesses that can occur because of their work ... Employers who turn a blind eye to this are playing a dangerous game of chance and whenever HSE becomes aware this is happening, we will not hesitate to take enforcement action."

Health, Safety and morality

2010-12-30T04:41:00.000-08:00

Health and safety is an area that all companies must maintain, but what is it that obliges us to do so? Reasons could be legal, professional, financial, social or moral to name a few. What are the moral reasons for upholding a high standard of health and safety in the workplace? I shall endeavour to name a few reasons why businesses should be concerned with this aspect of health and safety.
From a Kantian perspective, we all have duties which we ought to act upon. Regarding health and safety we have a duty not to harm others, to prevent unnecessary risks and not to kill. Poor health and safety can result in both minor and major injuries and sometimes even death. We have a duty to protect the wellbeing of others and poor health and safety maintenance ignores this duty; by not upholding a safe work environment, the employer is acting immorally. Thus, because we ought to protect others from unnecessary harm and remain moral, we ought to endorse high standards of health and safety in the workplace.
The Bible teaches ‘love your neighbour as you love yourself’. Although limited by the field of religion, this statement still holds true in a secular environment - we should treat others in a way we would want to be treated. If we take a bad employer who cuts corners and exposes his staff to dangerous conditions, would he want to be treated in this manner? Imagine an employee suffered severe acid burns and was blinded due to poor upkeep of the work environment and subsequently could not work again. This would be the fault of the employer for not accounting for risks and doing his best to provide a safe environment. Would they really want to suffer a similar fate as a result of their negligence? One would assume not, thus in regards to our own self interest as well as the welfare of others around us, good quality health and safety is a must.
Taking on a utilitarian perspective, the ethic is to provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number; once again, our concern here is wellbeing. Poor workplace maintenance could lead to many hazards- trips, spills, electrical, chemical and mechanical. A worker who is constantly under at the mercy of his environment is not a happy worker. Thus, for the greatest happiness of the workers, a safe work environment should be provided. Regarding the employer, poor health and safety standards affect them also. Dangerous conditions could result in severe injury. Imagine an employee was injured at work and an inquiry showed it to be due to the negligence of the manager. Penalties would be enforced, be they fines, sentences or loss of licence. The potential impact is on the employer as well as the employee. Thus, in order to prevent both parties suffering, it would be in the best interests of everyone’s wellbeing to uphold a safe workplace.
To conclude, all three points made point strongly to wellbeing, be it wellbeing of the employer or employees. Health and safety is a moral requirement in any field of work in order to maintain a constant sense of safety and security.

Avoid driving in adverse weather conditions

2010-12-19T07:50:00.000-08:00

You would be wella advised not to drive in the current poor weather (snow, ice, etc) unless your journey is necessary. If you do need to drive, I'd advise you to have a look at the direct.gov.uk website:

Fall from height after contact with electricity

2010-12-17T09:20:00.000-08:00

After suffering an electric shock at one of the UK's largest timber merchants, a subcontractor fell more than five metres from a crane ladder. The mechanical fitter suffered a several injuries, including a broken vertebra as a result of the incident.

The Cambridge-based building and timber merchants was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after the incident, which happened in September 2008. The fitter was employed by an Engineering Company that had been subcontracted to fix an overhead crane system at the timber engineering workshop in Sudbury, Suffolk. He was climbing a ladder to access the crane when he made contact with a live conductor, which caused him to fall 18ft. He landed on the concrete floor, sustaining a fractured vertebra, a broken ankle, smashed heel, and burns to his hands.

The timber merchants admitted breaching Regulation 4(3) of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 - failing to ensure work was carried out in such a manner as to not give rise to danger. The firm was fined £5,000 (with £4,344.70 costs).

The HSE Inspector said:

It is essential for companies to ensure that work undertaken on their behalf by subcontractors is properly managed and safe systems of work agreed prior to work commencing. ... have admitted that the task was handed over to Mr Minor without discussion as to the way it was to be undertaken or any precautions that may be needed prior to it being started.

Fall from height - Roofing Contractor

2010-12-15T09:54:00.000-08:00

A roofing contractor from East London suffered a broken back after falling through the skylight of a building extension. Investigation by the HSE revealed that safety procedures had been overlooked. The worker fell while removing tarpaulin from the one-storey roof extension at a flat in South West London back in December 2006. The tarpaulin had been put in place to provide the ground floor of the flat with weather protection. The worker was removing this when the tarpaulin snagged. The man stepped on some insulating board that had been laid across the skylight, which gave way under his weight. He fell over three metres to the concrete floor below.

The injured persons employer pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 6 (3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and was fined £10,000, with costs of £7,000.

The injured worker suffered a broken back as a result of the fall and can now only walk short distances and needs to use a walking stick. The injured worker's condition will not improve and he will not be able to return to work in the construction industry.

Speaking after the sentence, the injured man showed, again, how such injuries destroys lives:

Prior to the incident, I had an active life and enjoyed numerous outdoor activities, which I can no longer pursue. I no longer work as a result of my injuries. The incident has effectively turned my life upside down. I suffer terrible flashbacks and am currently on medication.

The HSE Inspector commented:

The impact on this man's life has been immeasurable. This incident could easily have been avoided, and illustrates there is no room for complacency even when working on small sites. Work at height is the single largest safety hazard on construction sites and needs to be properly managed.

Fall from height fatality costs BT nearly half a million Pounds

2010-12-15T09:40:00.000-08:00

British Telecommunications Plc (BT) has been fined £300,000 following the death of a worker who fell from height. The 52 year old power construction engineer fell from a ladder while carrying out installation works and suffered fatal head injuries. the incident occurred at London's Canonbury Telephone Exchange on 27 October 2006.

BT was prosecuted after an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The Crown Court heard that the worker was installing distribution boards and running cabling as part of his work and that he would have been working at a height of more than four metres. He fell from a nine-step wooden ladder, sustaining a serious head injury and he died 18 days later.

The HSE investigation found a number of issues including a failure to ensure the work at height was properly planned. they also found that the worker was provided with suitable access equipment for work at height. Two wooden ladders found at the scene had not been subject to an annual inspection, contrary to BT's own health and safety policy. BT were found guilty of breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 at a previous hearing. Today, they were fined £300,000 and were ordered to pay costs of £196,150

The HSE inspector, said:

The fact that this incident was entirely avoidable makes Mr Askew's death all the more tragic.
The dangers posed by work at height are well known, yet BT failed to create the conditions to ensure this task was carried out safely and the appropriate access equipment was used.
Employers have a responsibility to ensure that work at height is properly planned and organised.

Showing the human suffering side of workplace safety, the wife of the worker killed in this incident said:

I spent over 30 happy, irreplaceable years with my husband. He was a remarkable father and husband. What do I have to look forward to now? My husband was my past and I thought he was my future.
I feel sad my husband will never see two of his children get married. Most of all I feel sad that I see such sadness in my children's eyes when they talk of their father.
I feel sad that my husband worked all his life and never got the chance to retire and enjoy the life he was working so hard towards.
I share a massive disappointment that this happened within a workforce of such a large company and where the safety of every employee should have been assured.

Note:

Sadly, falls from height remain the most common cause of workplace fatality. In the accident statistics for the period of 2008 - 2009 there were 35 fatalities, 4654 major injuries and a further 7065 injuries that caused the injured person to be off work for over three days or more, due to a fall from height.

BT to Appeal - it is understood that BT are to appeal against the fine in this case. More on this later.

A Safety Consultant's day in London

2010-11-26T09:26:00.000-08:00

Cold, early start - off to London on the 05.53 hrs train from Loughborough.
Quick stop off for breakfast at a small cafe near to Paddington Station before meeting a great client with a series of Hotel and Residential properties. A general run through some issues that they are having on one site and then off to visit a series of their more local Residential Property units. A few issues were identified on these sites and some improvements suggested (to ease the burden of record keeping). After that, it was over to Holborn to carry out a Safety Compliance Audit for the Managing Agent at a multi-let office block. Only issue on this site was to improve the control of contractors (which was largely being done well). Then back on the underground and onto the train. Train far too warm - dozed for most of the return journey.

Day over, except for some report writing ...

Another day in London a couple of weeks later
Another cold and early start, but at least the snow and ice was no longer a problem. One thought in my mind - will the student demonstrations of the previous evening create any lingering travel delays.

I met my first client of the day for a quick review of the general safety, welfare and fire safety arrangements of their small office area in a much larger building near to Victoria Station. After that, over to a smart office block near to King's Cross Station to take part in a job interview - working with a client to assist them in several interesting and challenging areas of change in their company. On at a relentless gallop over to Holborn to carry out a safety inspection of the common areas of a multi-let office block before heading home at the end on a gruelling, but interesting, day. Again, the reports need to be written up ...

Immediate Future
Several more early starts and late finishes commuting to London to continue my health and safety consultancy work. Hard work, yes - but also fascinating and fun!

Ten years in business

2010-11-21T14:40:00.000-08:00

How time flows over us! I have now been running my own Company for ten years. Over this period, my business has developed and grown. I now work with a wider range of clients than ever before, delivering more services than ever before. Over that time, I have seen changes in health and safety legislation and changes in the way it is perceived and used. Like many consultants I too often find that health and safety is used by some employers as a reason for not doing things. However, I am able to help many of my clients improve their workplace and their productivity while improving aspects of safety. Some clients now even use health and safety as a way to market themselves and to differentiate themselves from others in similiar fields (developing a USP, in marketing speak).

To celebrate the achievement of ten years running my own business, I have added an incentive to new clients - this can be viewed on the website.

The next few years will see the Company develop further, with a greater emphasis on the food safety and on the fire safety aspects of the business.

Some simple information on asbestos

2010-10-01T00:17:00.000-07:00

What is asbestos?
Asbestos is a naturally occurring fibrous material and has been used for about 150 years on a large scale. It is versatile, plentiful and ideal as a fire-proofing and insulation material. But it can be deadly!

The three main types of asbestos that have been used commercially are:
-Crocidolite (blue)
-Amosite (brown)
-Chrysotile (white)

Basic facts:
1000 people who worked in these trades die from cancer every year as a result of breathing asbestos fibres.
There’s still a lot of old asbestos in buildings
Any building built or refurbished before 2000 is still likely to contain asbestos.
Asbestos is responsible for an estimated 4000 deaths a year

Why is it dangerous?
If you inhale asbestos fibres (which are long and thin) they can become lodged in the tissue of your chest and your body’s natural defences may not be able to easily break them down. This can lead to lung diseases (mainly cancers), particularly if you are repeatedly exposed to fibres over a number of years.

Effects on health:

- Exposure to asbestos can cause three main diseases:
- Asbestosis: irreversible scarring of the lungs;
- Lung cancer: increased incidence, particularly if you smoke;
- Mesothelioma: cancer of the lining of the lungs or stomach.
Note: These diseases have no cure – mesothelioma and lung cancer are fatal diseases.
Typically, there can be a 15–60 years gap between first exposure and diagnosis.

Who’s at risk?

- Electricians
- Plumbers
- Date cabling operatives
- Joiners
- Heating & ventilation engineers
- Construction workers
- Other similar occupations

Where is it found?

- Asbestos cement products
- Textured pain coatings
- Floors tiles, textiles and composites
- Sprayed coatings on ceilings, walls and beams
- Asbestos insulation boards
- Lagging
- Fire blankets
- Window sills
- Panelling
- Loose asbestos in ceiling/floor cavity

What to do if you discover asbestos at work:

- Stop work
- Inform supervisor/contract manager
- Inform client
- Do not restart until told to do so by contracts manager or supervisor

If you think you may be working with asbestos:

- Liaise with the client
- Request a copy of a recent asbestos survey
- Check the asbestos survey against the work that you will be doing
- Constant vigilance

What to do if you need to work with it:

- Use hand tools - not power tools: they create too much dust
- Keep materials damp - not too wet
- Wear a properly fitted, suitable mask (eg. disposable FFP3 type). An ordinary dust mask will not be effective
- Don't smoke, eat or drink in the work area
- Double-bag asbestos waste and label the bags clearly and correctly
- Clean up as you go - use a special (Class H) vacuum cleaner, don’t sweep up asbestos.
- After work, wipe down your overalls with a damp rag or wear disposable overalls
- Always remove overalls before removing your mask
- Don't take overalls home to wash
- Wear boots without laces or use disposable boot covers
- Put disposable clothing items in asbestos waste bags and dispose of them properly- don’t reuse disposable clothing.

- Don't carry asbestos into your car or home – even accidentally!

Buncefield fines -

2010-07-16T04:17:00.000-07:00

Five companies have been told to pay more than £9m for their parts in the Buncefield oil depot fire which occurred in December 2005. It is reported that the explosion was equivalent to a 2.4-magnitude earthquake and it caused Europe's biggest fire since World War Two.

Sentencing the firms at St Albans Crown Court, Judge Sir David Calvert-Smith said:

"Had the explosion happened during a working day, the loss of life may have been measured in tens or even hundreds."

