Work at height

In instances where roof access may be required, such as to work on plant and equipment, the safety considerations need to be thought through with respect to the risks of working at height. In many cases, the risks can be controlled by the appropriate use of edge protection.

Landlord Duties

As a landlord (or as a facilities manager) you are responsible for the premises as a whole, but have special responsibility for the common areas of the premises. These can be thought of the parts of the premises not demised to the tenants. Typically, these may include: car parking areas, external areas (roads, paths, lighting, refuge areas, etc), entrance doors, reception areas, corridors, staircases and lifts. In addition, the landlord will usually be responsible for the various plant rooms (boiler room, lift motor room, pump rooms, etc), roof areas, fixed electrical installation, water supply, etc as well as for the safe management of contractors working in these areas. There are also some special areas of safety management that need to be considered, such as: fire safety for the common areas, the fixed electrical installation, cooling towers, asbestos, etc.

Suspension Trauma - Don’t keep them hanging about

Introduction
It is well known that the Work at Height Regulations 2005 are concerned with working safely at heights:
• avoiding work at height, where it is reasonably practicable to be do so
• preventing falls from height, where it is reasonably practicable to be do so
• mitigating the effects of falls from height, where it is reasonably practicable to be do so
Regulation 4 of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 deals with organisation and planning: Regulation 4(1) states that: every employer shall ensure that work at height is -
(a) properly planned;
(b) appropriately supervised; and
(c) carried out in a manner which is so far as is reasonably practicable safe, and that its planning includes the selection of work equipment in accordance with regulation 7
Regulation 4(2) states that: Reference in paragraph (1) to planning of work includes planning for emergencies and rescue.

All too frequently, the emergency planning element is often not considered when work at height is being planned. Largely, this is because:
• there is a general lack of awareness of suspension trauma and its consequences
• employers often fail to appreciate where and when rescue provision is required
• employers often fail to provide adequate rescue equipment or appreciate what is suitable equipment for use in rescue
One of the reasons why planning for rescue in work at height situations is important is suspension trauma (a special case of orthostatic intolerance and sometimes known as harness hang syndrome). Orthostatic intolerance is a normal and natural reaction to being upright and immobile. In such cases, a complex combination of blood pooling in the legs and cardiorespiratory restriction leads to unconsciousness. Orthostatic intolerance can occur in several sets of circumstances, such as:
• being suspended in a harness
• being trapped upright within a confined space
• being secured to a vertical stretcher or litter (such as in mountain rescue)
• many situations where people are forced to remain standing without the ability or room to move
A classic manifestation of acute orthostatic intolerance is a soldier who faints after standing rigidly at attention for an extended period of time. Suspension trauma presents an immediate threat of death to anyone immobilised in a vertical position.

Causes of suspension trauma
When people stand upright, the heart alone cannot cope with pumping the blood around the body. In particular, it can't draw blood back up, against the force of gravity, from the legs and feet. To aid the heart, our veins (the blood vessels that return blood to the heart) are very elastic and have a series of (non-return) valves at regular intervals. As people move around, the veins are squeezed by the muscles around them, a process that is important for helping to push blood back up towards the heart. If people are in an upright position for a while without working their leg muscles, then the blood doesn't get pumped back up from the lower body. Instead it collects in the veins of the lower body (venous pooling), and so reduces the amount of blood available for circulation. This reduces the quantity and the quality of blood available to the brain, which can result in loss of consciousness. This loss of consciousness is an important survival mechanism in these circumstances as when people faint, they fall over. Once they are lying down, the heart can circulate their blood quite satisfactorily, returning oxygen to the brain with no harm done.

Suspension trauma is the name given to the situation that occurs when people faint but cannot fall over, causing the body to remain upright. This is a serious problem, because if the body stays upright after losing consciousness, then the blood flow is not restored. In such circumstances, the suspended person is at serious risk as the reduced blood flow can lead to serious brain and/or kidney damage, and ultimately to death. If it is allowed to develop unchecked, it can be fatal in a very short time (a matter of minutes).

Only a short time
In averages cases, it takes somewhere between five and twenty minutes for the first signs of shock to be felt by the casually. If their legs are held perfectly still (such as if they are unconscious) then the first signs of shock may be apparent after about three minutes. If they are not rescued, a few minutes after this they the casualty will faint and shortly after this they will die. If a suspended person is to be rescued, then the rescue must be carried out quickly, preferably within ten minutes of the start of suspension.

Planning for rescue
By their nature, rescue operations are carried out under extreme pressure. Consideration should be given to all aspects of the rescue process. Elements to consider would include the type of equipment required, the demands placed upon the rescuer, the training the rescuer will require to carry out the rescue and how the effectiveness of the rescue system as a whole can be maintained

Following a fall and a person being suspended in a harness, it is clear that even if they are uninjured by the fall there is a relatively short time available during which to rescue them. Following the fall, there is only a short time before the onset of shock and suspension trauma is life threatening. It is essential, therefore, that the means of rescuing them fallen person has been planned before the event.

Even is the casualty cannot be released form suspension immediately, they can be aided by others if they can be reached safely or if they are still conscious. If possible, lift their knees into a sitting position using a rope, sling, or other items. If the casualty is hanging in a harness and is unable to escape, there are some things that they can do to prevent the onset of suspension trauma. In particular, they cam wiggle their toes and move their legs. This will move the muscles in the legs and will help to squeeze the blood back up towards the heart. This may be enough to prevent the onset suspension trauma.

