Fire Safety - How To Reduce The Risks (Podcast)

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

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)

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.

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

Need help with COSHH for small business?

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?

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

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

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

Safety Matters, HSE Cost Recovery Proposals

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?

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

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

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.