The management of Health and safety of communal areas

In buildings with multiple occupancy, the landlord (or building manager or facilities manager) is responsible for the premises as a whole, but also has special responsibility for the common areas of the premises.  These can be thought of the parts of the premises not demised to (or directly under the control of) individual tenants.  Typically, these may include: car parking areas, external areas (roads, paths, lighting, refuse storage 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 fall under the control of the landlord or facilities manager, such as: fire safety for the common areas, the fixed electrical installation, cooling towers, asbestos, etc.

Asbestos

It is recommended that the landlord has a Managment Survey (previously refered to as a Type 2 survey) or a Refurbishment / demolition survey (previously referred to as a Type 3 asbestos survey) carried out on the premises. The key findings of this assessment must be made available to tenants and to contractors and should include the location and type of any asbestos containing materials.

Where asbestos (or asbestos containing material) is known to be present in a building, there should be some form of asbestos management plan in place. This may involve simply monitoring the condition of the asbestos at regular intervals to ensure that it has not been damaged. At the other extreme, it may involve a planned removal of the asbestos by a competent organisation.

Control of contractors

Control of contractors working on site on behalf of the landlord can be a difficult area to manage. Many landlords (and facilities managers) introduce some form of contractor approval system to ensure that certain minimum standards are met. These systems usually ensure that the contractors have adequate insurance, that they have a health and safety policy and that they have appropriate risk assessments and method statements in place.  They do not ensure that the contractors are carrying out the work in accordance with the risk assessments and method statements. It is recommended that at least some of the works carried out by contractors are observed and monitored by the landlord (or their representative) to ensure that they are working in accordance with their agreed standards.  Higher risk activities should be monitored more often and more closely.  Certain contractor tasks will require a higher level of control, such as the use of a permit to work system.

Contractors will need to be given appropriate information and instruction relating to hazards associated with the premises. These may include the presence and location of asbestos, the location of underground services (such as gas, water and electrical services), etc.

COSHH and chemicals

Copies of safety data sheets and of the COSHH assessments should be available on site for any substances used or stored in the common areas, even if stored and used by contractors. These may include water treatment chemicals, cleaning materials and maintenance sprays and lubricants, etc.

Electricity

In most premises, the tenants will be responsible for their own portable electrical equipment. The fixed electrical installation may be responsibility of the landlord or the tenant, depending on the tenancy contract. In many cases, the fixed electrical installation (in part or in total) will be the responsibility of the landlord. In this case, it is recommended that the landlord arranges for the fixed electrical installation to be tested and inspected by a competent person (such as an NICEIC approved contractor) at regular intervals (usually five yearly inspections for commercial premises and three yearly inspections for industrial premises).

External areas and building façade

The external areas of the premises should be inspected regularly, including checks on the condition of the building façade and all structure attached to the building, such as lights, aerials, CCTV cameras, flagpoles, etc. Similarly, checks should be carried out for all external areas, including car parking areas, roads and footpaths, fencing, lighting, etc. Any defects should be addressed and made safe.

Fire Safety

Fire safety is likely to be a shared responsibility, with the landlord being responsible for the common areas and the tenants being responsible for their demised area. It is recommended that the landlord carries out a fire risk assessment for the common parts of the premises and make suitable arrangements for the provision, maintenance, servicing and testing of:

·         A fire alarm, including automatic fire detection

·         Emergency lighting (in the common parts)

·         Fire fighting equipment (in the common parts)

·         Doors, fire doors and automatic door release systems

·         Emergency evacuation routes

·         (Wet or Dry) risers and sprinkler systems

·         Housekeeping in common areas

Tenant responsibilities

The landlord should make it clear to the tenant what their responsibilities are. While the landlord may, reasonably, be responsible for the provision, servicing and maintenance of collective fire safety measures (such as building wide fire alarm and fire/smoke detection) the tenant is responsible for the safe evacuation of their own workers and visitors from the premises. The tenant may be responsible for the provision of fire fighting equipment in their demised area, etc. The responsibilities need to be considered, identified and ascribed.