First Aid
When somebody has been rescued from suspension, do not let them lie down and do not lay them down. The first action of the first aider on site when the casualty is released from suspension should be to place them in a sitting position with their body upright and their legs flat, or bent at the knees. The exact angle of the knees is not critical, the important issue is that their body is upright, and the legs are no longer dangling. This posture will reduce the pooling effect of gravity, but will keep most of the pooled blood in the legs, preventing reflow and splinting (see below). The casualty should be kept in this position for at least 45 minutes. The casualty must not be allowed to stand up, exercise, drink or eat. They should be kept calm and relaxed as this will help to reduce the effects of stress on the heart rate. The casualty should be sent to hospital, even if they are not experiencing any ill health.

The first aider must also be mindful of other injuries that have been sustained, such as spinal injuries, choking, etc.

Causes of death after an otherwise successful rescue
Casualties who have developed suspension trauma may be at risk from reflow syndrome. This is the name given to the potentially fatal situation caused when the pooled that has blood in the veins in the legs is allowed to flow back into their body. The blood that has pooled in the veins in the legs will have the nutrients and the oxygen in it used up by the leg muscles. Once this has been used up the leg muscles will respire anaerobically and the blood will accumulate the toxic breakdown products of this anaerobic metabolism

Another of the problems with treating suspension trauma casualties is overloading or splinting of the heart muscle. Lying the casualty down will cause about 60% of blood volume to return very quickly to the heart and may fill it with blood such that the pumping action is not possible. This overloading of the heart muscle can cause immediate death. During and after rescue, it is important that the casualty is not carried or laid horizontally or allowed to lie down.

Summary
Suspension trauma is a potential cause of death in all cases of vertical suspension. It may result in the death of a person who has fallen and whose fall has been arrested by their fall arrest equipment and who is otherwise unhurt. In order to prevent fatalities from suspension trauma, employers need to ensure that casualties can be rescued promptly (within ten minutes) and that the first aiders known how to deal with (suspected) suspension trauma cases.

Marketing: Safety-Matter

How do you want to be found?

This is not meant in some deep, dark or sinister way but more in a Marketing sort of a way. In particular, how will your customers find you?

How do you want prospects (or potential new clients) to find you and your company. In my case, it's as a Health and Safety professional (or consultant) in Loughborough, Leicestershire or in the East Midlands. I am looking for people who (whether they know it or not) are looking for a health and safety consultant to help them with health and safety, fire safety, food safety or other risk assessments needs, etc. I am also looking for, people who are looking for ongoing health and safety advice. I have written this down to help me to clarify me thoughts on these matters rather than to provide any other reader with words of wisdom.

So, have decided what I want, the next thing is to think how to go about find these people. Who are they? Where will they look? How will they find me?

Who?Owners and managers of businesses, or directors of larger businesses.

Where will they look?
The web. Google. Search engines. In their post (real and email).

How will they find me?
Well, my intention is not to make it too difficult for them. I will be increasing by virtual and real marketplace presence

One of the purposes of this blog is to help to crystallise some of my thoughts. I need to improve my chances of been found by those who are looking for health and safety advice, guidance and consultancy.

I'm looking forward to spending more time doing health and safety work, including fire safety risk assessments for new clients in the East Midlands. If this is what happens, then it will be because of marketing focus.

Newsletters
I've always steered clear of writing Newsletters, despite the fact that I create a lot of content through various pieces of work. Recently, I have put aside my reservations and "gone for it". If you would like to look at my first foray into Newletters, please look at this. This Newsletter deals with the changes in January to the levels of fines for Health & Safety Offences and provides various cases where things have gone wrong.

My second Newsletter (produced in April) deals mainly with fire safety. While I'm quite pleased with the products, it does create the next problem - where do we go from here? Are there any areas that you would like to see covered? Please let me have your comments and feedback.


Slips, trips and falls may be worth a go - the HSE campaign is still running and it is still a major cause of injury. Importantly, it is also something that can be improved on with very little cost - although effort is required. There are some useful (and free) tools available from the HSE website.

Man injured by forklift truck

A worker was injured by a forklift truck and the Company was fined £7,000.
The employee was run over and dragged by a Forklift Truck without the driver noticing. During the afternoon tea break, an employee was returning to work from the car park on site when he was knocked down by a forklift truck. The driver, unaware of the collision continued driving the truck for approximately 26 metres with the employee stuck under the front until someone caught his attention. Mr Moorehead had fractures to his pelvis and legs.

The company, based in Northamptonshire, was fined £3,000 and ordered to pay £4,000 costs at Northampton Magistrates’ Court after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 17 (1) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 in failing to organise their Nene Valley site such that pedestrians and vehicles could move around premises safely.

This incident could have been avoided if the company had organised the workplace so that vehicles can operate safely in a set area.