The companies were fined a total of £5.35m and ordered to pay costs of £4.08m.

Total was fined £3.6m plus £2.6m in costs, Hertfordshire Oil Storage was fined £1.45m plus £1m costs, British Pipeline Agency will pay £300,000 plus £480,000 in costs, Motherwell Control Systems 2003 Ltd (now in administration) and TAV Engineering were both fined £1,000 and each ordered to pay £500 in costs.

Scores on the foods - Food Hygiene

2010-07-07T03:41:00.000-07:00

The launch of the new Scores on the Doors website has sharpened the focus on restaurant hygiene. The scores are based on audits conducted by Environmental Health Officers on visits to premises.

For those with a strong health and hygiene record, the chance to have their scores displayed on a website is a great opportunity to obtain more customers and communicate high standards. Conversely, those with low scores are facing increasing media scrutiny: with a string of articles using Scores on the Doors to condemn and vilify restaurants for their poor hygiene.

The control of pests, such as mice, rats, flies and cockroaches, is a crucial aspect of a restaurant’s overall hygiene and one that all restaurant owners should be aware of. There is no reason for restaurants to fear the negative consequences if they are aware of the signs to look for and take simple preventative measures to reduce the level of risk.
Here are a few handy hints that are useful to remember:

• dark spots on ceilings can be identified as fly faeces
• dark smear marks on the floors, doors and skirting boards will appear from mice and rodents’ fur
• droppings and smears can appear in areas that are not regularly cleaned, such as the window display of a restaurant
• fly traps with large amounts of dead flies probably don’t work any more and will need servicing

But perhaps the most important method of preventing infestation is to ensure that your premises is clean and tidy. Not only will this help to improve your overall score, but a clean and tidy premises is one that pests don’t tend to infest.

• Food should also be stored correctly on shelving, and in refrigerators and freezer units.
• Crates and boxes should be stacked 70cm away from the wall to prevent rodents getting easy access.
• Kitchen, and front-of-house staff need to be educated on the signs and risks of infestation and should be expected to act responsibly when cleaning the premises and handling food.
• Restaurants should arrange preventative inspections, rather than hiring them reactively.

As more councils sign up to the scheme, scores are becoming more important in attracting business and retaining existing business and, hopefully, raise the general standards of the industry.

Need help? Contact us through our website

Fall from height - large fines

2010-06-29T00:35:00.000-07:00

Two Gloucestershire companies have been fined after a roofing contractor fell through a skylight and suffered serious head injuries.

The two companies were prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive after a contractor fell through a fragile roof skylight while working on the roof of a sawmill building at Mile End, Coleford, Gloucestershire. The contractor fell five metres and landed on the concrete floor below, sustaining serious head injuries.

At a hearing before Gloucester Magistrates, the Sawmill company pleaded guilty to four breaches of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 and 2007 and was fined a total of £13,320 and ordered to pay costs of £14,443.

The owner of the contracting company pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was fined a total of £26,660 and ordered to pay costs of £14,443.

Speaking after the hearing, An HSE inspector said:

"This incident highlights the extremely serious risks posed by working at heigh if adequate safety protection measures are not in place ... The investigation revealed significant failures in the safe systems of work for the removal of the roof sheets and also significant failure to control risks of working at height during all of the stages of the sawmill refurbishment. RS was supervising two other employees who were also at risk, one of whom was only 17 at the time of this incident ... The sawmill remained open during all of the works and employees working below were also at risk from persons or objects falling on them. (The) fall could easily have proved fatal."

High street retailer loses appeal against a record £400,000 fine for Fire Safety breaches

2010-06-21T04:48:00.000-07:00

A major high street retailers appeal against its record £400,000 fine for fire safety breaches at its Oxford Street store was dismissed last week (Thursday 17th), with the Court of Appeal saying the fine was not excessive in view of the company’s “lamentable” performance of fire safety duties.

In a significant judgement for responsible persons under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, the court decided that the level of the fine was not excessive in relation to the seriousness of the offences, the size and nature of the company, and the risk to the public which the company ran. The court also held that the fine was not out of kilter with those for offences under general health and safety legislation where there was a risk of death or serious injury.

The conviction of the company last November followed a fire at its Oxford Street store on 26 April 2009, which resulted in a chaotic evacuation of some 400 people, the closure part of Oxford Street for two days, and the eventual demolition of the building. The company was subsequently prosecuted and pleaded guilty to two main counts under the Fire Safety Order – failing to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment, and failing to ensure that employees were given adequate fire safety training. Other alleged detailed breaches were taken into account under these two counts.

The Court of Appeal concluded that while it accepted that the fire itself was not caused by the retailer’s breaches of duty, (the cause of the fire has never been established) the offences were serious enough to create a magnitude of risk in which death and serious injury in the fire was avoided by luck.

The appeal judges also agreed with the trial judge that a starting point for a fine in these circumstances was £600,000. This was rightly reduced to £400,000 in view of nobody being killed or injured, the company pleading guilty and co-operating with the investigation at the earliest opportunity, and the company demonstrating that it had taken significant steps to remedy fire safety shortcomings across its stores.

While maintaining that the principles of setting the level of fines under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 were similar to those for the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, the court said the trial judge was right to recognise “that the nature of the risk that employees and others were to be protected was the risk from death or serious injury in a fire. Fire can be indiscriminate in its effect and, in the case of an organisation which in the centre of a large city undertakes responsibility for large numbers of visitors to its premises, breaches will usually be a very serious matter.”

The Court of Appeal concluded: “We share the judge’s view that the appellant’s performance of its fire safety duties in a large department store in the centre of London was lamentable. The fines were, we recognise, severe, but they were not on our judgement manifestly excessive and the appeal is dismissed.”

In a statement issued after the judgement, the retailer said:

"We are committed to putting the health and safety of customers and employees first. Although the appeal against the fine was unsuccessful, we note that the original 35 alleged breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRFSO) were reduced to 2 offences and at no time has it been alleged that the company was either responsible for the fire, or that its breaches of the RRFSO caused the fire."

Screen Wash or Legionella?

2010-06-21T04:27:00.000-07:00

The Health Protection Agency (HPA) have suggested that motorists who do not use screenwash for their windscreen wipers risk getting potentially deadly legionnaires' disease!

The warning comes after health experts apparently discovered that professional drivers are five times more likely to be infected with the dangerous legionella bug. The suggestion is that legionella will thrive in the warm, stagnant environment of the windscreen washer bottle if screenwash is not added to discourage its proliferation. According to the survey, legionella bacterium were found in one in five cars that did not have the additive, but in no cars that did. Legionella infection is contracted when small droplets of contaminated water are breathed in (hence it's long term association with cooling towers, etc). It is not spread person to person.

It is feared that around a fifth of legionnaires' disease cases may arise from this perculiar type of exposure. The findings come from a Health Protection Agency-led study, which looked at why people at the wheel were more likely to be infected. Most at risk were found to be those driving a van, people who drive through industrial areas, and people who often had the car window open.

The study's authors said:

"Not adding screenwash to windscreen wiper fluid is a previously unidentified risk factor and appears to be strongly associated with community acquired sporadic cases of legionnaires' disease."

Do you want my view?

In case you did, it is

"It costs little to avoid this potential source of trouble to your health and possibly to your business. Add screenwash to your windscreen wash bottle and forget about reading this article. Life is too short for such worries"!

Restaurant fined £19,610 after salmonella outbreak

2010-06-15T00:21:00.000-07:00

A Chinese restaurant has been fined £10,000 after six diners were hospitalised with salmonella food poisoning. A total of 46 people all suffered from food poisoning after eating at the restaurant, with ages of the victims ranging from an 80-year-old man to a 22-month-old baby.

Investigating Environmental Health Officers from the local council discovered the source of the outbreak was the use of raw eggs in tiramisu. They found the kitchen was dirty and the structure in poor repair. A sample taken from the fridge where tiramisu was stored confirmed the presence of salmonella bacteria. Officers also found several food items that had been prepared at least five days before, including tiramisu that had been prepared six days earlier.

They closed the restaurant after the inspection in August 2008. Before it reopened it was deep cleaned and food hygiene practices were also changed. The restaurant stopped using raw eggs as an ingredient of tiramisu.

The restaurant’s trading company, as well as the company director, admitted four charges under food safety and hygiene regulations at Wolverhampton magistrates court in February.

At Wolverhampton crown court in March, the company, which has since ceased trading, received a £10,000 fine and was ordered to pay £9,610 costs. The director was ordered to do 100 hours unpaid community service.

The court was told seven people affected by the outbreak had so far received compensation totalling £45,000 and 10 claims were outstanding.

Poor food safety standards lead to a £6000 fine for Takeaway owner

2010-06-15T00:17:00.000-07:00

A takeaway owner in Staffordshire has been fined £3,500 after failing to put in place adequate procedures to control pests and for poor cleaning and for failing to protect food from contamination.

The owner of the take away admitted seven food hygiene offences at Burton magistrates’ court after East Staffordshire Borough Council brought a prosecution.

When Environmental Health Officers (EHO) visited the premises in February 2008 on a routine hygiene inspection they discovered food debris in the freezer and nesting material and droppings in the motor compartment. They also found filthy and contaminated equipment. In the walk-in fridge, they found burgers being stored on a dirty floor and droppings around the sink area, including the draining board.

The officers served three hygiene improvement notices and the owner voluntarily closed the premises, which posed an imminent risk to human health.

During regular revisits between February and July 2008, the EHOs discovered mouse droppings and further evidence of an infestation. Equipment, including the till, sieves and the wire rack in the hot hold cabinet, were also filthy. The kitchen had a putrid smell and officers found three dead mice in the freezer motor compartment and four dead mice in a disused warming cabinet. The owner voluntarily closed the premises again to deal with the infestation.

The presiding magistrate said he had never seen such bad conditions during his time as a magistrate. The owner was fined £500 for each offence. He was also ordered to pay £2,500 costs and a £15 victim surcharge. The magistrate said the fine would have been considerably more had the owner not been unemployed.

Holiday Fire Safety - some simple steps

2010-06-15T00:11:00.000-07:00

Fire safety doesn't take a holiday, even if you do, so why not take a few simple steps to help to keep you and your family safe!

Hotel safety

If possible, check that your holiday accommodation is equipped with smoke detectors and sprinkler systems when you book. If it doesn't, you might want to think about taking your own portable smoke detector.

When you arrive, look for a primary and alternate escape route from your room. If a fire occurs at night, it will be easier to get out if you know where you're going.

If the worst happens and a fire breaks out:

- Close the door of the room where the fire is, if you can do so safely, and close all the doors behind you as you leave. This will help to delay the spread of fire and smoke.
- Get everyone out of the building and stay out.
- Dial the fire service from a neighbouring phone, a call box or mobile phone.
- Be careful on the way out. Before opening a closed door, touch it with the back of your hand. If it feels warm, don't open it - there could be fire on the other side.

If you're cut off by fire:

- Try to remain calm. Close all doors and block any gaps with towels or sheets to stop smoke spreading into the room.
- Get close to the floor. Smoke rises, so the lower you are the easier it will be to breathe.
- Try to make your way to a window where you can attract someone's attention and get them to alert the fire service.
- If your clothing catches fire, stop what you're doing, drop to the floor and roll over to smother the flames.

Camping safety

When camping you can sometimes be lulled into a false sense of security, you’re outdoors, and the risks should be minimal, but you can still reduce the risk further by following these handy tips:

- before you set off, get the contact details of the local Fire and Rescue Service
- set up tents at least six metres apart and away from parked cars
- make sure you know what the fire safety arrangements are on the camp site and where the nearest telephone is
- don’t use oil-burning appliances, like lanterns, or candles in or near a tent – torches are safer
- don’t smoke inside a tent
- place your cooking area well away from the tent
- keep your cooking area clear of items that catch fire easily, including long, dry grass
- put cooking appliances in a place where they can’t easily be knocked over
- keep matches, lighters, flammable liquids and gas cylinders out of the reach of children
- have an escape plan and be prepared to cut your way out of your tent if there is a fire

How to deal with a fire when camping - remember these two simple tips:

- get everyone out straight away – fires in tents spread very quickly
- ll the Fire and Rescue Service and give a map reference if possible – provide a landmark, like a farm or pub, to help them find you

Working at height and failure to control contractors

2010-06-10T05:13:00.000-07:00

Case 1
Failure to control the work (at height) of contractors led to a large waste management company being fined £100,000 (with costs of £22,000) for breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work, Etc Act 1974 (HSWA) by failing to ensure the safety of those not in its employment. The contractor was also fined £70,000 (with costs of £22,000) after pleading guilty to contravening Section 2(1) HSWA by not ensuring its employees’ safety. The accident followed an attempt to remove the gearbox that was attached to a large fan (9 ½ metres diameter) set at a height of ten metres. The removal of the gearbox was proving problematic and appropriate hydraulic equipment should have been brought in. However, four workers stood on the fan blades and rocked them up and down. When the fan released itself, a worker overbalanced and fell ten metres, through a mesh that could not hold his weight, to a pallet below. The worker sustained serious injuries, including broken ribs, a punctured lung and a hernia. The worker fell onto a pallet of copper pipes, which absorbed much of the impact. It is likely that he would have died if he had landed on the floor.

