Showing posts with label workplace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label workplace. Show all posts

Wednesday, 21 November 2012

Advice on COSHH Training for small engineering workshops

There are a host of different hazards present in most engineering workshops, including: noise, hot surfaces, moving vehicles, moving parts of machinery, vibration, electricity, hazardous substances, etc.  When considering the risks from exposure to substances hazardous to health associated with engineering workshops, the range of substances may be daunting.  This article focuses on two hazardous substances commonly used in engineering workshops and demonstrates how the general management principles of COSHH may be applied. 

Elements to consider even before the training session

The training environment
COSHH training in the small engineering workshop may be carried out in a traditional training room environment.  Alternatively, if the numbers are relatively small, the training may be carried out in the workshop, using the existing workplace and the equipment therein as props for the training.  One of the problems with a workshop environment is that there tends to be a lot of background noise and so it may be necessary to: turn off equipment, turn off the air compressor and release the stored pressure in the air lines, turn off the local exhaust ventilation system(s), etc. 
 
Arrangements should be made for dealing with other distractions, such as deliveries, etc.

Consider the aim of the training course
When carrying out COSHH training for the smaller engineering workshop, the aim of the training is unlikely to be training in the COSHH regulation themselves, but is much more likely to be focussed on making workers aware of the health risks associated with the substances that they may be exposed to and on the control measures to be used to prevent (or control) that exposure. 

Consideration of the range of substances present
Before embarking on a COSHH risk assessment or on COSHH related training, it is important to determine what substances hazardous to health are present in the workshop.  Typical substances hazardous to health that may be found in an engineering workshop include:
             Oils and greases
             Spray lubricants (such as WD40)
             Metal working fluids
             Solvents (cleaning materials, thinners, etc.)
             Paints (containing solvents, pigments, lead, etc.)
             Isocyanates (in 2-pack polyurethane paints, etc.)
             Epoxy materials (adhesives)
             Welding and cutting fume (arc, gas and plasma)
             Soldering fumes
             Vapour phase degreasing materials
             Kerosene based degreasing materials
             Dusts (such as from processes like grinding, linishing and polishing)

A list (or inventory) should be made of all of the substances used, stored or generated in the workshop.

Information
Manufacturers’ (or suppliers’) safety data sheets are particularly useful for determining if a substance is hazardous to health. In fact, Regulation 12 of the COSHH Regulations states that relevant safety data sheets are amongst the pieces of information that must be made available to employees who are exposed to substances hazardous to health.  In order to carry out a suitable training session, the trainer must understand the hazards associated with the substances and this information may be found on the safety data sheet will provide this information. 

The HSE produces a wide range of informational literature that may be of direct benefit to small engineering companies and their COSHH issues.  These include a range of free leaflets (such as the INDG series) and priced publications (such as the HSG series).  Much of this information may also be downloaded (free of charge) from the internet.

It is recommended that useful information is made available to workers.  This may be contained in the COSHH risk assessment file or, more usefully, made available at the point of use (such as in local files on the shop floor or on notice boards).  Workers should be encouraged to access this information.

The application of the basic principles of COSHH to the management of health risks from exposure to hazardous substances

The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, as amended (COSHH) require that the health risks arising from exposure to substances hazardous to health are avoided where this is reasonably practicable or that they are controlled where it is not reasonably practicable to avoid them.  In order to comply with the principles of COSHH, the employer should:
     Assess the risks to health and decide what precautions are needed.
     Inform workers of the risks associated with exposure to substances hazardous to health and of the control measures to be used to ensure their health and safety.
     Prevent workers being exposed to substances hazardous to health or, where this is not reasonably practicable, ensure that such exposure is controlled adequately.
     Ensure that exposure control measures are followed at all times, and regularly checked and maintained, and that safety procedures are observed.
     Monitor workers exposure to substances hazardous to health and carry out appropriate health surveillance, where the COSHH assessment has shown this is necessary.
     Train workers in the use of control measures and the use of any personal protective equipment that may be required.
     Provide suitable welfare facilities, such as washing and areas to consume food away from the work place.