Food Hygiene fine

A Midhurst store has been fined £11,000 and made to pay costs of nearly £4000 following breaches of food hygiene legislation.
During a routine food hygiene inspection, Officers of Environmental Health Services found mouldy food for sale within the store. Council Officers also found that the company had failed to implement and maintain their food safety management systems, which are designed to ensure that all food sold is safe to eat. The Council wrote to the company telling them of the failings to comply with food hygiene legislation and gave them a date to rectify the problems by. In line with usual practice, lots of help and assistance was offered by the Council to the company. However, during a further visit by Officers of the Environmental Health in January 2009, the same problems were found to exist.
The Deputy Leader of the Council at Chichester District Council, says: "We are very supportive of businesses and we always go the extra mile to explain their legal responsibilities and to assist them with specialist advice. Our role is in education and improvement. However, we do take breaches of food hygiene legislation very seriously and when we see insufficient improvements being made, we will prosecute anyone who is found to be contravening that legislation. "In the vast majority of cases, the Chichester District is a source of fine food, through its many restaurants and public houses, national food retailers and more unusual local specialist food suppliers. Our Commercial Safety Team regularly inspect premises within the district to ensure that all food is safe to eat and prepared in clean and well run establishments."

Oh the fines they are a rising

An Ilkley based roofing firm is believed to be the first company to be successfully fined using the powers in the Health and Safety (Offences) Act 2008, after a roofer sustained serious head injuries due to a fall.

In January 2009 a roofer suffered a fractured skull after falling through a skylight while replacing a roof at a garage in Skipton. The roofer fell about 2 metres and then struck a tower scaffold that had been part of the working platform. After this, he fell a further 2 metres onto a concrete floor, where he hit his head on a metal vehicle lift and fractured his skull.

An investigation by the HSE found that there were no coverings in place on any of the roof skylights to prevent falls. The company had also instructed its employees to erect the tower scaffold, although they were not trained to do so. As a result of this no handrail was installed and the actual platform was too low to break the man’s fall.

The HSE prosecuted the roofing company for 3 safety breaches over the incident. The company pleaded guilty to each of the 3 charges under the Work at Height Regulations 2005 at Skipton Magistrates' Court, and was fined £23,500 in total and ordered to pay costs of £3452.

The fines are much greater than in previous similar cases as 2 of the 3 breaches continued on the day after the incident. The new Health and Safety (Offences) Act 2008 means that Magistrates have greater power to penalise guilty parties financially.

Workplace Fatality

In a recent court case (25 September 2009), a Milton Keynes based food company was fined £160,000 and ordered to pay costs of £40,452 following the death of an employee. The incident, in which an employee died from serious head injuries, occured in a Milton Keynes meat processing plant.

The operative was cleaning one of the blending machines when a powered door on the machine closed unexpectedly on her. She suffered severe head injuries and died at the scene.

It is believed the operative had crouched beneath the blender (used to mix up to four tonnes of meat) to inspect a flap from which the load is discharged to ensure that it was clean. This flap closed suddenly with substantial force acting like a pair of 'scissors' cutting off the top of her head above the eye brows.

Mr William Bates (HM principle specialist electrical inspector), who looked at the machine as part of a Health and Safety Executive investigation, said the blender should have been isolated from the mains electricity supply before an inspection was carried out. The inquest heard there was no evidence the operative had received specific training on how to safely clean and inspect the machine or warned of the risks, including the need to isolate it.

The company pleaded guilty to breaching s.2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974 which covers the duty of the employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all the employees.

Companies are urged to implement and maintain safe systems of work and to offer full training to staff to ensure that the health and safety of employees is not put at risk.

Commenting on the case on behalf of the HSE Karl Howes said,

“Employers must ensure that they implement safe systems of work for staff using machinery. They must make certain that safety features on machines, such as guards are not overridden. All areas of risk need to be assessed, including cleaning and maintenance tasks, to make sure that tragic incidents like this do not happen.”
 

Need help? Visit our website

Occupational Road Risk – Tyre Safety

During October, TyreSafe is highlighting the risks associated with tyres that have insufficient tread depth. Having insufficient tread depth is both dangerous and illegal. It is very easy to check the tread on your tyres, simply use a 20p coin, and insert it into the main tread grooves of your tyres. This will give you a good indication as to whether your tyres are roadworthy. If the outer band on the 20p coin is visible when inserted, your tyres may be illegal and should be checked by a qualified tyre specialist. If the outer band is not visible, your tyres have a tread depth above the legal limit.

The minimum depth your tyres must have is 1.6mm across the central three quarters of the tyre around the entire circumference. Failure to meet this standard can lead to a £2,500 fine and three points on your license.

During 2008 over 30 drivers were killed in incidents where illegal, defective or under-inflated tyres were a contributory factor. A further 900 drivers were injured due to tyre neglect.

If your tyres do not meet the minimum depth: your stopping distances will be increased, your cornering ability is reduced and the likelihood of aquaplaning in wet conditions is significantly increased. If you’re unsure about the depth of your tyres, check them, or get a professional to check them for you.

Tips for checking tyre tread depth

1. Check the depth at least once a month. At the same time check your tyre pressure.
2. If you do not have a calibrated tread depth gauge, use a 20p coin.
3. Insert the 20p coin into the main tyre grooves at several places around the circumference of the tyre.
4. If the outer band is visible when inserted, your tyre tread depth may be illegal.
5. When checking the tread depth, give the tyres a visual inspection, checking for any cuts or bulges, and remove foreign objects from the tread, such as small stones and grit.

Health & Safety - Doing the minimum

As a Health and Safety Consultant I am often greeted with the phrase soemthing like: "I want to do what I need to do, but I don't want to spend all my time doing Health and Safety"


Closer investigation leads to paraphrasing to soemthing like "What's the least that I can get away with"? It is my opinion that this is a poorly understood question. The minimum that you can get away with is "doing nothing" - if you don't get caught. The deeper question is "What is the minimum legal duty"? That answer is more complex.