Case 2
An electrical installations company has been fined £160,000 (with costs of about £25,000) after a workman fell to his death while dismantling a mobile tower scaffold. The worker erected the mobile tower scaffold with edge protection on the top platform, but not around the intermediate levels. While dismantling the tower (from top to bottom) the worker was attempting to remove one of the intermediate platforms when he stumbled and fell from the scaffolding and landed on the ground, five metres below. The Company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 for failing to ensure work at height was properly supervised and carried out safely.

Case 3
A worker fractured his leg and ankle after falling 4 metres from a wooden pallet that was being used as a temporary work platform that was raised by a forklift truck. Although the workers were acting on their own initiative, the problem (with a roller shutter door sticking) was one that was well known to management within the Company. The investigating HSE inspector commented that the men should have used an alternative to the pallet raised by the forklift, such as: a ladder, a mobile scaffold, a cherry picker or mobile-elevated work platform. The Company pleaded guilty to a breach of Section 2(1) of the HSWA by failing to ensure its employees’ safety. It was fined £10,000 (with costs of £5884).

Case 4
In a very recent case, a Leicester based company was fined £10,000 (with costs of £4,778) following prosecution when contracted roofers were spotted working unsafely at their premises. Safe access was provided on one of the premises, but there was not fall protection on the other side. An HSE Inspection commented “This case shows that it is not only the responsibility of the contracting company to ensure the safety of its workforce, but also it is the client’s”.

Hazardous substances or COSHH Cases

2010-06-10T05:09:00.000-07:00

Case 1
In January this year, a bearings company was fined £20,000 (with costs of £15,000) following prosecution for exposing the workforce to hazardous substances in the form of metalworking fluids as a mist. The company was issued with an Improvement Notice, following an HSE visit in April 2007, to provide its workforce with adequate face protection, and to install adequate control measures on six machines, to prevent employees coming into direct contact with the mist. Inspectors returned in December 2007 and undertook a full safety audit across the whole site. Although the company complied with the Improvement Notice (and installed extractors on each machine) a subsequent inspection identified that the problem was more widespread and 100 other machines were also emitting metalworking fluid. Over the last five years there have been 15 reported cases of respiratory ill health (occupational asthma and extrinsic allergic alveolitis) from workers at the factory. This represents the second largest exposure of its kind in the UK at a single company.

Case 2
The UK's largest domestic manufacturer of energy and telecommunications cables and systems to service home and export markets was fined £27,500 and ordered to pay £10,700 costs, at Southampton Crown Court in September 2009. A factory worker was left with permanent disabilities and has been forced to retire on medical grounds at the age of 48 after contracting a severe form of dermatitis at his workplace. The company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 6(1)(a), 7(1), and 7(3) of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002. The site produced high-voltage cables, which contained paper insulation that was soaked in dodecylbenzene oil. As part of the quality testing, the worker cut sections out of the cables and the oil regularly came into contact with his skin. The worker was not provided with suitable personal protective equipment and suffered skin irritations across large parts of his body. As a result of the illness he has been left with permanent scarring and has to avoid contact with a large number of substances that cause further skin irritation.

Confined spaces - A couple of cases

2010-06-10T05:03:00.000-07:00

Case 1
A silo cleaning company was fined £15,000 each of two breaches of the Confined Spaces Regulations 1997 (with costs of £15,000) after pleading guilty to breaching Regulations 4(2) (failing to provide a safe system of work) and 5(1) (insufficient emergency arrangements). A worker who had not been trained in confined-space access and egress, nor provided with adequate equipment, died of heat exhaustion inside a feed silo.

Case 2
A metal-treatment company has been fined £533,000 (with costs of £200,000) following a double fatality at its manufacturing plant. The Crown Court heard that a works manager and a maintenance manager died of asphyxiation and were found unconscious on stairs leading to a concrete-lined pit after argon gas had leaked from a large pressure vessel. Following a number of false alarms, the pit’s oxygen alarm system had been silenced. This was coupled to the fact that the ventilation system was also not in operation after the machine had lost power during a power cut. The power cut happened a month prior to the incident and had not been switched back on. The HSE inspector commented “... the risks from confined spaces and asphyxiation due to the presence of argon were well-known to the company, which had experienced of a similar double fatality. Despite this warning the company failed to undertake a proper risk assessment for entry into the confined space. Although they had implemented a safe system of work and permit-to-work procedure, they had not properly trained employees in their use, or ensured that these systems and procedures were being followed through their auditing procedure.”

If you need help to manage your Health and Safety, please contact us via our website

Contractor fined £45,000 after lift engineer is crushed to death

2010-06-09T05:22:00.000-07:00

A Kent-based lift company has been fined following health and safety failings which led to a self-employed lift engineer being crushed to death. The company was prosecuted following an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after an employee died while completing the installation of a new lift at a site near Oxford Street in Central London.

On 6 December 2005, the installer was working alone on the lift's wiring while standing on the roof of the lift car at an office building in London.

The cable of a control used to move the lift was severed when it became wrapped around a bolt protruding from the lift shaft wall. This led to a rogue command being sent to the lift's controller causing the lift to start moving upwards.

The installer became trapped between the top of the lift car and the top of the doorway as it travelled upwards, suffering fatal crush injuries.

Neither installer, nor his assistant, had experience of installing the type of lift control system being fitted at the site.

The Old Bailey heard the main contractor carrying out the work was had sub-contracted the work to a specialist lift engineer it had worked with previously. However, due to delays the sub-contractor had to leave the job uncompleted.

The job was then sub-contracted the completion and testing of the lift to a second sub-contractor who employed the installer to undertake the final phases of work.

The company pleaded guilty to breaching section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined a total of £20,000 and ordered to pay costs of £25,000. The company has now stopped trading and has limited financial resources.

A HSE Inspector commented upon the case:

"This tragic event illustrates the critical importance of having sufficient protective features within a control system.

Just one fault sent this lift out of control. Completed lifts have many protective features and this principle cannot be ignored when lifts are being constructed. That is why the permanent car top controls should be used whenever possible, rather than temporary ones."

Company fined £210,000 after driver killed at landfill site

2010-06-09T05:18:00.000-07:00

The death of a driver at a landfill site in Northamptonshire led to a waste management and recycling company being prosecuted Hbyt he ealth and Safety Executive and being fined £210,000.

The Driver arrived at the site to empty his refuse lorry and had to be assisted onto and off the tipping area as wet weather had led to soft ground conditions at the site. A bulldozer towed the refuse lorry to the tipping area where he discharged part of his load, in order to shed the rest of the load, the lorry needed to move forward but had become bogged sown in the soft ground. The Driver was radioed by the driver of the compactor who was spreading rubbish behind his lorry, to say he would drive up behind the Driver’s lorry and push it forward using the compactor. The bulldozer in front of the Driver reversed up to the front of the lorry to give him a tow.

Both vehicles tried to help the lorry move, without communicating with each other.

As the compactor began to push the lorry forward, the Driver was attaching a tow rope from the bulldozer to the front of his lorry. He was crushed to death between his lorry and the back of the bulldozer.

Northampton Crown Court heard that the landfill company had not defined supervisory roles for the staff at the site and that there were ambiguous site rules concerning the pushing of lorries. It also heard how new working arrangements had been introduced at the site a few days before the incident without being properly assessed for risk.

The company was fined £210,000 and ordered to pay costs of £38,000 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

A HSE Inspector said:

"Every company has a legal responsibility to take care of people working on their site, whether they are employed by them or not, in whatever circumstances they are asked to operate. Assessing risks, mitigating them wherever possible or stopping work as appropriate is the least people should expect from companies. Employers need to ensure their staff understand their roles and responsibilities in making sure sites like this operate to clear site safety rules."

"In this case, the prosecution shows that this has not happened and the Driver’s family have lost him as a result."

This sort of accident could have been avoided through conducting an appropriate risk assessment. Find out more about risk assessments and how we can help you by telephoning us on 01509 550023.

Important food safety tips for barbecues

2010-06-07T05:52:00.000-07:00

With a (potentially) hot and sunny Bank Holiday Weekend coming up, here are some essential food safety tips for barbecues:

- always make sure that the meat (especially: chicken, pork, burgers, sausages and kebabs, etc) is fully cooked. This means cooked until steaming hot all the way through so that none of the meat is pink and any juices run clear

- do not start to cook too early, but wait until the charcoal is glowing red, with a powdery grey surface. If you don't you risk over-charring the outside of the meat while the inside is still raw

- if barbecuing lots of meat, consider cooking it in the oven first and then finished off (without delay) on the barbecue for added flavour

- wash your hands regularly and always after handling raw meat

- when reheating food on the barbecue, always make sure it's steaming hot all the way through before serving

- don't add sauce or marinade to cooked food if it has already been used with raw meat

Need any help with food safety? Visit our new-look website

Store owner fined after failing to put safety of public first

2010-06-07T05:35:00.000-07:00

A store owner was fined about £12,500 after being held responsible for an accident in which a three-year-old girl suffered second degree burns. The child’s dress caught fire as she walked past a propane space heater in the store. It was only the bravery of the child's father (who was also treated in hospital for burns to his hands as he tried to put out the flames) that prevented his daughter from suffering even more serious injuries.

Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service Fire Safety Enforcement Officers and Environmental Health Officers from West Lancashire Borough Council launched a joint prosecution against the fabric store. The business owner was found to be in breach of Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 .

Fire service investigators who visited the business in the aftermath of the incident were said to be “appalled” by the lack of fire safety in this commercial site and the fire service concluded that the owner:

"failed to put the safety of the public first"

The store owner failed to initiate basic risk assessments, failed to fit fire or smoke detectors and alarms, failed to provide escape routes with suitable lighting and failed to ensure fire escapes could be used safely and quickly.

A spokesman for the Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service Fire said:

"Under fire safety regulations every ‘responsible person’ is required to carry out a Fire Risk Assessment. This may be done as part of the general Health and Safety Risk Assessment, or as a separate and specific Fire Risk Assessment.

Regrettably in this instance the responsible person had failed to undertake a Fire Risk Assessment which would have identified the unsuitable use of the space heater along with the lack of general fire precaution, and steps required to ensure public safety."

The store owner was also found guilty of offences under the Health and Safety at Work Act brought by West Lancashire Council.

Food Safety - Scores on the Doors

2010-06-07T05:26:00.000-07:00

Consumers in most areas can see how well a food business complies with food hygiene regulations through ‘Scores on the Doors’ schemes run by their local authority.

The primary purpose of these ‘Scores on the Doors’ schemes is to allow consumers to make informed choices about the places in which they eat out and from which they purchase food, and, through this, to encourage businesses to improve hygiene standards. Journalists also make use of the ‘Scores on the Doors’ system to publicise the standards of food businesses.

Local authority enforcement officers are responsible for inspecting food businesses to ensure that they meet the legal requirements on food hygiene. Under ‘Scores on the Doors’ schemes, each food outlet is given a hygiene rating or hygiene score that reflects the inspection findings and may display this in their premises where consumers can see it. Scores are also available via websites where consumers can see the scores for all the businesses in the local area.

At the moment, more than 200 local authorities across the UK have Scores on the Doors schemes in place. These schemes vary in their design and the way that they are operated. Some authorities use a star grading system, usually three or five star ranges, others use smiley face symbols. The Food Standards Agency is hoping to standardise the system nationwide to make it easier to understand.

Freedom of information legislation means that inspection reports on food hygiene are in the public domain and any member of the public can ask to see them. ‘Scores on the Doors’ makes food safety conditions at individual premises even more obvious and accessible to the public and the media

To maximise the potential ‘Scores on the Doors’ score it is obviously important to demonstrate good cleaning and food safety practices during the inspection. Just as important as this, however, is to be able to prove that management and staff have received adequate training in food hygiene and that there is a sufficient written food safety management system in place. The weighting given to training and management systems in the scoring of ‘Scores on the Doors’ is high. This often means that where these are lacking, a low score is given even when the physical conditions and practices on site during the inspection are good.

Creating a food safety management system does not have to be complicated. The Food Standards Agency has provided a very easy to use system called ‘Safer Food, Better Business’, which can either be found on the internet or can be provided in paper form from your local authority Environmental Health Department. The hazard analysis part of the system is in a really easy to use ‘fill in the gaps’ format and the record keeping diary is also very simple. There is no requirement for endless records and emphasis is put on only recording things that go wrong and what corrective action is taken.

Training is also easy to do. The ‘Safer Food Better Business System’ itself can be used to aid in house training and excellent food safety courses are available from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and other organisations. These are often available through local colleges, local authorities and many private training centres.