COSHH issues associated with exposure to metal working fluids

Introduction
The main health effects arising from exposure to metal working fluids (MWF) are to the skin and to the respiratory system.  These include: irritation of the skin, dermatitis oil acne and folliculitis; as well as: occupational asthma, bronchitis, irritation of the upper respiratory tract, breathing difficulties or, rarely, a serious lung disease called extrinsic allergic alveolitis.   Water based MWF support microbial growth and, hence, can lead to biological contamination of the MWF, increasing the risks of ill health arising from exposure.  Ill health effects may also be increased by chemical contamination of the MWF from: tramp oils, hydraulic fluids, polycyclic aromatic compounds (in neat oils) and nitrosamines (in water based oils). The (COSHH) risk assessment for the use of MWF should identify a range of simple control measures that can significantly reduce the risks of ill health developing. 

Health effects of exposure to metal working fluids

Respiratory ill health
Workers exposed to MWF mist and vapour are at risk of developing work-related asthma, bronchitis, irritation of the respiratory tract and breathing difficulties, as well as extrinsic allergic alveolitis (which can cause increasingly severe breathing difficulties in recurrent episodes, following repeated exposure). Exposure may also cause irritation to the eyes, nose and throat.

Inhalation of these biological contaminants (such as bacteria or toxins) can lead to irritation of the respiratory tract and flu-like symptoms, as well as aggravating existing asthma.

Skin problems
Dermatitis can be caused:
     by bacteria (or their toxic by-products) when they are present in the MWF in the sump;
     through contact with sensitising metal (such as chromium, nickel and cobalt), which can leach out from cutting tools, grinding wheels and substrates into MWF; and
     by contact with chemical additives, such as biocides and corrosion inhibitors.

The use of unrefined mineral oils may lead to skin cancer on affected skin, such as hands and the lower arms.  Prolonged exposure through wearing contaminated clothing and the habit of putting oily rags into overall pockets increases the risks of skin cancer and of scrotal cancer.  These risks are lessened by the use of highly refined oils, etc.

Routes for exposure to metal working fluids
MWF fluids are usually applied by continuous jet, by a spray or by a hand dispenser.  They can only cause health effects if they come into contact with the body.  The common routes for exposure are: 
     Inhalation of the mist generated during the machining operation.
     Direct contact (such as from splashes) with unprotected skin, particularly hands, forearms and heads.
     Entry into the body through direct contact with cuts, abrasions or other broken skin.
     Ingestion (arising from eating, drinking or smoking in work areas, or from poor personal hygiene). 

Control measures for working with metal working fluids
In general, the introduction and maintenance of simple control measures will significantly reduce the risks of ill health developing from exposure to MWF.

General control measures
     Ensure that the most appropriate MWF has been selected.
     Devise a safe system of work for working with metalworking fluids and instruct workers in this safe system of work.
     Ensure that suitable splash guards are provided, fitted and used appropriately.
     Minimise the production of MWF mist and vapour, such as by controlling the volume and rate of delivery of the MWF to the tool.
     Avoid the use of compressed air to remove excess metalworking fluids from machined parts, plant or equipment.

Extraction and ventilation
     Provide suitable extraction systems (such as local exhaust ventilation), where the need is identified in the (COSHH) risk assessment.
     Ensure that any enclosures or extraction systems provided to remove or control mist or vapour are used properly.
     Ensure that there is a time delay before opening the doors on (CNC) machine enclosures to ensure that all mist and vapour have been removed by the ventilation.
     Introduce regular monitoring (checks) of the equipment and arrange for any damaged or defective splash guards, extraction systems, etc. to be repaired.
     Ensure that the extraction system is checked and serviced regularly and that it is subject to statutory examination (by a competent person) at least once in every fourteen month period.
     Ensure that there is adequate general ventilation in the work area - open workroom doors and windows to improve natural ventilation, where appropriate.