The minimum
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). There are some cases where a higher standard is required, but most cases fall under the auspices of Section 2 and Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act, Etc 1974, which may be paraphrased as “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). The minimum (legal) standard, then, is to do what is reasonably practicable.


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.


What does all this mean?
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.


Control measures (to reduce risk to ALARP)


Schedule 1 to the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 specifies a hierarchy 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.


Theortical example
By way of example, consider the hierarchy above in respect to the use of a highly toxic chemical in come sort of coating process. It is clearly not adequate to merely provide a respirator. The reasonably practicable approach may involve the use of a safer substance used within a suitable enclosure provided with suitable, maintained and tested extraction system coupled to workplace monitoring and health surveillance, etc. Typical control measures that may be proposed and which the employer will need to make (informed) decisions about include:


Avoiding the need to do the coating operation

• such as by the use of a different substrate (plastic in place of metal, etc.
• doing without the benefit that the coating provides

Risk assessment covering all risks:

• chemical
• fire and explosion risks
• manual handling
• pressurised systems
• machinery, mechanical, etc
• etc

Full or partial enclosure of the coating operation

• coupled to provision of extraction
• coupled to provision of scrubbing system
• consideration of posture in spraying
• consideration of loads to be lifted, held, manoeuvred, etc
• space, including headroom
• workplace temperature, lighting, ventilation, etc.

Staying in touch with changing technology and best practice and introducing them as appropriate to the workplace, such as:

• low-air/high-solids applicators that reduces the amount of material sprayed and the amount of substance that may be released as overspray
• lower pressure spraying systems
• replacing the toxic coating chemical with
• less dangerous substance (such as one that is toxic, harmful, etc.)
• or (better still) with one that is not classified as hazardous;

Active management

• review of risk assessments
• active workplace monitoring (are control measures working, are they used, are they enforced, etc.)
• checking the operation of extraction equipment (daily, weekly, monthly operator checks, etc. and 14-monthly statutory examinations, etc)
• ensuring that exposure to (for example) inhalation of toxic materials are controlled by enclosure (full or partial) and by local exhaust ventilation (extraction) rather than by reliance on personal protective equipment (such as respirators)

Training

• principles of control, risk assessment, COSHH assessment
• safe working practices
• use and provision of welfare facilities
• the needs for good standards of personal hygiene, etc.

Summary

Even doing the minimum means doing a lot, with respect to health and safety.

Consideration must be given to the risks presented by a task, workplace, operation, etc. After the risk assessment, suitable control measures must be identified and implemented that address the risks identified and work in accordance with the hierarchy of control. Risk assessment needs to be holistic: all factors need to be considered, including any new risks created by the introduction of the control measures. For example:

• a small reduction in the toxicity of a substance should be weighed against the increased risks associated with 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 and mechanical risks, etc.

Those who state “I only want to do what I have to …” probably do not realise how much is involved. In many cases, achieving the minimum means going a long way!

Fire Safety – Important, but all too often neglected or forgotten

Despite coming into force in October 2006, the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (or RRO) has been ignored by some companies, along with the simple steps that would improve fire safety in their premises. This is a shame, because:
• many of these steps to improve fire safety actually cost very little to do,
• many have additional benefits to the business, and
• all reduce the potential for serious fires and for enforcement action.

This blog contains some stories of failure, but the aim is to help to inspire successful fire safety risk assessment and management.

The role of Fire Safety Risk Assessment
Like most aspects of modern safety management, Risk Assessment is in a fundamental part of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Good fire safety comes from an understanding of how and where a fire may start and this is then supported by implementing suitable controls measures to avoid, control or mitigate that risk. These controls include: good housekeeping, maintenance of fire detection systems and fire fighting equipment; staff training; fire drills; etc.


Some simple fire safety case studies

Landlord fined
The landlord of a residential home has been fined £20,000 for breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 following a fire at the premises. The landlord pleaded guilty to four charges under the Order which included:
• not having a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment
• inadequate smoke sealing on a door resulting in the second floor escape route becoming smoke logged
• inadequate fire alarm repair arrangements and the fire alarm not being in good working order

Company prosecuted and fined
A company was prosecuted and were ordered to pay £12,000 and £22,500 costs following an explosion and fire at their North Wales factory. Even though there were no injuries sustained, there was extensive damage caused to the plant and equipment. Investigation by the HSE discovered that the initial dust explosion occurred within the granulation section and spread quickly, taking fire fighters several hours to bring the blaze under control. The company had not updated the risk assessment and measures to prevent an explosion had not been taken, putting their employees at risk.

Care Home fire leads to prosecution
A care home has been prosecuted and fined £80,000 with costs of £20,000 following a fire that started in the boiler room of one of its homes. Investigation of the scene by fire officers revealed several important findings:
• The fire started as a result of ignition of accumulations of general rubbish and storage of materials in the boiler room
• Although a fire safety risk assessment had been carried out, staff were not made aware of its findings

Company goes into administration following fire
A frozen food business has gone into administration following a plant room fire. It is understood that despite various setbacks, the company had a forward good order book but was unable to cope with the effects of the fire on its business.