Need Help? Contact us at our website

Former pub landlord fined £16,000 for fire safety breaches

2010-06-02T08:19:00.000-07:00

A former pub landlord has been ordered to pay a total of £16,015 in fines and costs for serious breaches of fire safety law following a prosecution brought by London Fire Brigade. The former landlord pleaded guilty to 16 contraventions of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order.

Isleworth Crown Court heard that fire officers inspecting the public house in August 2008 uncovered a number of failings, including no fire risk assessment, no portable fire extinguishers, and no emergency signage.

After explaining their concerns and asking for the faults to be rectified, fire officers revisited the premises and issued an enforcement notice when they found continuing non-compliance.

When officers again visited the premises, conditions had deteriorated and the brigade served a prohibition notice banning the use of the upper floors by staff and guests because the risk from fire was so serious. However, a subsequent visit confirmed that the upper floors were still being used as accommodation.

Following a further inspection in May 2009, the owner of the premises took action at the recommendation of fire officers and physically barred access to the upper floor.

As pub landlord during the period, the former landlord was the responsible person under the Fire Safety Order, and was fined accordingly.

Shocking! - Manufacturer fined £10,330

2010-06-02T08:15:00.000-07:00

A stationery manufacturer has been fined after admitting exposing a worker to a high voltage shock that left him permanently disabled. The man was investigating a fault on a plastic welding machine in June 2007 when his fingers came into contact (or very close contact) with components carrying several thousand volts.

The shock severely burned his right hand and forearm, and damaged several muscles. He was hospitalised for 14 days and has since had to undergo skin grafts. He has not regained full use of his right hand and has been unable to return to work.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation into the incident revealed that guard panels which should have prevented access to live circuits had been removed. Inspectors discovered that no record of maintenance checks was kept for any of the machines at the factory. The company also had no first aiders.

The company pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 at the City of London Magistrates' Court. It was fined £4,000 and ordered to pay costs of £6,330.

A HSE Inspector said:

"A man's life has been turned upside down because of entirely preventable and basic safety failings. It is the responsibility of all managers to make sure that all maintenance work is properly planned and recorded and that adequate guards are fitted to all machinery when it is in use.

"If these simple things had been done it is unlikely that he would have suffered these horrendous injuries. But this incident could have been much worse - instead of losing the feeling in his fingers, he could have lost his life."

Worker loses 2 fingers - plastic recycling firm

2010-05-27T07:11:00.000-07:00

A plastics recycling factory in St Helens was fined £15,000 after a worker had parts of two fingers cut off by blades on a high-speed fan. The employee suffered serious injuries to four fingers on his left hand including the partial amputation of two.

He was injured while trying to repair a drying unit at the firm in May 2009. The Court heard that the employee's fingers came into contact with the high-speed fan while he was trying to fix a problem. The HSE investigation concluded that the company's procedure for repairing the machine was inadequate.

The HSE inspector said:

"One of the factory's employees suffered serious injuries because basic health and safety procedures were not followed. He has still not returned to work more than a year on from the incident.

"By law, the preferred solution would have been for the workers to switch off and lock off the power supply to the fan with padlocks. If this was not possible, then temporary guards should have been put in place. These or other equally effective measures were not taken.

"Sadly incidents like this are all too common. Factories must treat the safety of their workers as a top priority to prevent serious injuries or even deaths in the future."

The Company pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was ordered to pay £4,347 towards the cost of the prosecution in addition to the fine at St Helens Magistrates' Court on 25 May.

Need help? Contact us through our website

2010-05-20T01:55:00.000-07:00

A store owner is fined £12,567 after being held responsible for an accident in which a three-year-old girl suffered second degree burns. The child’s dress caught fire as she walked past a propane space heater in the store. It was only the bravery of the child's father (who was also treated in hospital for burns to his hands as he tried to put out the flames) that prevented his daughter from suffering even more serious injuries.

Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service Fire Safety Enforcement Officers and Environmental Health Officers from West Lancashire Borough Council launched a joint prosecution against the fabric store. The business owner was found to be in breach of Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 .

Fire service investigators who visited the business in the aftermath of the incident were said to be “appalled” by the lack of fire safety in this commercial site and the fire service concluded that the owner:

"failed to put the safety of the public first"

The store owner failed to initiate basic risk assessments, failed to fit fire or smoke detectors and alarms, failed to provide escape routes with suitable lighting and failed to ensure fire escapes could be used safely and quickly.

A spokesman for the Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service Fire said:

"Under fire safety regulations every ‘responsible person’ is required to carry out a Fire Risk Assessment. This may be done as part of the general Health and Safety Risk Assessment, or as a separate and specific Fire Risk Assessment.

Regrettably in this instance the responsible person had failed to undertake a Fire Risk Assessment which would have identified the unsuitable use of the space heater along with the lack of general fire precaution, and steps required to ensure public safety."

The store owner was also found guilty of offences under the Health and Safety at Work Act brought by West Lancashire Council.

Fire Safety - Some simple steps

2010-05-17T06:05:00.000-07:00

Although it is the employer's responsibility to carry out the Fire Safety Risk Assessment (FSRA) and to make suitable and suffiicient arrangements for the overall management of fire safety, it is still very much everybody’s responsibility to reduce the risk of fire. Employers and employees have simple, but important, contributions to make. Here are a few simple ways in which we can all make our workplaces are safer in this regard.

Sources of ignition

Ensure that sources of ignition are kept away from flammable materials. For example take care when using portable
heaters that they are away from waste bins, fabrics and other furnishings. Remember that all electrical devices get
hot and make sure they are well ventilated.
Always report electrical defects and do not use defective electrical equipment.

Smoking

If you smoke, ensure that you do so in the appropriate, designated areas.
Make sure that you extinguish cigarettes in proper ash trays and never throw them in a general waste bin. Prior to
smoking controls in the workplace, cigarettes were the single biggest cause of workplace fires.

Housekeeping and storage

Good housekeeping is essential. Waste paper and packaging make excellent fuel and should not be allowed to
accumulate. Make sure such materials are removed at least daily and where activities have led to a large amount of
such material accumulating, remove it straight away.
Where bins are designed to have lids, keep those lids shut. This will reduce oxygen supply that might otherwise
accelerate an accidental waste bin fire.
When disposing of cardboard or storing it for recycling always store it flat and compacted as much as possible. This
reduces the surface area exposed to oxygen and makes it harder to burn.
Make sure that all materials are stored in a safe place, away from sources of heat and never in a main walkway,
corridor or stairs. Remember that all walkways are emergency exit routes, not just the ones that are marked as such.
Materials stored in a corridor may not look much of a hazard in bright light in normal circumstances, but remember
that in an emergency many people may be rushing along the same route and lighting may be absent or severely reduced

Be prepared

Make sure you understand the fire procedures in your workplace.
Ensure that you know how to call the emergency services – do you need an extra 9 for an outside line?
Read the fire action notice and the instructions on your fire extinguishers now. Do not leave it until there is a fire to
find out what you should do.
Ensure you know where the gas isolation valve is, if appropriate.
Remember that fire extinguishers are to aid escape or to tackle very small fires only. Never try to put out a large
indoor fire yourself. Simply ensure the alarm is raised and get out.

Director disqualified for 4 years

2010-05-11T07:17:00.000-07:00

The MD of a steel erection firm has been ordered to pay £45,000 and has been disqualified from serving as a director for four years after a worker was paralysed from the chest down. Two other companies have also been ordered to pay penalties totalling £172,000 for their part in the incident at a construction site in Glossop, Derbyshire back in February 2007.

During the installation of a new racking system, one of the workers fell over nine metres onto a concrete floor and has been unable to return to work since. He is likely to use a wheelchair for the rest of his life.

The HSE commented:

" ... (the worker) should have been provided with a safe system of work to protect against falls ... This could have included personal fall protection, such as a harness and work restraint lanyard fitted to a running line, and properly fitted safety nets”.

If you need help to meet your health and safety obligations, contact us

2010-05-09T23:41:00.000-07:00

A Burnley tool manufacturer was fined £1,000 after one of its workers lost a finger when it became trapped in machinery.

The tool manufacturer was prosecuted by the HSE following the incident. The injured worker was using a piece of emery cloth to reduce the size of a metal component on a metalworking lathe. Predictably, the cloth became trapped by the rotating mechanism, pulling in his right hand. Mr Whittaker was wearing a glove at the time which pulled his hand further into the machinery.

The worker had not received training on how to operate the machine safely, or on the dangers of using emery cloths on metalworking lathes. The HSE investigation revealed that the company had failed to assess adequately the risks of using emery cloths on rotating equipment and had not implemented a safe system of work to control the risks.

The HSE commented:

"Paul Whittaker has been unable to return to work and his injury has significantly affected his ability to grip and lift with his right hand. Sadly injuries like the one he suffered are all too common.

"A significant proportion of incidents at lathes are caused by emery clothes being used in an unsafe way. If Mr Whittaker had been warned against using a piece of emery cloth while he worked on the lathe, he would not have lost his finger."

"This incident is also a reminder that gloves should not be worn when working with rotating parts. I hope manufacturers learn lessons from this case so that no more workers suffer permanent injuries in the future."

Missing guard - bread maker loses finger

2010-05-07T02:05:00.000-07:00

A specialist bread manufacturing company was fined after a worker was injured by a dough mixing machine and had his finger amputated.

The worker was using a spiral mixing machine to make dough when his left hand came into contact with the unguarded beater of the mixing machine. Consequently, part of his left index finger had to be amputated.

An investigation by the HSE revealed that the guard covering the dangerous parts of the machine had been missing for some time before the incident. Further to this, previous advice from the HSE regarding the maintenance of machinery in the factory had been ignored.

The Barnet based bread making company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER)and was fined £3,500 (with costs of £2,926).

The HSE inspector commented:

"This incident could easily have been avoided. The hazards associated with this type of machine are understood within the food manufacturing industry and there is clear guidance on the guarding standards which should be followed.

"There were clear failings on this occasion. Had a simple guard been fitted to this machine then ... would never have suffered these injuries."

Worker nearly loses foot in machinery

2010-05-03T01:32:00.000-07:00

A Bradford farming company was prosecuted by the HSE after an employee was seriously injured after slipping into a manure machine. The employee lost his big toe and part of the heel of his left foot, broke all his toes and severely damaged the ankle of his right foot when he fell into a manure auger.

An investigation by the HSE revealed that the auger, a screw conveyor that takes the manure out of a battery hen house, was not sufficiently guarded, allowing the the worker to slipp in and to trap both feet.

The court was told that the doctor attending the incident became so concerned for the man's welfare that firefighters seriously considered removing his foot as the only means of getting him out of the machine. The worker is currently still off work and recovering from his injuries.

The employer was fined £2,000 (with costs of £1,395) after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998

Following the trial, the HSE inspector commented:

"This worker nearly lost his foot, and he has suffered long term injuries - all because his employer failed to ensure the machine was properly guarded.

... (the Compnay)needed to install properly-fitted guarding to this machine, to prevent this incident.

... Employers must thoroughly plan work activities around dangerous machinery, to account for any risks and to avoid these incidents from happening."

Worker dies in sweet making machine

2010-04-29T02:57:00.000-07:00

The UK's largest confectionery firm has been fined a total of £300,000 after an employee was crushed to death in one of its sweet-making machines.

A 33 year operator was killed while he was clearing a blockage in one of the machines at the Poole plant in February 2008. It is understood that the operator climbed into the machine and then the mechanism restarted he became trapped. The opeator died of his injuries and was pronounced dead at the scene.

The company was found guilty of breaches under Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and of breaching Regulation 3 (1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.

The company was fined £150,000 for the Section 2 offense and a further £150,000 for failure to carry out suitable and sufficient assessmetns of the risks as required under the regulations charge and ordered to pay full costs of nerarly £73,000.

Following the hearing, an HSE inspector said:

"This tragic case highlights the need to ensure that machines are safely isolated before any maintenance takes place so it cannot unexpectedly start up. Simply pressing a stop button does not adequately isolate a machine.

If the machine in this case had been properly isolated from the electrical power source before (the operator) attempted to clear the blockage, this accident would never have happened.

A proper risk assessment would have highlighted the dangers of entrapment. All employees need to be adequately trained in correct company procedures - whether it's for clearing blockages, operating machines or any other high risk activity."

Farmer worker crushed to death

2010-04-29T02:06:00.000-07:00

A family run farm in East Lothian has been fined £20,000 after a worker was crushed to death by a one-tonne concrete panel. Back in June 2008 the farm worker was helping to build a perimeter wall at an open hay shed when the pre-cast concrete panel toppled over and crushed him. He died from his injuries at the scene

Workers' Memorial Day

2010-04-28T08:27:00.000-07:00

Worker’s Memorial Day is held on 28 April every year. All over the world, workers and their representatives conduct events, demonstrations, vigils and a whole host of other activities to mark this day.

