Case 1
In January this year, a bearings company was fined £20,000 (with costs of £15,000) following prosecution for exposing the workforce to hazardous substances in the form of metalworking fluids as a mist. The company was issued with an Improvement Notice, following an HSE visit in April 2007, to provide its workforce with adequate face protection, and to install adequate control measures on six machines, to prevent employees coming into direct contact with the mist. Inspectors returned in December 2007 and undertook a full safety audit across the whole site. Although the company complied with the Improvement Notice (and installed extractors on each machine) a subsequent inspection identified that the problem was more widespread and 100 other machines were also emitting metalworking fluid. Over the last five years there have been 15 reported cases of respiratory ill health (occupational asthma and extrinsic allergic alveolitis) from workers at the factory. This represents the second largest exposure of its kind in the UK at a single company.
Case 2
The UK's largest domestic manufacturer of energy and telecommunications cables and systems to service home and export markets was fined £27,500 and ordered to pay £10,700 costs, at Southampton Crown Court in September 2009. A factory worker was left with permanent disabilities and has been forced to retire on medical grounds at the age of 48 after contracting a severe form of dermatitis at his workplace. The company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 6(1)(a), 7(1), and 7(3) of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002. The site produced high-voltage cables, which contained paper insulation that was soaked in dodecylbenzene oil. As part of the quality testing, the worker cut sections out of the cables and the oil regularly came into contact with his skin. The worker was not provided with suitable personal protective equipment and suffered skin irritations across large parts of his body. As a result of the illness he has been left with permanent scarring and has to avoid contact with a large number of substances that cause further skin irritation.
Showing posts with label consultant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consultant. Show all posts
Thursday, 10 June 2010
Confined spaces - A couple of cases
Case 1
A silo cleaning company was fined £15,000 each of two breaches of the Confined Spaces Regulations 1997 (with costs of £15,000) after pleading guilty to breaching Regulations 4(2) (failing to provide a safe system of work) and 5(1) (insufficient emergency arrangements). A worker who had not been trained in confined-space access and egress, nor provided with adequate equipment, died of heat exhaustion inside a feed silo.
Case 2
A metal-treatment company has been fined £533,000 (with costs of £200,000) following a double fatality at its manufacturing plant. The Crown Court heard that a works manager and a maintenance manager died of asphyxiation and were found unconscious on stairs leading to a concrete-lined pit after argon gas had leaked from a large pressure vessel. Following a number of false alarms, the pit’s oxygen alarm system had been silenced. This was coupled to the fact that the ventilation system was also not in operation after the machine had lost power during a power cut. The power cut happened a month prior to the incident and had not been switched back on. The HSE inspector commented “... the risks from confined spaces and asphyxiation due to the presence of argon were well-known to the company, which had experienced of a similar double fatality. Despite this warning the company failed to undertake a proper risk assessment for entry into the confined space. Although they had implemented a safe system of work and permit-to-work procedure, they had not properly trained employees in their use, or ensured that these systems and procedures were being followed through their auditing procedure.”
If you need help to manage your Health and Safety, please contact us via our website
A silo cleaning company was fined £15,000 each of two breaches of the Confined Spaces Regulations 1997 (with costs of £15,000) after pleading guilty to breaching Regulations 4(2) (failing to provide a safe system of work) and 5(1) (insufficient emergency arrangements). A worker who had not been trained in confined-space access and egress, nor provided with adequate equipment, died of heat exhaustion inside a feed silo.