Restaurant owner prosecuted
Leicestershire fire and rescue service successfully prosecuted a local business woman and owner of a Chinese restaurant after she pleaded guilty to three charges relating to inadequate fire safety standards. These included:
• Failure to provide an adequate fire alarm
• The fire alarm was inoperative
• Failure to provide and protect the escape routes
• The external fire escape was broken and not securely fixed in place
In the above case, the situation was so deemed to be dangerous and a Prohibition notice was served with immediate effect to ensure the safety of those who had been working within the building.

Workplace fire fatality
One man died and three others badly injured when liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) leaked into a factory and ignited at the start of a shift at a spray can factory in the North West. The explosion created a huge fireball that extended half way across the adjacent road. The four men were engulfed in the fireball as they fled the factory building and one man later died from his injuries. The company’s procedures for changeover of propellants left open ends in LPG pipe work for extended periods, so the opening of a single manual valve would lead to a release. Employees had not been given full training and on the day of the incident, a trainee engineer had been tasked with starting up the production line. The company was found guilty of not ensuring the safety of their employees by failing to provide safe systems of working and failing to provide adequate instruction and training.

Construction fines: £45,000 after 25 ft fall

A self-employed roofer who was sheeting the roof of a new factory under construction broke his arm and suffered facial injuries after falling 25 feet.

The scaffolding at the roof edge did not comply with the requirements for collective fall protection and the man was able to slide between the scaffolding and the roof surface.

The investigation inspector commented that the man was “lucky to be alive”. The standards required for roof edge protection are clearly defined in the (Work at Height) Regulations and are straightforward to implement. The construction industry is one of the country's biggest, employing over two million people. It is also one of the most dangerous, with 34 of the 72 worker deaths in 2007/8 resulting from a fall from height.

The scaffolding company were fined £27,000 and ordered to pay costs of £6,000, and the construction company were fined £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,000. Both firms pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 8(a) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.

Over 4,000 major injuries such as broken bones or fractured skulls are reported to HSE every year by the construction industry, half of them involving falls from height, which are easily preventable.

Active Monitoring and Record Keeping

In common with the many other aspects of running a successful business (such as sales, production, finance, quality, etc.) companies need to measure their health and safety performance to find out if they are truly being successful. Monitoring of the health and safety activity may be split into two important, yet distinct areas: Active Monitoring and Reactive Monitoring.

Most people are familiar with, and comfortable with the concept of reactive monitoring. This is the process of investigation into things that have gone wrong (such as accident investigation) and involves learning from mistakes. These mistakes may have resulted in injuries and illness, property damage or near misses.

Active monitoring is an important aspect of modern safety management that appears to be very difficult for some companies to accept and to buy into. It is the things that we do that generally keep employees (and other persons) from harm; but it is the records and documents that we keep (and complete) that will help to protect the Company. The court case described below puts some of this into context.

Reactive Monitoring and Active Monitoring

Reactive monitoring occurs when companies investigate (suspected) failures in their health and safety systems. Typical examples include accident and incident investigation as well as investigations into cases of ill heath, and near misses etc. Even from these few examples, it can be seen that reactive monitoring involves responding to some form of health and safety failure, such as: an accident, incident, near miss, failure of equipment, etc.

The role of active monitoring is very different. Active monitoring aims to avoid failures and help to improve (health and safety) performance by looking at the operations, systems, equipment and people to ensure that there are no faults or failings (or to identify them before they lead to accidents and incidents are correct them). Active monitoring gives the company feedback on its performance without the need for an accident, incident or case of ill health. It allows companies to measure successes rather than merely to respond to recorded failures. It also allows shortfalls to be identified and addressed before accidents, incidents and ill health occur. Monitoring and checking is an essential part of the model for “Successful Health and Safety Management” espoused in the HSE publication: HSG65. In this model it is referred to as measuring performance. Similarly, monitoring is also a requirement of OHSAS 18001 and BS8800. Active monitoring involves checking conditions, plant, and systems, to ascertain if performance is being maintained to the defined standards, using the techniques of safety inspections and safety audits. Active monitoring measures the effectiveness of an organisation's defences against accidents whereas reactive monitoring simply measures the number of times loss has resulted from a breach of these defences.

Active monitoring can be used as an effective means of promoting the Corporate and Social Responsibility of a business. According to the information placed prominently on the website of a large UK based company: “What sets us apart from our peers in the management of health and safety is the extent and depth of our active monitoring programme. The traditional approach of reactive monitoring (recording accidents and incidents) only measures where things have gone wrong. The active monitoring programme we employ provides information on the effectiveness of our systems and hence allows us to identify potential weaknesses before they result in accidents.”

Active Monitoring and its relationship to the risk assessment process

The effectiveness of the risk assessment process in helping to ensure the health, safety and welfare of employees and the health and safety of non-employees bends on several factors. Two of the most important are:
• The quality, accuracy and relevance of the original risk assessment, and
• The appropriate use of the control measures identified in and arising from the risk assessment.

Having completed the risk assessment, the significant finding of the assessment need to be communicated to employees to:
• ensure that they are aware of the hazards to which they may be exposed, and
• ensure that they are aware of the control measures that are to be used to avoid or, where avoidance is reasonably practicable (or practicable - as the case may be), to control the risk to the lowest level that is reasonably practicable (or practicable)

The role of active monitoring is to supplement and support this training by checking that:
• the control measures identified in the risk assessment are being used appropriately, and
• the control measures are effective in avoiding or reducing the risk.

Who should carry out Active Monitoring activities?