Tenants’ fire risk assessments

Tenants are generally responsible for their own fire safety arrangements, although some aspects (such as a building-wide fire alarm) may be shared facilities managed by the Landlord. It is recommended that the landlord request copies of the tenants’ fire safety risk assessments and that copies of these are filed and, if requested, made available to the fire authority during the course of an inspection visit.  A tenant should provide the landlord (and other tenants) with information relating to special fire risks, such as the storage of LPGs, etc.

Gas supply and services

The landlord should ensure that the gas supply and services are safe and are maintained in a safe and serviceable condition.  All gas pipe work should be clearly identified (with suitable labels stating “Gas” or by colour coding the pipe work (yellow ochre). All gas equipment under the control of the landlord should be regularly maintained and serviced (by a Gas Safe registered contractor) and a Landlord’s Gas Safety Certificate should be obtained for all gas equipment.

Lifts and lift motor rooms

Lift motor rooms should be clearly identified and should be kept locked and should only be accessed by competent persons (such as lift engineers). Hydraulic lifts should be bunded to contain any leakages of hydraulic oil and all lift motor equipment must be suitably guarded.

Passenger lifts should be tested and inspected by a competent person at least once every six months although this frequency may be reduced to once in every twelve months for goods lifts that are not used to transport people (i.e. if their use is restricted to goods only), as required under the Lifting Operations Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER).

Suitable arrangements should be made for the servicing and maintenance of lifts and for the rescue of people trapped due to lift failure.

Pressure systems

Any pressurised systems within the premises should be tested and inspected by a competent person at the intervals described in the written scheme of examination for the system.  As with other equipment, the landlord will be responsible for ensuring that it is serviced and maintained in a safe condition.

Roof areas

Access to roof areas should be secured to prevent unauthorised access. Consideration must be given to the protection of workers from falls from height. This will require a risk assessment to determine the appropriate control measures for the premises. Typical collective control measures include having suitable edge protection (such as a balustrade wall or fenced edge protection of at least 1100 mm height). In certain cases it may be appropriate to consider individual or personal protective measures such as anchor points for use with harnesses and lanyards.  

Consideration should be given to the need for roof access. It is common for various pieces of plant and equipment to be located on flat roof sections, especially air conditioning units, water storage tanks, lift motor rooms, etc. In such cases, regular roof access may be required by a range of contractors. If contractors are required to make use of individual protective measures, then the use of such equipment must be made clear to the contractor and the landlord should satisfy themselves that the use of such equipment is covered in the contractors risk assessments and method statements, etc. In cases where the roof area is accessed by tenants’ contractors (such as to service tenants’ air-con units or to fit aerials) then the landlord should ensure that the tenant and the tenant appointed contractor have considered to the safety issues associated with roof access.

Other aspects of roof access safety to be considered include fragile roof sections, glazed sections and skylights, etc.

Staircases, landings and corridors

Staircases should be in good condition, ideally with handrails on both sides of the staircase. The staircases, landings and corridors should be well lit, free from obstructions and slipping and tripping hazards. These areas should be checked regularly to ensure that they remain in good condition.

Water supply and cooling towers, etc

The landlord will usually be responsible for the water supply to the premises, including cold water storage tanks, water heating arrangements and hot water storage. The landlord is also likely to be responsible for ensuring that the risks from poor water hygiene are avoided or controlled. This will usually require a Legionella risk assessment in line with the requirements of the HSC Approved Code of Practice & Guidance (L8) "Legionnaires' disease: The control of legionella bacteria in water systems". Control measures required may include: regular water temperature monitoring, maintenance of cooling towers, provision and maintenance of water dosing chemicals and equipment, dip-slide sampling of cooling tower water, etc. Such work is often contracted out to a water hygiene specialist.

In premises that have cooling towers or evaporative condensers, the landlord will be responsible for ensuring that these have been notified to the local authority (as required under the Notification of Cooling Towers and Evaporative Condensers Regulations 1992). Further to this, the landlord must maintain and service the cooling tower to ensure that the risks from Legionella are controlled properly. This will involve a detailed cooling tower (legionella) risk assessment and regular checking and testing of the water in the tower. Such work is often contracted out to a specialist water hygiene company.