Case 2
A metal-treatment company has been fined £533,000 (with costs of £200,000) following a double fatality at its manufacturing plant. The Crown Court heard that a works manager and a maintenance manager died of asphyxiation and were found unconscious on stairs leading to a concrete-lined pit after argon gas had leaked from a large pressure vessel. Following a number of false alarms, the pit’s oxygen alarm system had been silenced. This was coupled to the fact that the ventilation system was also not in operation after the machine had lost power during a power cut. The power cut happened a month prior to the incident and had not been switched back on. The HSE inspector commented “... the risks from confined spaces and asphyxiation due to the presence of argon were well-known to the company, which had experienced of a similar double fatality. Despite this warning the company failed to undertake a proper risk assessment for entry into the confined space. Although they had implemented a safe system of work and permit-to-work procedure, they had not properly trained employees in their use, or ensured that these systems and procedures were being followed through their auditing procedure.”
If you need help to manage your Health and Safety, please contact us via our website
Wednesday, 28 April 2010
COSHH and smaller businesses
COSHH (the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002) is often an area for concern for businesses, especially smaller businesses. It an area of health and safety that is poorly understood and is viewed with mysticism.
Like all aspects of health and safety, small businesses need a considered approach to COSHH, but they must not assume that it does not apply to them or that it does not affect them. A simple process would be:
Like all aspects of health and safety, small businesses need a considered approach to COSHH, but they must not assume that it does not apply to them or that it does not affect them. A simple process would be:
Above all, apply common sense. For further advice and guidance, please contact us.
- review the substances present of site
- assess the hazards associated with them
- reduce the number of hazardous substances
- replace hazardous substances with safe (or at least safer) alternatives
- assess the risk from the use of the reduced inventory of substances
- implement control measures
- enforce the appropriate use of control measures
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
Director banned for 5 years for health and safety failings
A Worcestershire company and its managing director was fined a total of £87,000 following a series of health and safety failures. These health and safety failures saw workers exposed to a variety of risks, including: exposure to lead, falls from height and being crushed by falling objects.
The managing director of the Company was criticised by the HSE for “flagrant lack of attention” to the safety of employees at the Stratford-upon-Avon based company.
Following a tip-off from a concerned employee, the HSE carried out an investigation that resulted in 4 Prohibition and 4 Improvement Notices being issued. Workers at the plant were found to be spray-painting fuel tanks without appropriate safety equipment, even though the paint contained toxic lead chromate. Specialist HSE inspectors took air, blood and urine samples to assess the workers’ exposure to lead, and five of them were found to have higher levels than the UK average.
The workers were required to work from beneath half-tonne vessels that they were painting, with nothing to prevent them from being crushed if the lifting equipment, which had not been maintained or checked properly, had failed.
To paint the tops of the tanks, which were two metres above the concrete floor, the workers simply stood on them, with no equipment to stop them from falling. The managing director ignored a Prohibition Notice in relation to this unsafe practice and continued to instruct his employees to work on top of the tanks.
The Company pleaded guilty to the following breaches of health and safety legislation:
Regulation 6(1)(c) of the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002
Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations (WAHR) 2005
Regulation 8(1)(c) of Lifting Operation Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998
Regulation 21(1) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992
Regulation 13(2) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999
The Company was also found guilty of contravening Prohibition Notices on 3 occasions. As a result, it was fined a total of £70,000 and ordered to pay £27,507 in costs. It is understood that the Company is now in administration.
The managing director was fined £17,000 with £9169 in costs after pleading guilty to breaching reg.4(1) of the WAHR 2005 and s33(1)(g) of the HSWA 1974 and he was banned from directing any company for five years under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.
An HSE inspector commented:
If you need help to meet your Health & Safety obligation, contact us.
The managing director of the Company was criticised by the HSE for “flagrant lack of attention” to the safety of employees at the Stratford-upon-Avon based company.
Following a tip-off from a concerned employee, the HSE carried out an investigation that resulted in 4 Prohibition and 4 Improvement Notices being issued. Workers at the plant were found to be spray-painting fuel tanks without appropriate safety equipment, even though the paint contained toxic lead chromate. Specialist HSE inspectors took air, blood and urine samples to assess the workers’ exposure to lead, and five of them were found to have higher levels than the UK average.