Active monitoring can be carried out by a range of people, some of whom are third parties, not direct employees, including:
• Operatives/workers
• Charge hands, leading hands, foremen, supervisors, etc.
• Managers
• Service engineers
• Insurance engineers (often used for statutory examinations)
• Consultants/auditors
• Customers, clients, etc.

It is normal practice for the daily safety checks of the fork lift truck(s) to be carried out by the fork lift driver, store man, etc., while it is also good practice for these records to be checked regularly by the manager or supervisor responsible for the area or operation where the fork lift trucks are used. The role of this second check is to ensure that the daily checks are being made, not to repeat them. The fork lift trucks would then be subject to a more detailed check and maintenance process from the (third party) person or company contracted to maintained and service the fork lift trucks. On top of this, the lift trucks will also be subject to statutory inspection and test (under the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998, LOLER) at twelve monthly intervals (or six monthly is used to lift people).

Some case Law Involving Active Monitoring

In a Scottish case, M (a Scottish tyre-fitting firm) was fined £10,000 for failing (in the words of the Procurator Fiscal) to “give effect to arrangements that were appropriate for monitoring and reviewing its health and safety policy. It didn’t check that people were actually following it.” Regulation 5 of the Management of Health and Safety Work Regulations 1999 places a duty on employers to ensure effective planning, control, monitoring and review of the preventive and protective measures within their health and safety arrangements. This point is expanded with the Approved Code of Practice that supports the Regulations where the point is made that “Active monitoring reveals how effectively the health and safety management system is functioning”

The case followed a road traffic accident (RTA) in which one of T’s employees and the driver of a broken down (client) lorry were killed at the road side. One of M’s tyre fitters attended an early morning breakdown on the A90 Dundee-Aberdeen road. The broken down vehicle had stopped in the nearside lane (there being no hard shoulder available on this particular stretch) and the hazard warning lights had been switched on. The section of the road in that area was unlit and, according to witnesses also on the road at the time of the crash, the two drivers could barely be seen. This indicates that they were not wearing high-visibility jackets. Unfortunately, the driver of a third vehicle that was travelling north failed to spot the breakdown in time. This third vehicle collided with the broken down truck, shunting it into the recovery vehicle, which had been parked in front and killed the two men on the scene.

The driver of this third vehicle pleaded guilty to a charge of reckless driving. During the investigation into the incident, the HSE discovered that M had a good, up to date, written Health and Safety Policy that addressed issues such as the wearing of Hi-visibility fluorescent jackets, the placing of traffic cones at the site of the breakdown and parking the recovery vehicle between the broken down vehicle and the oncoming traffic. It also discovered, however, that none of these measures had been implemented in practice. The court heard that M’s driver had seen the policy and had signed it to acknowledge that he had read it. It also heard that the Company had carried out a vehicle check about a month before the accident. According to Procurator Fiscal, the failing of M was in not putting into practice what it had put down on paper. The Company could not demonstrate that it monitored the use and effectiveness of policies and procedures or the control measures arising from its risk assessments. It did not take enough steps to ensure that its employees were working to the Company’s procedures.

This case highlights the fact that it is not enough to have a health and safety policy and expect everyone within the organization to understand it and to work to that policy. People must receive suitable and sufficient training in the policy and then the effectiveness of the policy must be established.

An example of what some sectors are doing to carry out and promote active monitoring

The Association of Charity Shops has created a series of information sheets for its members; one of these outlines the importance of active monitoring in the (charity) retail arena (www.charityshops.org.uk). It outlines the importance of regular monitoring activities over the range of potential health and safety issues in this market sector. Suggested frequencies for checks vary from daily (such as checking that fire escapes are unobstructed) through weekly, monthly and quarterly and on up to half yearly (such as a review of COSHH and manual handling assessments).

Examples of Records

Record keeping is an important aspect of the management of health and safety at work. There are, however, still many companies that, despite carrying out checks, do not keep suitable records. Most companies are better at making and keeping records of failure (such as accident investigations) than they are keeping making records of good performance (such as: housekeeping standards and lighting levels in access corridors clear at the time of the check). Some records are easier to generate and to keep than others. Most companies keep records of statutory examinations (such as of local exhaust ventilation systems or of lifting equipment) and most keep records of their completed risk assessments. Few keep records of internal inspection and testing of their machinery guarding, operational checks on their local exhaust ventilation systems, etc. Fewer still keep records of their internal checks on the operation and effectiveness of their health and safety policy. Some aspects of this are simple to do and can be delegated to a range of managers, supervisors and other employees. These simpler aspects include maintenance logs and recorded checks on the presence and operation of machinery guarding, light guards, perimeter guards, etc. Other aspects are more complicated, involved or specialised and need to be organized and controlled by directors and managers or delegated to other competent persons.

Keeping records of Active Monitoring need not take much time

One of the important points to consider when keeping records of active monitoring is to design the paperwork to minimise the amount of time taken in recording the information while still obtaining meaningful records that be kept and, where necessary, referred to. In most cases, this can be achieved by designing a simple (yet suitably comprehensive) checklist.

The checklist should be designed such that in cases where is as it should be, the use of a tick, initials or other simple mark suffices. In certain cases, it may be necessary to record other simple data, such as the date, pressure, operative’s names, etc. The default position should be that the checklist is easy and quick to complete in situations where there are no defects. In the event of defects being found (such as a missing machinery guard or disabled safety interlock, etc.) then checklist will take longer to complete as details of the defect and of the (proposed) corrective action need to be recorded. It may also be necessary to go into more detail if the corrective action required action by somebody else.