Window and canopy cleaning

Suitable arrangements much be made for the cleaning of the building and its windows and canopies, etc. This may well involve working at height using ladders, scaffolds, cherry pickers, scissor lifts, window cleaning cradles, abseiling systems, etc. Although such work is generally carried out in external areas, consideration needs to be given to the cleaning of high level internal structures, such as atrium glazing, etc. Any access equipment associated with the premises must be tested and inspected by a competent person at appropriate intervals. This includes the testing and inspection of eye-bolt anchor points, access cradles and associated runways, etc.
 
Michael Ellerby
Director
LRB Consulting Limited
www.LRBconsulting.co.uk

Safety: Managers need to manage

Part 1: Machinery Safety
There is a problem with safety features: they can often be bypassed. Many safety professionals will have seen instances of safety interlock systems on equipment, such as CNC machines, being defeated by fixing the key into the lock part of the system either by using a spare key or by detaching the main key from the frame of the equipment. Often this is justified by the site management as being the “only way the work can be done”. This state of mind does not stand scrutiny as many other companies manage to achieve safe operation with same equipment doing the same job. The failing is often the attitude or approach to safety management in the minds of the managers, supervisors and workers.

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

Part 2: Fire Safety
The fire safety arrangements of businesses are under scrutiny from the Fire and Rescue services. The fire safety risk assessment for the premises is a starting point, but it needs to be acted upon and turned into something meaningful. Poundland has recently been fined more than £20,000 for having obstructed or blocked fire escape routes. A fire officer found three of the four potential exit routes from a three storey premises were blocked from the outside by stock crates. As a result, the fire officer took the unusual step of evacuating the premises until the situation had been made safe and the exit routes were cleared. The Company pleaded guilty to three charges of failing to keep the fire exits clear (as required by Article 14(1) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005). The Company was also fined for not properly training the temporary manager (as required under Article 21(1)(b)) and was subject to costs of over £7000.

Part 3: Food Safety
Although Food Safety is often seen as a different discipline to health and safety, many of the principles are the same. Good management involves looking at what is going on in the business, understanding the implications (i.e. the risks) and responding in an appropriate and proportionate manner. When warning letters are received from the local authority highlighting some food hygiene failures within the business and also suggesting some simple and low cost ways of rectifying the situation it is not appropriate or proportionate to ignore the situation. As a result of such (lack of) action, the operator of a takeaway outlet in North Wales has been jailed for eight months following an outbreak of E. coli attributed to the premises.

Part 4: Control of Contractors
Many people assume that when they appoint a contractor to carry out work for them that they have not further responsibility for the safety of the contractor. There have been many cases over the last few years that involve organisations paying out large fines for failing to ensure the safety of contractors. In a recent case, a paper maker was fined £260,000 (under Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974) following the death of a contractor who felt through a fragile roof. When being appointed, the contractor said that crawling boards would be used. After the accident occurred, it was established that crawling boards were not used and it was also established that the paper maker had not made reasonable efforts to ensure that the contractors were carrying out the work safely, in the manner proposed. “Companies must make sure work contractors do for them is properly planned and organised, and monitor what actually happens when the work takes place”.

Visit our website

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

Part 4: Control of Contractors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please vsit our website

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

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

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

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

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

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

After sentencing, the investigating HSE inspector commented:

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

Visit our website

Some simple information on asbestos

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


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

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

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

Effects on health:

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

Who’s at risk?

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

Where is it found?

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

What to do if you discover asbestos at work:

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

If you think you may be working with asbestos:

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

What to do if you need to work with it:

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

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

Need Help? Need Asbestos Awareness Training? Website

Hazardous substances or COSHH Cases

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

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

Confined spaces - A couple of cases

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

Worker loses 2 fingers - plastic recycling firm

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

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

The HSE inspector said:

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

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

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

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

Need help? Contact us through our website

Director disqualified for 4 years

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

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

The HSE commented:

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

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

Missing guard - bread maker loses finger

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

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

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

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

The HSE inspector commented:

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

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

Worker dies in sweet making machine

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

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

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

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

Following the hearing, an HSE inspector said:

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

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

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

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:

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.

Food firm fined - employee falls into machinery

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

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

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

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

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

The HSE Inspector said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please visit out website

Safe isolation of plant and equipment – Part 1

Introduction

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

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

The management of isolation of plant and equipment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Please visit our website