The workers were required to work from beneath half-tonne vessels that they were painting, with nothing to prevent them from being crushed if the lifting equipment, which had not been maintained or checked properly, had failed.
To paint the tops of the tanks, which were two metres above the concrete floor, the workers simply stood on them, with no equipment to stop them from falling. The managing director ignored a Prohibition Notice in relation to this unsafe practice and continued to instruct his employees to work on top of the tanks.
The Company pleaded guilty to the following breaches of health and safety legislation:
Regulation 6(1)(c) of the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002
Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations (WAHR) 2005
Regulation 8(1)(c) of Lifting Operation Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998
Regulation 21(1) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992
Regulation 13(2) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999
The Company was also found guilty of contravening Prohibition Notices on 3 occasions. As a result, it was fined a total of £70,000 and ordered to pay £27,507 in costs. It is understood that the Company is now in administration.
The managing director was fined £17,000 with £9169 in costs after pleading guilty to breaching reg.4(1) of the WAHR 2005 and s33(1)(g) of the HSWA 1974 and he was banned from directing any company for five years under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.
An HSE inspector commented:
Companies and their managing directors have a legal responsibility to protect their employees. No one should be expected to work in the conditions found at (the company), and it is quite right that an employee contacted HSE to complain. Failure to properly manage health and safety can have catastrophic results.
If you need help to meet your Health & Safety obligation, contact us.
Tuesday, 20 April 2010
Health & Safety - What's the minimum that I can get away with?
With respect to health and safety it is not uncommon to hear phrases (from employers) such as: “I only want to do what I have to …”, “What’s the minimum I must do to be legal…” and “What can I get away with doing…”? The most common duty, with respect to health and safety at work, is to reduce the level of risk to as low a level as is reasonably practicable (ALARP). Although there are some cases where a higher standard is required, most cases fall under the auspices of Section 2 or Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act, Etc 1974. This may be paraphrased as creating the duty on the employer to “ensure the health and safety of employees (and non-employees who may be effected by the undertaking), so far as is reasonably practicable (SFARP)”. This means that the minimum legal standard is to do what is reasonably practicable.
What does Reasonably Practicable mean?
The term "so far as is reasonably practicable" (SFARP) means that the degree of risk in a particular situation can be balanced against the time, trouble, cost and physical difficulty of taking measures to avoid the risk, as decided by the Court of Appeal in Edwards v The National Coal Board 1949. If these resources are so disproportionate to the risk that it would be unreasonable to expect any employer to have to incur them to prevent it, the employer is not obliged to do so unless there is a specific requirement that he does. The greater the risk, the more likely it is that it is reasonable to go to very substantial expense, trouble and invention to reduce it. If, however, the consequences and extent of a risk are small, insistence on great expense would not be considered reasonable. It is important to remember that the judgement is an objective one and the size or financial position of the employer are immaterial.
How does this relate to Risk Assessments within the workplace?
All employers are required (by Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, as amended) to undertake assessments of the risks (to employees and to non-employees) arising from their undertaking. After determining the level of risk, SFARP has the effect of helping to determine how far to go with the control measures that need to be introduced to reduce the risks does to ALARP. When considered in this light, the question’s that were raised at the start of this article become poignant. Doing the minimum actually means reaching quite a high standard of health and safety as the only defence to not doing more is that it is not reasonably practicable to do so.
Is there an order that needs to be considered when determining the measures that are needs to reduce risks to as low a level as is reasonably practicable?
Schedule 1 to the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 specifies a hierarchy that is to be followed when contemplating and introducing measures to control the risks:
(a) avoiding risks
(b) evaluating the risks which cannot be avoided
(c) combating the risks at source
(d) adapting the work to the individual, especially as regards the design of workplaces, the choice of work equipment and the choice of working and production methods, with a view, in particular, to alleviating monotonous work and work at a predetermined work-rate and to reducing their effect on health
(e) adapting to technical progress
(f) replacing the dangerous by the non-dangerous or the less dangerous
(g) developing a coherent overall prevention policy which covers technology, organisation of work, working conditions, social relationships and the influence of factors relating to the working environment
(h) giving collective protective measures priority over individual protective measures and
(i) giving appropriate instructions to employees
Other pieces of legislation, such as the Work at Height Regulations 2005, Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002, Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, etc. create similar hierarchies.