Typical examples of simple daily/weekly checks and records:

Daily fork lift truck driver checklist
Condition of battery charging stations checklist
Daily or weekly recorded checks on the presence and effectiveness of (fixed and adjustable) machinery guards and safety features (such as the DC injection brakes on radial drills)
Daily checklist for the operation of the light guard on a guillotine, etc.
Daily (or shift based) records of the operation of the safety features (fixed guarding and interlocked guarding) on power presses
Housekeeping checklist/site walk down checklist
Road vehicle regular inspection checklist

Typical examples of Monthly/Quarterly checks and records:

Racking inspection checklist
Fire extinguisher location and condition checklist
Fire door condition and operation checklist
Access equipment inspection checklist (such as step ladders, steps, etc.)
Monitoring of the general condition of the premises, walkways, lighting, heating, etc.
Availability, condition and use of personal protective equipment
First aid box and emergency eyewash station checklists
General housekeeping checklist
Workplace inspections and audits
Visual inspection records for portable electrical equipment

Typical examples of six monthly/annual checklists:

Formal review of the suitability and effectiveness of the Health and Safety Policy (such as through an audit)
Formal review of the suitability and relevance of risk assessments and checking that they are up to date
Checks that all statutory examinations are being carried out at the appropriate frequencies (such as those applicable to lifting equipment, pressurized systems and local exhaust ventilation systems)
Training needs assessments for employees and training records
Portable appliance testing/inventory
General condition checking of the fixed electrical installation

Typical examples of “as used” checks and records:

Safety harnesses and lanyards that are not used often may be subject to inspection and checking before each use, rather than on a more regular basis.
The condition of guarding and safety devices on equipment that is not used often may be tested and inspected before each use rather than as part of a regular machinery safety inspection regime.

Personal Protective Equipment: Records of availability and condition of issued PPE

Most employers need to provide personal protective equipment (PPE) to employees. Some companies record the issue of such PPE, but in most cases this is only done the first time that PPE is issued or in the case of more expensive items of PPE. Very few companies are able to demonstrate that employees still have the PPE that they were issued with and that it is in good condition. This is particularly the case in companies where the employees do not work on the company’s own site (such as contractors). Potentially, many companies are leaving themselves exposed in this area. This sort of record keeping is often seen as difficult and time consuming to undertake. A relatively simple solution is to create a PPE condition monitoring sheet that the employees complete or, preferably, that is completed in conjunction with a supervisor, charge hand, foreman, etc. The sheet can be devised a number of ways, but two ones include:
• A simple table of the issued items of PPE against the employee’s name. The resulting boxes are initialled to indicate that the employee still has the PPE and that it is in good condition (clean and free from defects). In this case, the sheet is used to record the details of a group or team of workers and a new sheet is used each month.
• A simple table of issued items of PPE against the month. Initialling the boxes has the same meaning as above In this case, the form is used month on month (until completed), allowing one form to be used for several months, reducing the amount of paperwork involved. Other information may also be obtained and recorded on this single employee form, such as the condition of hands and lower arms in cases of work that may have a risk of dermatitis, etc.

COSHH: Workplace exposure monitoring as an example of Active Monitoring

If the COSHH risk assessment (as required by Regulation 6 of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, COSHH) shows it is necessary, then workplace exposure monitoring may be required to meet the requirements of Regulation 10 of COSHH. This requires the use of and suitable occupational hygiene techniques to estimate the amount of employees’ exposure to substances hazardous to health. In the case of airborne contaminants, this measurement will normally involve collecting a sample of air from the employee’s breathing zone using some form of personal sampling equipment. Alternatively, it may involve sampling the air at the workplace periodically, or even require the use of continuous static sampling equipment.

What ever the method used, this is a form of Active Monitoring. The purpose of measurements is to demonstrate that the control measures in place (arising from the COSHH risk assessment) are suitable and sufficient to protect the health of employees and of others who may (potentially) be exposed to the hazardous substance.

In the case of workplace exposure monitoring, employers must keep and maintain a record of any for at least five years. In the case of personal exposure monitoring, as opposed to (general) workplace exposure monitoring, then the details should be recorded as part of the employee’s health file and, as such, the record must be kept for at least forty years.

Monitoring of common areas

Common areas within shared occupancy premises are areas that are often neglected in instances where the landlord is not on site and does not have a (regular) site presence. In a recent case, a firm of architects occupying second floor offices in a multi-let building were found liable to one of its employees for injuries the employee sustained as they left the lift on the ground floor. Safety devices that should have prevented the lift doors from closing failed and the doors shut on the employee's hand. The firm was found to be in breach of its statutory duty to meet minimum health and safety requirements regarding the use of work equipment by workers at work, even though the accident occurred outside of the architects' demise, in equipment which formed part of the common parts of the building and which it was the landlord's responsibility to maintain and repair.