 Avoiding skin contact and skin protection
     Introduce suitable measures to reduce the potential for contact with MWF .
     Reduce contact with wet work pieces and surfaces.
     Instruct workers not to put bare hands into fluid sumps and not to use oily rags to wipe them clean.
     Provide suitable personal protective equipment and ensure that it is worn as appropriate.  Suitable PPE may consist of gloves (or gauntlets), overalls, aprons, goggles or face shields.
     Instruct workers in the risks of contamination of the inside of gloves (with MWF) when putting them on or taking them off.

Sump fluid control
     Ensure that waste materials (especially unwanted food, drink, cigarette stubs) are not disposed of into the sump.
     Instruct workers to inform a supervisor if they observe any layers of scum or large amounts of tramp oil on top of the sump fluid, or if the sump fluid becomes dirty or smelly.
     Introduce and follow good working practices when mixing fluids, cleaning and topping up sumps etc.
     Monitor the levels of bacterial contamination using dip slides, or other means of measuring the level of bacterial activity.
     Consider a contract management service for the MWF (offered by some suppliers). 

Personal Hygiene
     Provide suitable hand washing facilities, including running hot and cold water, soap and towels.
     Provide, and encourage the use of, suitable pre-work barrier creams and after-work conditioning creams.  This barrier cream should be designed to provide a protective layer between the skin and the MWF, while the after-work conditioning cream is intended to replace the natural skin oils removed by washing and by contact with the MWF.
     Ensure that any cuts and abrasions are covered with a suitable waterproof dressing.
     Instruct workers in the need for high standards of personal hygiene.
     Instruct workers to wash regularly with soap and water to remove MWF from skin. Instruct workers to avoid using abrasive or solvent cleaners.
     Instruct workers to wash their hands thoroughly before eating, drinking or smoking.
     Store personal protective equipment in the changing facilities provided or another clean storage area.
     Ensure that a sufficient number of suitable overalls are provided and that they are changed regularly.
     Instruct workers not to put oily rags into their pockets.
     Provide a laundry service for dirty overalls and instruct workers not to take hem home for washing.
     Prohibit eating, drinking and smoking in areas where metalworking fluids are used.
 
Health Surveillance
     Appoint a responsible person to carry out health surveillance, as identified by the risk assessment.
     Carry out asthma health checks.
     Refer anyone affected by exposure to MWF to an occupational health professional.
     In the event of any ill health being identified, ensure that prompt action is taken to identify the likely cause and ensure it is prevented or adequately controlled.
     Keep workers informed of the collective findings of health surveillance.

COSHH issues associated with exposure to oils and greases

Introduction 
It is an inevitable consequence of many aspects of production and maintenance work that workers will come into contact with greases, oils and general lubricants.  Prolonged contact with these oils and greases can cause a range of skin problems, such as: rashes (e.g. oil acne), dermatitis and even skin cancer and testicular cancer.  Contact with hot lubricants, during servicing or maintenance, may also cause burns. 

Routes for exposure to oils and greases
Oils and greases may be used widely in the workshop.  They may be associated with the lubrication of the moving parts of machinery in the workshop, they may be associated with work being undertaken or may be contamination on surfaces (such as work benches, inspection pits, work pieces, etc.).  The common routes for exposure are:
     Inhalation of the mist generated during the machining operation or from the use of spray lubricants (such as WD40).
     Direct contact with unprotected skin, particularly the hands or indirect (but often prolonged contact) from oil contaminated clothing, such as overalls.  This may occur when fill or draining a lubrication system or reservoir.
     Entry into the body through direct contact with cuts, abrasions or other broken skin.
     Ingestion (arising from eating, drinking or smoking in work areas, or from poor personal hygiene). 

Hazards associated with oils and greases 

Skin rashes and dermatitis
‘Oil acne’ may be identified by the presence of blackheads, pimples and pustules on the skin.   The arms are the area most commonly affected (as these are the area most likely to come into contact with oils and greases), but any other part of the body may be effected if it comes into contact with oils or oil soaked clothing.  Oils may also remove the skin’s own naturally protective oils, leaving it dry.  This dry skin is liable to crack and is more susceptible to damage caused by cuts and abrasions.