The day is also intended to serve as a rallying cry to:

"remember the dead, but fight like hell for the living"

The TUC coordinates activities across the country, publishing a comprehensive listing of events and suggestions. Link to the TUC Worker’s Memorial Day Page

COSHH and smaller businesses

2010-04-28T03:00:00.000-07:00

COSHH (the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002) is often an area for concern for businesses, especially smaller businesses. It an area of health and safety that is poorly understood and is viewed with mysticism.

Like all aspects of health and safety, small businesses need a considered approach to COSHH, but they must not assume that it does not apply to them or that it does not affect them. A simple process would be:

review the substances present of site
assess the hazards associated with them
reduce the number of hazardous substances
replace hazardous substances with safe (or at least safer) alternatives
assess the risk from the use of the reduced inventory of substances
implement control measures
enforce the appropriate use of control measures

Above all, apply common sense. For further advice and guidance, please contact us.

Food Safety - New Training Course Commission

2010-04-22T12:21:00.001-07:00

We have just been retained to write the script for an interactive food safety training course (an e-learning course). This should prove to be both challenging and instructive.

Director banned for 5 years for health and safety failings

2010-04-21T06:36:00.000-07:00

A Worcestershire company and its managing director have been fined a total of £87,000 following a series of health and safety failures. These health and safety failures saw workers exposed to a variety of risks, including: exposure to lead, falls from height and being crushed by falling objects.

The managing director of the Company was criticised by the HSE for “flagrant lack of attention” to the safety of employees at the Stratford-upon-Avon based company.

Following a tip-off from a concerned employee, the HSE carried out an investigation that resulted in 4 Prohibition and 4 Improvement Notices being issued. Workers at the plant were found to be spray-painting fuel tanks without appropriate safety equipment, even though the paint contained toxic lead chromate. Specialist HSE inspectors took air, blood and urine samples to assess the workers’ exposure to lead, and five of them were found to have higher levels than the UK average.

The workers were required to work from beneath half-tonne vessels that they were painting, with nothing to prevent them from being crushed if the lifting equipment, which had not been maintained or checked properly, had failed.

To paint the tops of the tanks, which were two metres above the concrete floor, the workers simply stood on them, with no equipment to stop them from falling. The managing director ignored a Prohibition Notice in relation to this unsafe practice and continued to instruct his employees to work on top of the tanks.

The Company pleaded guilty to the following breaches of health and safety legislation:

Regulation 6(1)(c) of the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002
Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations (WAHR) 2005
Regulation 8(1)(c) of Lifting Operation Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998
Regulation 21(1) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992
Regulation 13(2) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999

The Company was also found guilty of contravening Prohibition Notices on 3 occasions. As a result, it was fined a total of £70,000 and ordered to pay £27,507 in costs. It is understood that the Company is now in administration.

The managing director was fined £17,000 with £9169 in costs after pleading guilty to breaching reg.4(1) of the WAHR 2005 and s33(1)(g) of the HSWA 1974 and he was banned from directing any company for five years under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

An HSE inspector commented:

Companies and their managing directors have a legal responsibility to protect their employees. No one should be expected to work in the conditions found at (the company), and it is quite right that an employee contacted HSE to complain. Failure to properly manage health and safety can have catastrophic results.

If you need help to meet your Health & Safety obligation, contact us.

Health & Safety - What's the minimum that I can get away with?

2010-04-20T07:27:00.000-07:00

With respect to health and safety it is not uncommon to hear phrases (from employers) such as: “I only want to do what I have to …”, “What’s the minimum I must do to be legal…” and “What can I get away with doing…”? The most common duty, with respect to health and safety at work, is to reduce the level of risk to as low a level as is reasonably practicable (ALARP). Although there are some cases where a higher standard is required, most cases fall under the auspices of Section 2 or Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act, Etc 1974. This may be paraphrased as creating the duty on the employer to “ensure the health and safety of employees (and non-employees who may be effected by the undertaking), so far as is reasonably practicable (SFARP)”. This means that the minimum legal standard is to do what is reasonably practicable.

What does Reasonably Practicable mean?
The term "so far as is reasonably practicable" (SFARP) means that the degree of risk in a particular situation can be balanced against the time, trouble, cost and physical difficulty of taking measures to avoid the risk, as decided by the Court of Appeal in Edwards v The National Coal Board 1949. If these resources are so disproportionate to the risk that it would be unreasonable to expect any employer to have to incur them to prevent it, the employer is not obliged to do so unless there is a specific requirement that he does. The greater the risk, the more likely it is that it is reasonable to go to very substantial expense, trouble and invention to reduce it. If, however, the consequences and extent of a risk are small, insistence on great expense would not be considered reasonable. It is important to remember that the judgement is an objective one and the size or financial position of the employer are immaterial.

How does this relate to Risk Assessments within the workplace?
All employers are required (by Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, as amended) to undertake assessments of the risks (to employees and to non-employees) arising from their undertaking. After determining the level of risk, SFARP has the effect of helping to determine how far to go with the control measures that need to be introduced to reduce the risks does to ALARP. When considered in this light, the question’s that were raised at the start of this article become poignant. Doing the minimum actually means reaching quite a high standard of health and safety as the only defence to not doing more is that it is not reasonably practicable to do so.

Is there an order that needs to be considered when determining the measures that are needs to reduce risks to as low a level as is reasonably practicable?
Schedule 1 to the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 specifies a hierarchy that is to be followed when contemplating and introducing measures to control the risks:
(a) avoiding risks
(b) evaluating the risks which cannot be avoided
(c) combating the risks at source
(d) adapting the work to the individual, especially as regards the design of workplaces, the choice of work equipment and the choice of working and production methods, with a view, in particular, to alleviating monotonous work and work at a predetermined work-rate and to reducing their effect on health
(e) adapting to technical progress
(f) replacing the dangerous by the non-dangerous or the less dangerous
(g) developing a coherent overall prevention policy which covers technology, organisation of work, working conditions, social relationships and the influence of factors relating to the working environment
(h) giving collective protective measures priority over individual protective measures and
(i) giving appropriate instructions to employees
Other pieces of legislation, such as the Work at Height Regulations 2005, Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002, Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, etc. create similar hierarchies.

What about the “knock-on” effects of control measures into other areas?
Risk assessments need to be well thought through and they need to be holistic: all factors need to be considered, including any new risks created by the introduction of the control measures designed to reduce the existing risk. For example:
• a small reduction in the toxicity of a substance should be weighed against the increased risks that might be associated with a flammability or explosion risk, etc.
• the reduction in manual handling risks brought about by the use of mechanical handling (such as a fork lift truck or a conveyor system) need to be balances against the increased risks arising from vehicle movement, falling loads, machinery guarding and mechanical risks, etc.

Need help? Contact us at LRB Consulting.co.uk

Night-Shift Work – a link to breast cancer in women?

2010-04-20T07:09:00.000-07:00

Introduction
It is well established that there can be undesirable consequences for those working shifts outside standard daytime hours, particularly those covering the night or with early morning starts. Over the past few years, evidence has been emerging that suggests that night shifts are bad for you. Typical symptoms include: fatigue, disturbed sleep, digestive problems and a greater risk of accidents at work. Some studies also show a higher risk of breast cancer in women who sleep for fewer hours at night.

Danish Government pays out for breast cancer in shift workers
In March 2009, the Danish government paid compensation to around forty women who had developed breast cancer after long spells of shift work involving working at night. This decision followed a ruling by Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, which is part of the United Nations World Health Organisation) that night shifts probably increase the risk of developing cancer. Part of the function of the IARC is to study and rank cancer risks. Category One risks are known carcinogens, including asbestos, but night-working has been categorised as only one level below that, i.e. a probable cause of cancer. The IARC reached this conclusion after looking at a wide number of studies in humans and in animals. A report published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute reported a 36% greater risk of breast cancer for women who had worked night shifts for more than 30 years, compared with women who had never worked nights.

A hormonal mechanism for breast cancer
When faced with a diagnosis of cancer, people want be able to identify a single factor in their history that they can identify as the single cause of the disease. Cancer, however, is a complicated disease and rather than thinking in terms of a single cause, its best considered as being the result of a combination of many factors, which all have a small, but significant, contribution. In the case of breast cancer these factors would include: the woman’s genes, her age, her weight, her race, how much she drinks, when she started (and stopped) her periods, how many children she has had, whether (and for how long) she took birth control pills or hormone replacement therapy, and how long she breast-fed.

In 2001, several epidemiological studies providing evidence linking breast cancer in women with prolonged periods of working at night were reported. Within these studies, a biologically plausible mechanism related to the suppression of melatonin was suggested as a potential explanation for these findings. According to this theory, this association arises from reductions in serum levels of melatonin that follow from nocturnal exposure to light. Melatonin is known to suppress tumour growth in experimental animal models, and reduced melatonin levels may increase ovarian oestrogen release. In the normal pattern of life, our eyes sense the reduction of natural light levels. This triggers the pineal gland to begin the secretion of the hormone melatonin and as the melatonin levels rise in our bodies we tend to get sleepy. In women, as the melatonin levels rise, the production of the female sex hormone oestrogen decreases. It is believed that the production of oestrogen stimulates the growth of breast tissue including some breast cancers. It may be considered that more light results in less melatonin and in more oestrogen, which means a greater risk of cancer.

Information from studies
Nurse study - In 1988, nearly 80,000 nurses who had no history of breast cancer were questioned about previous overnight shift work. The study participants were then followed for ten years. The resulting analysis was then adjusted for potential confounding factors and it was found that women who had worked rotating night shifts for 30 years or longer had significantly increased risk for developing breast cancer compared with those who had never worked night shifts (a relative risk of 1.36). Among nurses with less than 30 years of shift work, risk was slightly elevated but fell just short of significance (a relative risk of 1.08).

Second study - In a separate study, 813 women with breast cancer were compared with 793 age-matched controls. A history of overnight shift work during the previous 10 years was associated with significantly increased risk for breast cancer (an “odds ratio” of 1.6, after adjustment for other risk factors). Breast cancer risk was also found to be increased significantly among women who frequently did not sleep during the middle of the night for any reason (there was an “odds ratio” of 1.7 for the group with at least 2.6 nights per week of interrupted sleep).

Danish Study - In a population-based case-control study, the breast cancer risk among Danish women aged between 30 and 54 who worked predominantly at night was investigated. Individual employment histories were reconstructed back as far as 1964 for each of 7035 women with breast cancer along with individually matched controls from the records of a nationwide pension scheme with compulsory membership. The “odds ratio” for breast cancer among women who worked at night at least half of a year was 1.5 and there was a tendency to increasing odds ratio by increasing duration of night time employment.

Practical steps to reduce the risks of breast cancer - for shift workers
Shift workers can reduce their personal risk by eliminating some lifestyle risk factors, by:
• stopping the use of tobacco
• keeping alcohol intake moderate
• exercising regularly
• maintaining a healthy weight
• getting enough sleep on a regular basis
• make sure that their bedroom is completely dark when they sleep (both at night and during daytime, to make sure that melatonin secretion is not affected)

“Be Breast Aware” – there is a free leaflet available from the NHS in a range of languages. Breast aware encourages women to:
• Take care of your own well-being
• Know what is normal for you
• Know what to look and feel for
• Report any changes without delay
• Attend for breast screening if aged 50 for over

Practical steps to reduce the risks of breast cancer - for the employer• Train and educate shift workers on what constitutes a healthy lifestyle and how to achieve it and maintain good quality sleep
• Design shift schedules to allow sufficient rest and provide the opportunity to obtain adequate sleep.
• Keep overtime at a healthy level
• Introduce health surveillance for night shift workers

Food firm fined - employee falls into machinery

2010-04-19T09:28:00.000-07:00

An international food company that supplies some of the supermarkets around the country has been fined after a worker was hurt while cleaning processing machinery.

The Magistrates' Court heard that the worker was cleaning a machine consisting of three tanks which tipped food into each other. To clean the machine properly, operatives needed to stand on the frame of the machine to reach some of the parts.

The operative was injured as they reached up and then lost their footing and so fell into one of the 1.5 metre deep tanks. This resulted in the operative losing consciousness. The operative was rescued by colleagues who heard them shout as they fell.

The injured operative was subsequently off work for five weeks and reported suffering from severe headaches and pains in her neck and back, for which they had to take pain killers.

The Company was fined £3,500 and ordered to pay costs of £2,091 after pleading guilty to breaching section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

The HSE Inspector said:

"No-one at the Company realised that climbing was involved cleaning this machine. A risk assessment should have been carried out and an examination of how work at height was being undertaken.

"The company has now introduced a system of cleaning using long-handled brushes, which goes to show how simple it can be to prevent this incident in the first place.

"This case highlights the need for employers to be aware of what goes on during the night shift. All staff have a right to the same standard of care irrespective of their working hours."

Facilities Management - Landlord jailed for fire safety offences

2010-04-19T06:31:00.000-07:00

Facilities management companies, managing agents and landlords need to be aware that they are responsible for the premises that they manage (especially the common areas of these premises). This relates to all relevant aspects of health and safety, including fire safety.