The fact that an employer can be in breach of statutory duty in respect of equipment such as a lift that is outside of its demise within the premises and also outside of its control should be of concern to tenants. It should also be considered that this case may provide some useful ammunition to tenants who are experiencing difficulty in getting their landlords to comply with repair and maintenance obligations. The potential for statutory liability on the part of a tenant as an employer may help persuade a court that an injunction against the landlord compelling compliance with its repair and maintenance obligations is an appropriate remedy. This case also implies the need for some level of active monitoring of common areas. Part of the active monitoring procedure may include requesting the landlord to confirm, in writing, that certain issues that may be taken for granted are actually being addressed. This may include confirmation that the landlord has arranged:
• Inspection and testing of the fixed electrical installation
• Inspection, test and maintenance of the fire alarm system
• Inspection, test and maintenance of the emergency (or escape) lighting system
• Inspection, test and maintenance of the lift

Monitoring of off-site activities

In cases where much of the activity takes place off site, other routes for carrying out monitoring and checking need to be considered. Companies should consider periodic, unannounced site visits by either their own staff or by specifically contracted staff (such as consultants, etc.). Where may of the activities carried out on different sites are similar, simple audit (or monitoring) checklists may be developed.
Alternatively, feedback may be sought from other interested parties, such as other contractors working on the site or from customers on whose site (or behalf) work is being carried out. This can be as simple as a few questions added to documentation that the customer needs to sign anyway (such as delivery notes, job completion dockets, etc.).

Summary

It is the law, as well as good management, that the health and safety policy and the risk assessments carried out for the undertakings of the business must be both operational and effective. It is well established (refer to HSG 65) that the effectiveness of the health and safety policy and of the risk assessments should be verified and checked through some form of monitoring or auditing process. Active monitoring of systems allows the (potential) failures to be identified before they cause loss or harm. The effectiveness of the health and safety policy and of the risk assessments may be established, and demonstrated, through various active monitoring techniques and records. Organisations are now becoming more aware of active monitoring and of the advantages that it can bring.

Michael Ellerby
LLB BSc CMIOSH MIIRSM CChem MRSC CSci
Director
LRB Consulting Limited
Michael@Lrbconsulting.co.uk

Mobile Phone use while driving - common sense reason not to

How about a bit of controversy?

We all know that (in the UK) it's against the law to use a hand held mobile while driving a car. Currently, however, the use of a hands-free phone is not against the law. The whole area is one of intense disagreement. I suggest a simple test - hold a conversation with someone and look into their eyes while doing so. Now, ask them a tricky (at least tricky to us mere mortals) maths question (such as "what is seven times thirteen") and see what they do. Most people will look away from you while they think about this - they are concentrating on the problem. If they were driving, they would look away from the road and would not be concentrating on their driving.

If the conversation is one that is important, then stop and hold it when you can give it your full attention. If it is not important, then it can wait.

I don't think this will make me popular, but it should help people to understand why I am against using even handsfree phones while driving.

Research shows that hands-free phones are no safer
than hand-held phones. The main danger of being on the phone while driving is
disruption of concentration.
(Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents)

Safety Matters meets the world of Marketing

How do you want to be found?
I don't mean this in a deep, dark or sinister way but more in a Marketing sort of a way.

How do you want prospects (or potential new clients) to find you and your company. In my case, it's as a Health and Safety professional (or consultant) in Loughborough, Leicestershire or in the East Midlands. I am looking for people who are looking for a health and safety consultant to help them with health and safety, fire safety or other risk assessments needs, etc. I am also looking for, people who are looking for ongoing health and safety advice. I have written this down to help me to clarify me thoughts on these matters rather than to provide any other reader with words of wisdom.

So, have decided what I want, the next thing is to think how to go about find these people. Who are they? Where will they look? How will they find me?

Who?
Owners and managers of businesses, or directors of larger businesses.

Where will they look?
The web. Google. Search engines. In their post (real and email).

How will they find me?
Well, my intention is that they will find me by tripping over me (and my company, LRB Consulting) because I am continually cropping up in their post (real or electronic) and in their web search. On of the purposes of this blog is to help to crystallise some of my thoughts. I need to improve my chances of been found by those who are looking for health and safety advice, guidance and consultancy.

I'm looking forward to spending more time doing health and safety work, including fire safety risk assessments for new clients in the East Midlands. If this is what happens, then it will be because of marketing focus.

Newsletters
I've always steered clear of writing Newsletters, despite the fact that I create a lot of content through various pieces of work. Recently, I have put aside my reservations and "gone for it". If you would like to look at my first foray into Newletters, please look at this. This Newsletter deals with the changes in January to the levels of fines for Health & Safety Offences and provides various cases where things have gone wrong.

My second Newsletter (produced in April) deals mainly with fire safety. While I'm quite pleased with the products, it does create the next problem - where do we go from here? Are there any areas that you would like to see covered? Please let me have your comments and feedback.

Slips, trips and falls may be worth a go - the HSE campaign is still running and it is still a major cause of injury. Importantly, it is also something that can be improved on with very little cost - although effort is required. There are some useful (and free) tools available from the HSE website.

Social Networking and when not to Twitter

Like many people, I find that twitter is both amusing and (slightly) addictive. It seems that social networking is in need of external moderation as one of the Tweets (better than twits) that I came across declared a time when one should not do it: http://bit.ly/KEdvW

A few examples of other times it is (or may be) inadvisable to twitter are:

• During an appraisal or annual review
• When climbing a ladder (probably not long before this features in risk assessments and method statements)
• When driving (I'm sure people do it!)
• After a row
• After drinking (too much)
• When you don't want to look like a geek
• In the swimming pool
• In the bath (sadly) http://www.austriantimes.at/index.php?id=14023
• & many more
  

All that said - twitter is still fun

The importance of Paperwork in health and safety

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:

1. The things that we do to protect ourselves, employees and others
2. 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"