Skin and testicular cancer
It has been established that contact with certain mineral oils may cause cancer in humans. The carcinogenic potential of oil products is usually, but not always, associated with the presence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.  Used oils (especially used engine oil) have been shown to have elevated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons levels.  Prolonged exposure to certain mineral oils, and especially to used engine oil, can lead to the development of warty swellings or sores on the skin, especially where contact is on the scrotum.  These warty swellings are slow to heal and may be cancerous.  It is recognised that prolonged skin contact with used engine oil can lead to skin cancer and testicular cancer (from putting oily rags into overall pockets).  Consequently, used engine oil is listed as a carcinogenic substance in Schedule 1 of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH).   

Other hazards
Hazards associated with slipping due to oil on the floor or with burns from hot oils are not considered in this article.

Control measures for working with oils and greases
The best control measures are those that avoid contact with oils (such as fully enclosed pumping systems in place of pouring systems for draining and filling operations), while others limit the amount of contact (such as hand washing after exposure).

Overalls
Workers potentially exposed to oils should be provided with a sufficient number of protective overalls.  It is usual for them to have at least three sets of overalls (one set to wear, one set being cleaned and at least one spare set), although some tasks may require more sets of overalls.  Suitable arrangements need to be made for the overalls to be cleaned.  It is recommended that overalls are dry cleaned in order to remove oils and greases.

Ideally, overalls should be supplied without (trouser) pockets, so that oily rags cannot be stuffed into the pockets - reducing the potential for prolonged skin (scrotal) contact.  Lack of pockets also reduces the risk of other injuries from the tools, etc. that may also otherwise be put into them.

Aprons
The use of (disposable) plastic aprons should be considered for certain operations where there is a risk of oil contamination of the overalls. 

Gloves
Appropriate gloves should be worn as a barrier to protect the hands from contact with oils and greases.  In many cases, disposable gloves are used, while in others, more robust longer use nitrile gloves are provided.  The type of gloves provided will be dictated by the level of protection required and the type of work being undertaken.  The thin, disposable gloves reduce skin contact with oil while allowing fine work to continue.

Suitable washing facilities
Decent washing facilities are necessary to remove oil from the skin.  These should include both hot and cold running water as well as suitable skin cleansers.  Suitable hand drying facilities should also be provided, such as paper towels.  The use of suitable conditioning creams after washing can help to counter the degreasing effects of the oil on the skin.  Skin must never be cleaned with solvents, etc.  So called “barrier creams” must not be relied on to protect the skin from exposure to oils.  They can, however, be a useful extra protection and can make it easier to wash oils off of the skin after exposure.

Use of tissue rolls in place of rags
It is recommended that, where appropriate, the use of rags for cleaning up is replaced by the use of suitable tissue wipes (usually supplied in a roll form).  Dispensers for these rolls may be wall mounted at suitable locations in the workshop.  This means that clean tissue is readily available for addressing small spills, cleaning tools, etc. and also that there is no temptation to keep rags (potentially oil contaminated) in overall pockets.

Draining and filling of lubrication systems, including those associated with vehicles
The drainage of used oil from lubrication systems offers significant risk of contact with the used oil.  These contact risks exist during the draining process, but also in subsequent handling of the drained oil, such as during transfer to a waste disposal holding vessel such as an oil drum or tank.  The risks may be reduced substantially by the use of a suitable oil collection vessel that later allows the waste oil to be pumped from the collection vessel to the waste oil storage vessel.  The collection vessel should be fitted with a wide funnel (for catching the oil) which should in turn be fitted with mesh to catch sump keys, bolts, oil filters, etc.

Storage and disposal of (waste) oil
Oil, including waste oil, should be stored in suitable, robust vessels inside a bunded storage area (with a bund capacity of at least 110% of the size of the largest storage vessel) pending collection for disposal by a licensed collector of such special waste. 