What about the “knock-on” effects of control measures into other areas?
Risk assessments need to be well thought through and they need to be holistic: all factors need to be considered, including any new risks created by the introduction of the control measures designed to reduce the existing risk. For example:
• a small reduction in the toxicity of a substance should be weighed against the increased risks that might be associated with a flammability or explosion risk, etc.
• the reduction in manual handling risks brought about by the use of mechanical handling (such as a fork lift truck or a conveyor system) need to be balances against the increased risks arising from vehicle movement, falling loads, machinery guarding and mechanical risks, etc.
Need help? Contact us at LRB Consulting.co.uk
What does Reasonably Practicable mean?
The term "so far as is reasonably practicable" (SFARP) means that the degree of risk in a particular situation can be balanced against the time, trouble, cost and physical difficulty of taking measures to avoid the risk, as decided by the Court of Appeal in Edwards v The National Coal Board 1949. If these resources are so disproportionate to the risk that it would be unreasonable to expect any employer to have to incur them to prevent it, the employer is not obliged to do so unless there is a specific requirement that he does. The greater the risk, the more likely it is that it is reasonable to go to very substantial expense, trouble and invention to reduce it. If, however, the consequences and extent of a risk are small, insistence on great expense would not be considered reasonable. It is important to remember that the judgement is an objective one and the size or financial position of the employer are immaterial.
How does this relate to Risk Assessments within the workplace?
All employers are required (by Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, as amended) to undertake assessments of the risks (to employees and to non-employees) arising from their undertaking. After determining the level of risk, SFARP has the effect of helping to determine how far to go with the control measures that need to be introduced to reduce the risks does to ALARP. When considered in this light, the question’s that were raised at the start of this article become poignant. Doing the minimum actually means reaching quite a high standard of health and safety as the only defence to not doing more is that it is not reasonably practicable to do so.
Is there an order that needs to be considered when determining the measures that are needs to reduce risks to as low a level as is reasonably practicable?
Schedule 1 to the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 specifies a hierarchy that is to be followed when contemplating and introducing measures to control the risks:
(a) avoiding risks
(b) evaluating the risks which cannot be avoided
(c) combating the risks at source
(d) adapting the work to the individual, especially as regards the design of workplaces, the choice of work equipment and the choice of working and production methods, with a view, in particular, to alleviating monotonous work and work at a predetermined work-rate and to reducing their effect on health
(e) adapting to technical progress
(f) replacing the dangerous by the non-dangerous or the less dangerous
(g) developing a coherent overall prevention policy which covers technology, organisation of work, working conditions, social relationships and the influence of factors relating to the working environment
(h) giving collective protective measures priority over individual protective measures and
(i) giving appropriate instructions to employees
Other pieces of legislation, such as the Work at Height Regulations 2005, Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002, Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, etc. create similar hierarchies.
What about the “knock-on” effects of control measures into other areas?
Risk assessments need to be well thought through and they need to be holistic: all factors need to be considered, including any new risks created by the introduction of the control measures designed to reduce the existing risk. For example:
• a small reduction in the toxicity of a substance should be weighed against the increased risks that might be associated with a flammability or explosion risk, etc.
• the reduction in manual handling risks brought about by the use of mechanical handling (such as a fork lift truck or a conveyor system) need to be balances against the increased risks arising from vehicle movement, falling loads, machinery guarding and mechanical risks, etc.
Need help? Contact us at LRB Consulting.co.uk
Monday, 16 November 2009
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.
Friday, 6 November 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)