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.