Health surveillance
As it is recognised that prolonged skin contact with mineral oils can lead to occupational dermatitis and, in some cases skin cancer, the employer should carry out routine skin inspections as a precautionary measure.  Employees should be encouraged to report sore, red or itching skin, whilst the responsible person should carry out regular, documented and recorded skin inspections of hands and forearms at monthly intervals.  Cases of suspected dermatitis should be referred to a doctor or occupational hygiene nurse for further investigation.  The results of health surveillance must be recorded and records must be retained for 40 years.

Information, instruction and training 
Employees who are potentially exposed to oils and greases must be made aware of the hazards associated with these materials and of the control measures to be used to protect their health.  Awareness can also be raised with suitable notices and leaflets that are available from the HSE.

Care with air-lines
Where compressed air is used to provide breathing air to air-fed masks, etc., care must be taken to ensure that the workers are not exposed to oil mists from the compressed air.  Suitable filters should be fitted and maintained and the quality of the air should be checked regularly.

Summary
Consideration needs to be given to the aims of the training course.  In many cases, the training needs to be focus on the nature of the hazard to which people will (or may) be exposed and on the measures that need to be used to avoid or control that hazard.  In the case of COSHH and its relevance to a small engineering workshop, it may be prudent to focus the training on examples that affect the workshop rather than on the intricacies and technicalities of the COSHH Regulations.  This may be achieved by training using examples that are directly relevant to the workshop.

 
For information on training and consulancy contact us through the website
 

 

Sunday, 30 October 2011

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

Tuesday, 25 October 2011

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.”

Tuesday, 29 June 2010

Fall from height - large fines

Two Gloucestershire companies have been fined after a roofing contractor fell through a skylight and suffered serious head injuries.

The two companies were prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive after a contractor fell through a fragile roof skylight while working on the roof of a sawmill building at Mile End, Coleford, Gloucestershire. The contractor fell five metres and landed on the concrete floor below, sustaining serious head injuries.

At a hearing before Gloucester Magistrates, the Sawmill company pleaded guilty to four breaches of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 and 2007 and was fined a total of £13,320 and ordered to pay costs of £14,443.

The owner of the contracting company pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was fined a total of £26,660 and ordered to pay costs of £14,443.


Speaking after the hearing, An HSE inspector said:

"This incident highlights the extremely serious risks posed by working at heigh if adequate safety protection measures are not in place ... The investigation revealed significant failures in the safe systems of work for the removal of the roof sheets and also significant failure to control risks of working at height during all of the stages of the sawmill refurbishment. RS was supervising two other employees who were also at risk, one of whom was only 17 at the time of this incident ... The sawmill remained open during all of the works and employees working below were also at risk from persons or objects falling on them. (The) fall could easily have proved fatal."


Contact us through the website

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

Wednesday, 9 June 2010

Contractor fined £45,000 after lift engineer is crushed to death

A Kent-based lift company has been fined following health and safety failings which led to a self-employed lift engineer being crushed to death. The company was prosecuted following an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after an employee died while completing the installation of a new lift at a site near Oxford Street in Central London.

On 6 December 2005, the installer was working alone on the lift's wiring while standing on the roof of the lift car at an office building in London.

The cable of a control used to move the lift was severed when it became wrapped around a bolt protruding from the lift shaft wall. This led to a rogue command being sent to the lift's controller causing the lift to start moving upwards.

The installer became trapped between the top of the lift car and the top of the doorway as it travelled upwards, suffering fatal crush injuries.

Neither installer, nor his assistant, had experience of installing the type of lift control system being fitted at the site.

The Old Bailey heard the main contractor carrying out the work was had sub-contracted the work to a specialist lift engineer it had worked with previously. However, due to delays the sub-contractor had to leave the job uncompleted.

The job was then sub-contracted the completion and testing of the lift to a second sub-contractor who employed the installer to undertake the final phases of work.

The company pleaded guilty to breaching section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined a total of £20,000 and ordered to pay costs of £25,000. The company has now stopped trading and has limited financial resources.

A HSE Inspector commented upon the case:
"This tragic event illustrates the critical importance of having sufficient protective features within a control system.

Just one fault sent this lift out of control. Completed lifts have many protective features and this principle cannot be ignored when lifts are being constructed. That is why the permanent car top controls should be used whenever possible, rather than temporary ones."