A Landlord has received and a four month custodial sentence for failing to comply with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The London Fire Brigade prosecuted the defendant after a fatal fire resulted in the death of an individual at one of the many properties owned by the accused.

It was discovered that the defendant or his company had never completed a fire risk assessment and there were no provisions made for fire safety, smoke detection, emergency signs and many escape routes which would be used in the event of a fire were blocked.

As well as being sent to prison, the company of the guilty party was fined £21,000, plus costs.

If you need assistance with Fire Safety or any aspect of Facilities Management Safety, take a look at out website.

The cost of failing to complete Fire Risk Assessment

2010-04-13T00:45:00.000-07:00

Following a fire at a hotel in Lancashire, the managing director was fined £18,000 (with costs of £1750). The company responsible for the hotel admitted responsibility for a number of offences in court. These included -
•Not completing a fire risk assessment
•Failure to maintain clear emergency exits
•Failure to maintain alarm and detection systems
•Failure to protect means of escape
•Not training the staff in fire safety

This prosecution should send a clear message that the owner of businesses must be fully aware of their responsibility with regard to fire safety and must have implemented measures necessary to keep staff and customers safe

New Fire Safety Legislation

2010-04-13T00:38:00.001-07:00

The Fire Safety (England) (Employees' Capabilities) Regulations 2010 came into force on 06 April 6 2010.

These regulations have been issued to close the percieved gap in the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRO). They require that employers delegating fire safety tasks to employees take into account the fire safety capabilities of the employees to whom these tasks are delegated. This "new" fire safety legislation formalises a duty which was (arguably) already implicitly present in the existing legislation, i.e., the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

Regulation 2 of this new legislation requires the employer to take employees’ capabilities into consideration when entrusting them with fire safety responsibilities:

Every employer must, in entrusting tasks to employees, take into account their capabilities as regards health and safety, so far as those capabilities relate to fire.

This is an example of legislation being used to enforce the application of common sense. Fire safety is essential to the safe running of all businesses. If you need help with any aspect of your fire safety (or your health and safety), please contact us through our website.

Charity and Voluntary Workers

2010-03-18T09:27:00.000-07:00

Introduction
Charity and voluntary workers make significant contributions to the quality of life of many people both at the local communities level and also more broadly at the national and even the international levels. The effective management of Health and Safety can be a challenging area in any organisation, but the problems can be greater in the charity and voluntary sector as many of the workers are not paid employees working regularly for the organisation, but are often unpaid workers making small, but valuable, time contributions. The charity and voluntary sector also uses workers from a very wide age range and probably has a greater proportion of very elderly workers than any other sector, as many people find more time for voluntary work when they have retired from other work. All workers, including paid employees and voluntary (unpaid) workers, have a right to work in a safe workplace where appropriate actions have been taken to prevent accidents and ill health. Both paid and unpaid workers also have a duty to contribute to the general health and safety of their workplace, in the same way that employees do in other work areas.

Charity and voluntary work can cover a wide range of activities, almost as broad as other working areas, but generally without the industrial aspects. Such work can include: office work; handling patients; retail work; driving (either alone, with others or transporting people); visiting people in their homes; etc. Typical hazardous are similar to other workplaces (such as fire; electrical; slips, trips and falls; etc.) as well as lone working and the manual handling difficulties associated with lifting and moving people. There may also be issues associated with fund raising activities, such as money handling, and with lone working.

Charity and voluntary organisations and Health & Safety law
It should come as no surprise that charity and voluntary organisations are subject to the same health and safety laws as comparable non-charity and non-voluntary organisations. They have a duty to ensure the health and safety of their employees and also any non-employees who may be affected by the undertakings of the organisation. These duties arise from Sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974. Also, they are subject to a requirement to undertake assessments of the risks to employees (and non-employees) arising from their undertakings under Regulations 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. The application of other health and safety legislation depends on the exact nature and undertakings of the organisation, just as it would in all other sectors.

In order to determine what health and safety legislation applies and how to comply with its variation provisions, charity and voluntary organisations must have access to competent health and safety advice. This may be provided from within the organisation or can be brought in from external sources, such as consultants.

As it is not uncommon to have elderly workers engaged in charity and voluntary work, the potential extra vulnerability of these people to injury needs to be accounted for in the risk assessments and in the control measures.

Training
Voluntary workers are not exempted from training and should be included in your training health and safety programmes. Due to the nature of voluntary work, consideration needs to be given to the most suitable way of doing this and the organisation will need to be flexible with the training times and the venues. Voluntary workers should be given suitable induction training, just like all other workers and this should include: Fire arrangements for the workplace; First aid arrangements for the workplace; Awareness of higher risk areas and operations; etc.
On the job (or tool box style) training may be provided to ensure that workers are aware of the risks to which they may be exposed and to ensure that they are aware of (and use) the appropriate control measures (such as those arising from the risk assessments) to avoid and control these risks.

In line with other work areas, records should be maintained of all of the training provided to workers.

Two examples of issues facing charity and voluntary workers

Dealing with donated goods
Charities often receive donations of goods for use or to be sold (such as in charity shops). Often, these goods are delivered in boxes or bags and are not sorted and are not packaged with the safety of the sorter in mind. The bags and boxes may be heavy and not substantial enough for the loads contained. After sorting, the goods may need to be cleaned before being displayed for sale.

Typical hazards and harm from sorting donated goods
• Manual handling of boxes and bags (often many of each and of variable, unknown and often heavy weights), leading to:
o Back injuries
o Slips, trips and falls while handling the bags and boxes
• Poor housekeeping arising from the number of boxes and bags donated and the unpacking and sorting of the materials, leading to:
o Slips, trips and falls
o Manual handling injuries due to over reaching
• Sharp objects (such as knives, broken glass and china, etc)
o Cuts and puncture wounds
• Contamination (materials that have leaked or clothing that is soiled or has become mouldy, etc)
o Exposure to substances hazardous to health
o Infections
• Ergonomic issue ( from working on tables of poor height and working from boxes and bags of variable size and shape)
o Back injuries
• Work Equipment issues (such as washing machines, steaming equipment, ironing equipment, etc)
o Electrical
o Burns and scolds

Typical measures to control the risks associated with sorting donated goods
• Ensure that there are sufficient people to handle the number (and weight) of the bags and boxes that need to be sorted
• Where appropriate, provide trolleys, sack trucks or other manual handling aids
• Provide suitable instruction to workers on how to lift and carry boxes and bags
• Ensure that workers take breaks from the physical exertion of lifting carrying
• Ensure that the work areas (including the means of access to and egress from them) are kept clean and clear of obstructions
• Ensure that the lighting in the sorting area is satisfactory
• Provide an sufficient number of suitable bins for the safe disposal and, where appropriate, segregation of waste from the sorting operation
• Provide a clear, flat surface of sufficient size for bags and boxes to the emptied out onto before sorting the contents
• Ensure that the work surface is at a suitable height for the workers involved in the sorting operation
• Provide appropriate personal protective equipment, such as protective gloves for handling sharp objects and appropriate gloves for handling contaminated items
• Establish a policy for dealing with broken glass (hoe to deal with it and how and where to dispose of it)
• Provide suitable bag openers or bag holders for holding “rag bags” open when they are being filled with fabrics
• Restrict the use of work equipment (such as steaming equipment) to those who have been trained in the use of the equipment.
• Provide a suitable ironing board that adjusts to a suitable height for the working using it
• Arrange for all work equipment to be maintained in good condition and for electrical equipment to be tested and inspected by a competent person regularly

Working in a drug “drop in” centre
Voluntary workers often help to man the various drug “drop in” centres around the country, either providing administrative support or providing counselling skills. Such centres provide help and advice as well as counselling services to their clients, which include: drug users and to their friends and families. In these settings, the potential for unpredictable behaviour from drug users visiting the centre means that aggressive and even violent situations are not uncommon.

Typical hazards and harm from working in a drug “drop in” centre
• The unpredictable nature of some drug users and other clients, leading to aggressive and violent behaviour, resulting in:
o Verbal abuse from clients
o Property damage caused by clients
o Personal injury caused by assault by clients

Typical measures to control the risks associated with working in a drug “drop in” centre
• Ensure that all workers are aware of what might happen in the centre and are aware of the procedures to be followed
• Establish and practice effective emergency procedures, including the use of panic alarms (that summon aid from other areas of the premises and (maybe) also from the local police service)
• Establish, and publish details of, a “zero tolerance” approach to violence and aggression – display suitable posters and bring this policy to the attention of all users of the centre
• Provide workers with suitable and sufficient training and information. In particular this should address:
o the adoption of a non-confrontational and non-judgemental approach to clients and the avoidance of patronising behaviour
o workers should be trained to help to create an equal balance of power between workers and clients
o the various control measures that are in place throughout the centre to safeguard workers
o identifying challenging behaviour in clients and strategies for diffusing the situation
o instructing workers not to compromise their own safety
• Consideration to the layout and design of the premises, with consideration to the safety of workers and also to the privacy needs of the clients. This would include:
o Suitable access control to the premises
o Provision of light, spacious, airy and well-decorated public and working areas, designed to give a calming and welcoming effect
o Provision of a Reception desk designed to provide a central control point from which all client accessible areas can be supervised
o Ensuring that the counselling rooms provide privacy, but are also within hearing distance of the reception and that they have suitable panic alarms fitted
o Design of the workers’ office areas such that they are located out of client sight, but are open plan to allow workers to see each other
• Establish suitable work procedures to help to minimise the risks of conflict, including:
o a good, accurate appointment system
o avoiding keeping clients waiting (which may result in them becoming annoyed or frustrated)
o continuous staff of reception by trained workers
o procedures to respond to panic alarms in a prompt and appropriate manner

Summary
The challenges associated with the management of health and safety charity and voluntary workers are not that different from those facing other businesses. Many of them can be dealt with by the application of thought and common sense. In line with all other businesses, there is a requirement to consider the risks that workers may be exposed to and to establish controls to avoid and control these risks. The examples above demonstrate that the processes to control the risks are not difficult to identify or to implement. There are two particular problems that need to be considered carefully for the charity and voluntary sector: training of workers and the potential for elderly workers.

Please visit our website

Safe isolation of plant and equipment – Part 2: Key Stages

2010-03-18T08:56:00.000-07:00

Introduction
In order to allow various processes such as: cleaning, maintenance, plant repair and modification to take place, safe isolation of plant and equipment is essential. This is not specifically covered by any health and safety legislation, although there are the usual, general legal drivers, such as: the Health and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974 (Section 2: duty to ensure the health, safety and welfare of employees, Section 3: duty to ensure the health and safety of non-employees), the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (Regulation 3: duty to carry out risk assessments) as well as the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH) and the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2005 (DSEAR), etc.

Failures during the isolation and re-instatement of plant and equipment are a significant cause of loss of containment incidents and can lead to major accidents. There are eight key stages that should be considered in the isolation, and subsequent return to service, of plant and equipment:
• Hazard identification
• Risk assessment and selection of isolation scheme
• Planning and preparation of equipment
• Installation of isolation
• Draining, venting, purging and flushing
• Testing and monitoring effectiveness of the isolation
• Carrying out the intrusive activity
• Reinstatement of plant

Hazard Identification
Hazards may exist from either substances within the plant and equipment or from the nature of the work to be carried out. All (potential) hazards must be identified so that appropriate control measures can be introduced for the isolation of the plant and equipment. Particular hazards will exist if the substance is:
• toxic
• flammable
• pyrophoric
• under (high) pressure
• at high or low temperature
• reactive
• an asphyxiant (such as nitrogen)
• capable of forming an explosive atmosphere (including dusts)
• remaining in equipment as a sludge or hard deposit
In the event of a loss of containment leading to a release, the potential for a major accident will depend on a range of factors including
• the nature and properties of the substance
• the amount of the substance released
• the potential for escalation (such as: the presence of other plant, including confining structures, and other hazardous substances)
• the people at risk, their proximity to the plant and the speed with which they may be affected
Hazards associated with the task to be undertaken include:
• Entry into confined spaces
• Issues associated with access (such as working at height, etc.)
• Hot work (such as welding, cutting, grinding, drilling, electrical work, etc.)

Risk Assessment and the selection of isolation scheme for the plant and equipment
It should form a part of the company’s policies and procedures that intrusive work is not carried out on live plant and equipment unless there is no reasonably practicable alternative. A risk assessment should be carried out for the isolation process to identify the safest isolation scheme and should consider:
• all preparatory work for the isolation (such as depressurisation and release of stored energy, draining and venting, purging and washing out)
• installation/removal and proving of the isolation the integrity of the isolation during intrusive work, and the compatibility of any nearby work or operations on shared systems
• the requirements for testing and reinstatement of plant (such as: pressure leak testing, purging, controlled repressurisation and refilling
The risk assessment should also consider the potential for loss of containment and the potential harm (to people and to the environment) that may result from this.