Company fined £210,000 after driver killed at landfill site

The death of a driver at a landfill site in Northamptonshire led to a waste management and recycling company being prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive and being fined £210,000.

The Driver arrived at the site to empty his refuse lorry and had to be assisted onto and off the tipping area as wet weather had led to soft ground conditions at the site. A bulldozer towed the refuse lorry to the tipping area where he discharged part of his load, in order to shed the rest of the load, the lorry needed to move forward but had become bogged sown in the soft ground. The Driver was radioed by the driver of the compactor who was spreading rubbish behind his lorry, to say he would drive up behind the Driver’s lorry and push it forward using the compactor. The bulldozer in front of the Driver reversed up to the front of the lorry to give him a tow.

Both vehicles tried to help the lorry move, without communicating with each other.

As the compactor began to push the lorry forward, the Driver was attaching a tow rope from the bulldozer to the front of his lorry. He was crushed to death between his lorry and the back of the bulldozer.

Northampton Crown Court heard that the landfill company had not defined supervisory roles for the staff at the site and that there were ambiguous site rules concerning the pushing of lorries. It also heard how new working arrangements had been introduced at the site a few days before the incident without being properly assessed for risk.

The company was fined £210,000 and ordered to pay costs of £38,000 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

A HSE Inspector said:
"Every company has a legal responsibility to take care of people working on their site, whether they are employed by them or not, in whatever circumstances they are asked to operate. Assessing risks, mitigating them wherever possible or stopping work as appropriate is the least people should expect from companies. Employers need to ensure their staff understand their roles and responsibilities in making sure sites like this operate to clear site safety rules."

"In this case, the prosecution shows that this has not happened and the Driver’s family have lost him as a result."

This sort of accident could have been avoided through conducting an appropriate risk assessment. Find out more about risk assessments and how we can help you by telephoning us on 01509 550023.

Website

Monday, 7 June 2010

Store owner fined after failing to put safety of public first

A store owner was fined about £12,500 after being held responsible for an accident in which a three-year-old girl suffered second degree burns. The child’s dress caught fire as she walked past a propane space heater in the store. It was only the bravery of the child's father (who was also treated in hospital for burns to his hands as he tried to put out the flames) that prevented his daughter from suffering even more serious injuries.

Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service Fire Safety Enforcement Officers and Environmental Health Officers from West Lancashire Borough Council launched a joint prosecution against the fabric store. The business owner was found to be in breach of Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 .

Fire service investigators who visited the business in the aftermath of the incident were said to be “appalled” by the lack of fire safety in this commercial site and the fire service concluded that the owner:

"failed to put the safety of the public first"

The store owner failed to initiate basic risk assessments, failed to fit fire or smoke detectors and alarms, failed to provide escape routes with suitable lighting and failed to ensure fire escapes could be used safely and quickly.

A spokesman for the Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service Fire said:

"Under fire safety regulations every ‘responsible person’ is required to carry out a Fire Risk Assessment. This may be done as part of the general Health and Safety Risk Assessment, or as a separate and specific Fire Risk Assessment.

Regrettably in this instance the responsible person had failed to undertake a Fire Risk Assessment which would have identified the unsuitable use of the space heater along with the lack of general fire precaution, and steps required to ensure public safety."

The store owner was also found guilty of offences under the Health and Safety at Work Act brought by West Lancashire Council.

Food Safety - Scores on the Doors

Consumers in most areas can see how well a food business complies with food hygiene regulations through ‘Scores on the Doors’ schemes run by their local authority.

The primary purpose of these ‘Scores on the Doors’ schemes is to allow consumers to make informed choices about the places in which they eat out and from which they purchase food, and, through this, to encourage businesses to improve hygiene standards. Journalists also make use of the ‘Scores on the Doors’ system to publicise the standards of food businesses.

Local authority enforcement officers are responsible for inspecting food businesses to ensure that they meet the legal requirements on food hygiene. Under ‘Scores on the Doors’ schemes, each food outlet is given a hygiene rating or hygiene score that reflects the inspection findings and may display this in their premises where consumers can see it. Scores are also available via websites where consumers can see the scores for all the businesses in the local area.