Planning and preparation of equipment
As with many areas, planning is an essential stage in the isolation of plant and equipment. Appropriate preparation and planning:
• helps to identify any task-specific risk assessments that may be required
• identifies whether larger sections of the plant need to be shut down
• identifies interaction with other sections of plant subject to temporary isolation
• involves sequencing and co-ordination of any intrusive work with other plant operations
• includes a 'walk-the-plant' step, to check that the installation matches the piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&ID) and
• allows a check that all isolation points have been identified and are accessible and can be operated
• ensures preparation and co-ordination of job documentation, including:
o risk assessments
o method statements
o permit to work certificates
o isolation certificates
o etc
• ensures cross-referencing of relevant permits; and
• enables that all necessary and appropriate tools, equipment, PPE, materials, etc., are available

Installation of isolation
The process of installation of the necessary isolations can be considered in two parts: the initial isolation and the final (or full) isolation. The initial isolation (which is usually valved) is generally of a short duration. It allows the insertion of a positive isolation after the plant that is downstream of the initial isolation has been depressurised and purged. The final isolation protects the workers that are carrying out the intrusive work, and others who might be affected, such as from a release of substance from the plant during the intrusive activity.
Suitable blank flanges, plugs, etc (appropriately rated and installed properly, with the correct gaskets and securing bolts) should be used to close off any open pipe work. Appropriate engineering practices should be adhered when securing flanges, etc. Isolations must remain secure throughout the duration of work: locking arrangements or barriers, to prevent accidental or unauthorised removal of the isolation, should be used where practicable.

Draining, venting, purging and flushing
Draining, venting, purging and flushing may be required in situation where the plant or equipment contains hazardous substances, etc.

Testing and monitoring effectiveness of the isolation
In most cases, it is necessary to prove the integrity of all of the isolation points of an isolation scheme before proceeding with intrusive work, unless the risk assessment indicates otherwise.
• each part of the isolation should be proved separately
• each part should be proved to the highest pressure which can be expected within the system during the work activity
• where possible, each part of the isolation should be proved in the direction of the expected pressure differential

Carrying out the intrusive activity
It is important to ensure that the integrity of all isolations is maintained while the intrusive work is carried out.

Reinstatement of plant
Reinstatement or recommissioning of the plant requires equivalent controls to those used during installation of isolation. Where work has been controlled under multiple permits and dependent on common isolation points, it is important to define and control the sequence of plant reinstatement. This should include a review of all (cross-referenced) permits in force and their related isolations and checking that any plant control and protection systems functions that were overridden for the purposes of the isolations are restored to their normal condition. Care must be taken when removing positive isolations as, for example, hazardous substances may have built up behind the blank or spade if a valve leaks. Use appropriate documentation, such as isolation certificates, to log all disturbed items on a plant and to control their reinstatement.

Summary
Safe isolation of plant and equipment is an important part of the management of health and safety at work and, as such, should form part of the documented policies and procedures of the company (including the Health and Safety Policy). The key stages in the process of plant isolation (and re-instatement) must be planned and controlled. Risk assessments must be carried out to determine the range of control measures required and the order of work and the need for administrative controls, such as permit to work systems, etc. Plant and equipment should be isolated in accordance with a planned system, devised and controlled by a competent person (or persons). Isolations should be made and checked and should remain in place until removed in accordance with a planned schedule for the reinstatement or recommissioning of the plant.

Please visit out website

Safe isolation of plant and equipment – Part 1

2010-03-18T08:54:00.000-07:00

Introduction

The safe isolation of plant and equipment is essential to allow various processes to take place, such as: cleaning, maintenance, repair and modification. Although no health and safety legislation covers this area specifically, there are several general legal drivers, such as the Health and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974 (Section 2: duty to ensure the health, safety and welfare of employees, Section 3: duty to ensure the health and safety of non-employees), the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (Regulation 3: duty to carry out risk assessments) as well as the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH) and the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2005 (DSEAR), etc. Failures during the isolation and re-instatement of plant and equipment are a significant cause of loss of containment incidents and can lead to major accidents. In some cases, the isolation may take place a long way from where the work is being carried out. Suitable procedures need to be implemented, managed, monitored, reviewed and revised. The effectiveness of an isolation system depends on the adequacy of other arrangements, including work control systems (especially permit-to-work), operating procedures, training and competence, management of change and contingency plans.

The safe isolation of plant and equipment can be considered in three sections:
• The management of isolation of plant and equipment
• The safe systems of work for the isolation of plant and equipment
• The key stages for the safe isolation of plant and equipment
The management of isolation of plant and equipment is considered in outline in this article, while the other items will be considered in a future article.

The management of isolation of plant and equipment

As with nearly all aspects of modern health and safety management, risk assessment is central to the safe isolation of plant and equipment. Although the actual mechanics of isolating plant and equipment may be carried out a range of people, it must be managed effectively, and several points should be considered:
• The safe isolation of plant and equipment should form part of the organisation’s Health and Safety Policy
• Suitable and sufficient assessments of the risks arising from (operations requiring) the isolation of plant and equipment must be carried out (by a competent person) and suitable measures implemented
• Suitable policies and procedures must be established and implemented to either avoid the risk entirely or, where this is not reasonably practicable, to reduce the risk to as low a level as is reasonably practicable
• Consideration must be given to the isolation procedures under both normal operating conditions and other foreseeable conditions
• A process for assessing and implementing any variations from existing procedures should be established
• Procedures to monitor and, where appropriate, improve the effectiveness of isolation procedures should be introduced

In order to manage the isolation of plant and equipment in a safe and effective manner, consideration should be given to:
• The design (of plant and equipment)
• Human factors
• Roles and responsibilities
• Training and competence
• Monitoring, auditing and reviewing

Design
Good initial design of plant and equipment is the most effective way to maximise the inherent safety and, as such, is fundamental to achieving safe and effective isolation of the plant and equipment without creating unnecessary constraints on plant operation. Intrusive repair and maintenance work or internal inspection tasks will require the plant or equipment to be shutdown (or at least certain sections of it). Where isolation is required to enable such tasks, suitable isolation arrangements on the plant should be identified and specified at the design stage. Similarly, consideration of plant isolations should be considered if the plant or equipment is to be modified. Design considerations should include:
• Positive isolation requirements (where vessel entry may be required, where isolation of toxic or dangerous substances is requires and to control segregation of parts of plant and equipment)
• Plant identification (A scheme to identify all process plant, piping, and valves should be drawn up. All items should be readily identifiable on the plant and referenced on the piping and instrumentation diagrams. Additionally, key items of equipment labelled permanently)
• Pipework
• Valves
• Pressure safety valves
• Spared equipment (Isolation arrangements should allow complete segregation from on-line plant and equipment for operational and/or maintenance reasons)
• Location of isolation and testing facilities (Unless contraindicated by risk assessment, isolation and bleed points should be as close as possible to the plant item. Concentration of maintenance work in one place aids control of the isolation arrangements and minimises the inventory of fluid to be depressurised and drained)
• Access and lighting (the design should allow safe access and adequate lighting to allow isolations to be made safely)

Human factors
A review and accidents and incidents involving failures to isolate plant and equipment show that human failure is an important consideration. The performance of isolations depends not only on the integrity of the isolation hardware, but also on the adequacy of the arrangements for identifying each isolation point, securing the isolation, proving/monitoring and maintaining overall control of work. Human failures can be divided into two groups:
• Errors, and
• Violations.

Roles and responsibilities
It is important to ensure that key staff are given (and understand) clearly defined roles and responsibilities for drawing up, maintaining, monitoring and improving the policies, procedures and systems for the safe isolation of plant and equipment.

Training and competence
All personnel involved in the isolation of plant and equipment must be competent to carry out their designated tasks and to discharge their responsibilities. They should:
• Understand the purpose, principles and practices of the organisation’s isolation procedures and safety rules
• Have an understanding of the consequences of any release of hazardous substances

Consideration should be given to the training and competence of staff who:
• Plan the isolations
• Authorise the isolations
• Authorise variations (or any other non-standard isolations)
• Install and remove isolations
• Check and test the isolations
• Work on the plant and equipment

Monitoring, auditing and Reviewing
The processes of monitoring, audit and review enable an organisation to confirm that it actually does what its policies and procedures say that it does, and helps to ensure that this is what it should do. Effective monitoring, audit and review systems:
• Help to identify any deficiencies in the policies and procedures for the isolation of plant and equipment
• Identify and implement any necessary corrective action before these lead to incidents
• Identify of how well the isolation of plant and equipment is are controlled within the organisation

Summary
Safe isolation of plant and equipment is an important part of the management of health and safety at work and, as such, should form part of the documented policies and procedures of the company (including the Health and Safety Policy). Risk assessments must be carried out to determine the range of control measures required. These control measures may include items such as Permit to Work Systems, etc. All policies, procedures and risk assessments must be kept up to date and should be monitored and reviewed regularly and should be revised as necessary.

Please visit our website

Night Workers - cancer link blog

2010-02-28T04:19:00.000-08:00

Night-Shift Work – a link to breast cancer in women?

It is well established that there can be undesirable consequences for those working shifts outside standard daytime hours, particularly those covering the night or with early morning starts. Over the past few years, evidence has been emerging that suggests that night shifts are bad for you. Typical symptoms include: fatigue, disturbed sleep, digestive problems and a greater risk of accidents at work. Some studies also show a higher risk of breast cancer in women who sleep for fewer hours at night.

Danish Government pays out for breast cancer in shift workers

In March 2009, the Danish government paid compensation to around forty women who had developed breast cancer after long spells of shift work involving working at night. This decision followed a ruling by Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, which is part of the United Nations World Health Organisation) that night shifts probably increase the risk of developing cancer. Part of the function of the IARC is to study and rank cancer risks. Category One risks are known carcinogens, including asbestos, but night-working has been categorised as only one level below that, i.e. a probable cause of cancer. The IARC reached this conclusion after looking at a wide number of studies in humans and in animals. A report published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute reported a 36% greater risk of breast cancer for women who had worked night shifts for more than 30 years, compared with women who had never worked nights.

A hormonal mechanism for breast cancer

When faced with a diagnosis of cancer, people want be able to identify a single factor in their history that they can identify as the single cause of the disease. Cancer, however, is a complicated disease and rather than thinking in terms of a single cause, its best considered as being the result of a combination of many factors, which all have a small, but significant, contribution. In the case of breast cancer these factors would include: the woman’s genes, her age, her weight, her race, how much she drinks, when she started (and stopped) her periods, how many children she has had, whether (and for how long) she took birth control pills or hormone replacement therapy, and how long she breast-fed.

In 2001, several epidemiological studies providing evidence linking breast cancer in women with prolonged periods of working at night were reported. Within these studies, a biologically plausible mechanism related to the suppression of melatonin was suggested as a potential explanation for these findings. According to this theory, this association arises from reductions in serum levels of melatonin that follow from nocturnal exposure to light. Melatonin is known to suppress tumour growth in experimental animal models, and reduced melatonin levels may increase ovarian oestrogen release. In the normal pattern of life, our eyes sense the reduction of natural light levels. This triggers the pineal gland to begin the secretion of the hormone melatonin and as the melatonin levels rise in our bodies we tend to get sleepy. In women, as the melatonin levels rise, the production of the female sex hormone oestrogen decreases. It is believed that the production of oestrogen stimulates the growth of breast tissue including some breast cancers. It may be considered that more light results in less melatonin and in more oestrogen, which means a greater risk of cancer.

Information from studies

Nurse study - In 1988, nearly 80,000 nurses who had no history of breast cancer were questioned about previous overnight shift work. The study participants were then followed for ten years. The resulting analysis was then adjusted for potential confounding factors and it was found that women who had worked rotating night shifts for 30 years or longer had significantly increased risk for developing breast cancer compared with those who had never worked night shifts (a relative risk of 1.36). Among nurses with less than 30 years of shift work, risk was slightly elevated but fell just short of significance (a relative risk of 1.08).

Second study - In a separate study, 813 women with breast cancer were compared with 793 age-matched controls. A history of overnight shift work during the previous 10 years was associated with significantly increased risk for breast cancer (an “odds ratio” of 1.6, after adjustment for other risk factors). Breast cancer risk was also found to be increased significantly among women who frequently did not sleep during the middle of the night for any reason (there was an “odds ratio” of 1.7 for the group with at least 2.6 nights per week of interrupted sleep).

Danish Study - In a population-based case-control study, the breast cancer risk among Danish women aged between 30 and 54 who worked predominantly at night was investigated. Individual employment histories were reconstructed back as far as 1964 for each of 7035 women with breast cancer along with individually matched controls from the records of a nationwide pension scheme with compulsory membership. The “odds ratio” for breast cancer among women who worked at night at least half of a year was 1.5 and there was a tendency to increasing odds ratio by increasing duration of night time employment.

Practical steps to reduce the risks of breast cancer - for shift workers
Shift workers can reduce their personal risk by eliminating some lifestyle risk factors, by:
• stopping the use of tobacco
• keeping alcohol intake moderate
• exercising regularly
• maintaining a healthy weight
• getting enough sleep on a regular basis
• make sure that their bedroom is completely dark when they sleep (both at night and during daytime, to make sure that melatonin secretion is not affected)

“Be Breast Aware” – there is a free leaflet available from the NHS in a range of languages. Breast aware encourages women to:
• Take care of your own well-being
• Know what is normal for you
• Know what to look and feel for
• Report any changes without delay
• Attend for breast screening if aged 50 for over

Practical steps to reduce the risks of breast cancer - for the employer
• Train and educate shift workers on what constitutes a healthy lifestyle and how to achieve it and maintain good quality sleep
• Design shift schedules to allow sufficient rest and provide the opportunity to obtain adequate sleep.
• Keep overtime at a healthy level
• Introduce health surveillance for night shift workers

Visit our website

Spray Painting - Health & Safety considerations

2010-02-28T04:14:00.000-08:00

The nature of spray painting operations means that they create the potential for employees (and others) to be exposed to substances that are hazardous to health. These substances include: solvents (often refer to as or thinners); simple paint systems (which may contain lead) and two pack paint systems. Two pack paint systems will usually be either epoxy systems or polyurethane systems. Polyurethane systems involve the use of isocyanates (in the hardener) which are respiratory sensitizers and are associated with occupational asthma. Further to this, preparation of surfaces for painting may involve exposure to dusts generated from rubbing down and to filling materials, such as epoxy resins.

This article does not deal with the fire and explosion risks associated with solvents or with the paint spraying operation.

COSHH
When considering exposure to hazardous substances,
The prime piece of legislation applicable when considering the [potential for exposure to hazardous substances is the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH). If lead based materials are being used, then consideration must be given to the provisions of the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002 (CLAW).

Under COSHH, the employer is charged with the duty of preventing exposure to hazardous substances (where this is reasonably practicable) and for controlling exposure to prevent harm to employees (and others). The employer must:
• assess the health risk arising from the work done and decide what precautions are needed
• implement appropriate measures to prevent or control the risk
• ensure that control measures are used and the equipment is properly maintained and procedures observed
• where appropriate, monitor exposure to hazardous substances and carry out appropriate health surveillance
• inform, instruct and train employees as to the risks and of the precautions to be taken
• make suitable arrangements for dealing with accidents, incidents and emergencies

There is an explicit duty on the employer to avoid the use of a hazardous substance by replacing it with another substance or process that either eliminates or reduces the risk to employees, so far as is reasonably practicable. The Approved Code of Practice for the COSHH Regulations makes it clear that it is an employer’s overriding duty and first priority to consider how to prevent employees being exposed to substances hazardous to health. Failure to tackle this duty is a failure to comply with a fundamental principle of the Regulations. To achieve this, employers should consider:
• changes to the method of work such that the operation giving rise to the exposure is no longer required (such as using a water based system in place of a solvent based system); or
• modifications to the processes to eliminate the generation of a hazardous by-product or waste material; or
• substitution of a hazardous substance with a non-hazardous substance that presents no risk to health
Where use of a hazardous substance cannot be eliminated, the employer must consider routes to reduce exposure to hazardous substances. These should include:
• using an alternative, safer substance (such as moving to a one pack isocyanate free system in place of a two pack polyurethane); or
• using a different form of the same substances; or
• using a different process
It should be noted that such changes may create new or different risks. These risks should be considered as part of the risk assessment processes required under COSHH, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmosphere Regulations 2002 or any other piece of relevant legislation. It may not be appropriate to change to a slightly safer substance, health wise, if the fire risks are increased disproportionately.

Health hazards

Solvents/Thinners
Direct skin contact with organic solvents can cause defatting, irritation and even lead to dermatitis. Commonly used solvents include xylene, acetone and methylethylketone (MEK). These solvents may be absorbed through unbroken skin and are also harmful by inhalation. Once absorbed into the body they may cause systemic effects.

Paints
The hazards associated with paints vary enormously and are often associated with the solvent, the hardener (such as isocyanates) or with the pigment system (such as lead), etc.

Lead
Lead can be absorbed into the body by inhalation and ingestion. Typical symptoms of lead poisoning include headaches, tiredness, stomach pains, constipation and loss of weight. Continued exposure may cause more serious problems such as nerve and brain damage. In the case of pregnant workers, the developing foetus is especially vulnerable to the effects of lead, which may lead to impaired mental development.

Dusts
Prolonged exposure to dust can cause respiratory disorders and any dust of a substantial concentration is regarded as hazardous under COSHH, whether or not the substance of the dust is hazardous. Some dusts will be more hazardous than the so called nuisance dusts above. For example: if paint work if rubbed down as part of the preparation process, then if the original paint contained lead, the dust will also contain lead, but it will be present in a form that is more easily inhaled.

Isocyanates
Vapours containing isocyanates are highly irritating to the eyes and to the respiratory tract and may cause asthma. Asthmatic attacks may occur immediately or may be delayed for up to 12 hours after exposure. Symptoms of over exposure include: sore eyes; running nose; sore throat; coughing; wheezing; tight chest fever and breathlessness. In many cases, complaints will (at first) clear up at weekends or during other breaks from work, but are likely to return on resumption of work. Some people may become sensitised and even minute concentrations of isocyanates can lead to severe asthmatic attacks. There are an estimated 1,500 to 3,000 new cases of occupational asthma each year and this rises to 7,000 cases a year if you include asthma made worse by work (work-related asthma). There are thought to be at least 150 new cases of occupational asthma associated with paint spraying operations, although the figure may be higher and paint sprayers are considered to be 80 times more likely to develop work related asthma than the rest of the working population.

Control measures - to protect employees and other from harm
The best control measures are those that avoid exposure to hazardous substances, while others limit the amount of contact or attempt to mitigate the effects.

Elimination
If hazardous substances are not used, then employees cannot be exposed to them and so avoidance is the best solution. Inferior to this is to user safer, rather than safe, substances. If is essential that alternatives are sought to paint systems that contain or that utilise isocyanates. Increasingly, lead free paints are now available and new water based paint systems have been developed.

Ventilation, extraction systems and spray booths
Ensure that hazardous substances are not used in confined spaces or areas of poor ventilation. Where possible, use them in areas of good natural ventilation, such as outdoors. If natural or general ventilation is inadequate, then local exhaust ventilation may be required to remove hazardous fumes and vapours from the workplace.

Most spray painting operations take place inside a booth. The booth needs to be designed to deal with the operations to be undertaken: it needs to be the right size and have suitable extraction for the materials being sprayed. It must be designed such that the solvents and the overspray are captured and then ducted away and exhausted into a safe area. There have been cases of “home made” booths being used that were inadequate for the tasks (and so did not protect the sprayer) or which exhausted fumes into the workplace, causing ill health (from exposure to solvents and to isocyanates) to develop in others, including the receptionist in one case.

All local exhaust ventilation systems must be tested and inspected, by a competent person, at least once in every fourteen month period. They must also be maintained in working condition and should be checked, routinely, by the operatives.

Personal Protective Equipment
Despite the fact that personal protective equipment (PPE) is to be considered as the last resort, it will often have a role to play in protecting spray painting operatives. Different types of PPE are available: skin protection (overalls, gloves, gauntlets); eye protection (glasses, goggles, face masks, etc) and respiratory protection (dust masks through to air fed respirators). It is important that the appropriate PPE is provided and that risk assessments have been carried out to show that the PPE provided is appropriate and that it provides the right level of protection.

Welfare facilities
Decent washing facilities are necessary to remove hazardous substances from the skin. These should include both hot and cold running water as well as suitable skin cleansers. Suitable hand drying facilities should also be provided, such as paper towels. The use of suitable conditioning creams after washing can help to counter the degreasing effects of the oil on the skin. Skin must never be cleaned with solvents, etc. So called “barrier creams” must not be relied on to protect the skin from exposure to solvents. They can, however, be a useful extra protection and can make it easier to wash oils off of the skin after exposure.

Smoking, eating and drinking
Smoking is now prohibited in all workplaces. Suitable welfare arrangements should be made so that there is no eating or drinking in areas where hazardous substances are present. Employees should be discouraged from consuming food or from drinking in the work area as any contamination on their hands may easily be ingested.

Health surveillance
Heath surveillance will not protect employees from exposure to hazardous substance. However, appropriate health surveillance will often allow for early identification of symptoms so that additional preventive measures can be taken at an early stage. Where workers are exposed to solvents, the employer should carry out routine skin inspections as a precautionary measure. Where workers are exposed to isocyanates, the employer should arrange for lung function testing to be carried out regularly. The results of health surveillance must be recorded and records must be retained for 40 years.

Information, instruction and training
Employees must be made aware of the hazards associated with the substances to which they may be exposed and of the control measures to be used to protect their health. Awareness can also be raised by obtaining and distributing suitable notices and leaflets, many of which are available from the HSE.

Spillages
Spillages should be cleaned up immediately, using suitable absorbent granules. A suitable spillage response kit should be kept available on site. Employees should be trained in the safe use of this spillage response kit and the disposal of the materials.

Active Monitoring
The use of control measures should be actively monitored by the employer. It is not sufficient to put systems in place: they must be monitored and their effectiveness and use checked by managers and/or supervisors.

Summary
Occupational ill health may result from uncontrolled or inadequately controlled exposure to hazardous substances associated with paint spraying. Isocyanates are one of the most hazardous substances used in paint spraying, leading to over 150 new cases of work related asthma each year. A key to avoiding ill health is to avoid or control exposure to hazardous substances, including solvents, lead and isocyanates. This may involve extraction and ventilation systems (such as spray booths), PPE, personal hygiene regimes, training and health surveillance.

Please visit our website

New Tower Cranes Regulations

2010-02-26T09:56:00.000-08:00

The Notification of Conventional Tower Cranes Regulations 2010

As expected, the new Notification of Conventional Tower Cranes Regulations 2010 have been issued and will come into force in April this year. To see the Regulations, click here

These new regulations apply to an employer who provides for use, or whose employee uses, a conventional tower crane at work on a construction site. They also apply to self-employed persons, in respect of a conventional tower crane used at work, and a person who has control to any extent of the management, supervision and use of a conventional tower crane, subject to the extent of that control.

Employers are required to notify the HSE of the information relating to the conventional tower crane set in the Schedule to the regulations within 14 days of the completion of the thorough examination of the crane, before it is put into service, as required by the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998.

Where no thorough examination of the conventional tower crane has been carried out within 14 days of its installation, the HSE must be notifoed of the details of the crane as soon as reasonably practicable and of any subsequent thorough examination under LOLER, within 14 days of that information becoming available.

If you require assistance with matters relating to Health & Safety, please contact me through my website.

A returning client - British Library

2010-02-17T03:48:00.001-08:00

I'm about to start work on another interesting project for the British Library!
Their operations are more diverse than you might think - several interesting and challenging areas of health and safety to look at with them.

COSHH, Risk Assessment, Fire Safety, Training ... all good stuff

Please let us provide your health and safety needs - visit our website

Slips, trips and falls case study (HSE)

2010-01-29T14:17:00.001-08:00

While working in the kitchens of a restaurant chain, a 17-year-old boy tripped, slipped and consequently immersed his left hand into a fryer unit full of hot oil, causing severe burns to his arm, parts of the chest and neck.

On the day of the accident, he was socialising outside the restaurant when one of the restaurant supervisors approached and pressurised him to work earlier than his normal shift, as the restaurant was busy. The boy wanted to go home to collect his chef’s jacket but was told there was no time. Instead, he was given a normal short-sleeved shirt and another member of staff’s greasy pair of shoes, which were ill fitting. The front soles were badly worn and damaged.

The kitchen floor was contaminated with grease and staff had placed cardboard sheets on the floor to absorb it, which was common practice at the restaurant. He tripped on cardboard, and as he tried to regain balance he slipped and plunged his left arm into the fryer unit, which was located at the end of the cooking line.

The underlying problem of the greasy floor had not been dealt with. Putting down cardboard only introduced another tripping hazard, which was made worse by the unsuitable footwear.

Source:
HSE - CAIS6 - Preventing slips and trips in kitchens and food service

Corporate Manslaughter prosecution - starts soon

2010-01-13T15:32:00.000-08:00

It is understood that in September 2008, Alexander Wright was employed by Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd as a junior geologist and that he was taking soil samples from inside a pit (that had been excavated as part of a site survey) when the sides of the pit collapsed, crushing him.

The Crown Prosecution Service has authorised a charge of corporate manslaughter against Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd (under the Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007), in relation to this death.

Also, Mr Peter Eaton (a director of Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd) has been charged with gross negligence manslaughter and with an offence contrary to Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Company has also been charged with failing to discharge a duty contrary to Section 33, Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

It is reported that this prosecution has been delayed due to the illness of one of the defendants.

To learn a bit more about Corporate Manslaughter and the simple steps to take to avoid prosecution, visit website