At the moment, more than 200 local authorities across the UK have Scores on the Doors schemes in place. These schemes vary in their design and the way that they are operated. Some authorities use a star grading system, usually three or five star ranges, others use smiley face symbols. The Food Standards Agency is hoping to standardise the system nationwide to make it easier to understand.

Freedom of information legislation means that inspection reports on food hygiene are in the public domain and any member of the public can ask to see them. ‘Scores on the Doors’ makes food safety conditions at individual premises even more obvious and accessible to the public and the media

To maximise the potential ‘Scores on the Doors’ score it is obviously important to demonstrate good cleaning and food safety practices during the inspection. Just as important as this, however, is to be able to prove that management and staff have received adequate training in food hygiene and that there is a sufficient written food safety management system in place. The weighting given to training and management systems in the scoring of ‘Scores on the Doors’ is high. This often means that where these are lacking, a low score is given even when the physical conditions and practices on site during the inspection are good.

Creating a food safety management system does not have to be complicated. The Food Standards Agency has provided a very easy to use system called ‘Safer Food, Better Business’, which can either be found on the internet or can be provided in paper form from your local authority Environmental Health Department. The hazard analysis part of the system is in a really easy to use ‘fill in the gaps’ format and the record keeping diary is also very simple. There is no requirement for endless records and emphasis is put on only recording things that go wrong and what corrective action is taken.

Training is also easy to do. The ‘Safer Food Better Business System’ itself can be used to aid in house training and excellent food safety courses are available from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and other organisations. These are often available through local colleges, local authorities and many private training centres.

Need Help? Contact us at our website

Wednesday, 2 June 2010

Former pub landlord fined £16,000 for fire safety breaches

A former pub landlord has been ordered to pay a total of £16,015 in fines and costs for serious breaches of fire safety law following a prosecution brought by London Fire Brigade. The former landlord pleaded guilty to 16 contraventions of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order.

Isleworth Crown Court heard that fire officers inspecting the public house in August 2008 uncovered a number of failings, including no fire risk assessment, no portable fire extinguishers, and no emergency signage.

After explaining their concerns and asking for the faults to be rectified, fire officers revisited the premises and issued an enforcement notice when they found continuing non-compliance.

When officers again visited the premises, conditions had deteriorated and the brigade served a prohibition notice banning the use of the upper floors by staff and guests because the risk from fire was so serious. However, a subsequent visit confirmed that the upper floors were still being used as accommodation.

Following a further inspection in May 2009, the owner of the premises took action at the recommendation of fire officers and physically barred access to the upper floor.

As pub landlord during the period, the former landlord was the responsible person under the Fire Safety Order, and was fined accordingly.

Monday, 10 May 2010

A Burnley tool manufacturer was fined £1,000 after one of its workers lost a finger when it became trapped in machinery.

The tool manufacturer was prosecuted by the HSE following the incident. The injured worker was using a piece of emery cloth to reduce the size of a metal component on a metalworking lathe. Predictably, the cloth became trapped by the rotating mechanism, pulling in his right hand. Mr Whittaker was wearing a glove at the time which pulled his hand further into the machinery.

The worker had not received training on how to operate the machine safely, or on the dangers of using emery cloths on metalworking lathes. The HSE investigation revealed that the company had failed to assess adequately the risks of using emery cloths on rotating equipment and had not implemented a safe system of work to control the risks.

The HSE commented:

"Paul Whittaker has been unable to return to work and his injury has significantly affected his ability to grip and lift with his right hand. Sadly injuries like the one he suffered are all too common.

"A significant proportion of incidents at lathes are caused by emery clothes being used in an unsafe way. If Mr Whittaker had been warned against using a piece of emery cloth while he worked on the lathe, he would not have lost his finger."

"This incident is also a reminder that gloves should not be worn when working with rotating parts. I hope manufacturers learn lessons from this case so that no more workers suffer permanent injuries in the future."