Most of us would like to feel that we have identified and managed the risks within our business but we often have nagging doubts about having assessed everything.  Most businesses start at the most obvious and work their way down, falls from height, being hit by vehicles, fire and so on.  Once these have been addressed we may well move onto areas in which we feel we have a little less competence, ergonomics and electricity.  Often the last area to receive the attention it deserves is COSHH as many staff feel that a trip back to the chemistry class to learn more about these types of risks is not the most appetising way to spend an afternoon or two!

However, I’m sure that you’re aware that it’s certainly an area which needs attention and one which isn’t as bad as you may have feared once you get hold of the right information (usually supplemented by a helping hand from someone who has been there before).  You may now feel that you’ve started to get on top of these risks but there is an area which continues to befuddle an awful lot of businesses and that’s the area of health surveillance.

Recent research has shown that despite the fall in fatalities and other statistics over the past year to a record low of 151  we are experiencing a rise in occupational health illnesses, take a look at the statistics;

• Occupational cancers: 15,000 deaths per year
• Work related lung conditions: 4,000 deaths per year

There is still a tendency to view occupational diseases and illness as being a thing of the past, mainly related to industries such as mining and heavy engineering. The reality is very different. Despite huge advancements in technology and changes in the labour market the editor of International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health has claimed ‘never in history has there been so much occupational disease as exists in the world today’.

So the next question is; what can be done to manage these risks.  Thankfully the answer is often quite simple and you should look at all of some of the following;

• Hearing tests (audiometry) for workers exposed to high levels of noise (we can provide this service if required)
• Health surveillance using questionnaires (we can provide these under your Safety~net membership to cover the potential for skin disorders and respiratory problems)
• Lung function tests for workers using respiratory sensitisers / irritants or exposed to high levels of dusts or similar

Whilst on this subject you should also review your provision of protective equipment and take another look to make sure that it is being used consistently and effectively; check gloves for holes in fingertips by blowing them up and checking for leaks and check masks for fit using fit test equipment and simple observational tests such as looking for signs of dust ingress on the sides of the nose and mouth.

Remember; Issuing our health questionnaires is free, quick and easy.  Just call us to receive a copy and you’ll already be on the way to addressing this risk.

C&G Safety & Environmental has introduced Safety 247, an on-line service for companies who are struggling to manage complex health & safety requirements. It allows companies to put all their training needs, statutory tests, checks and inspections, documents and other details on a web database which will automatically remind them when they need to take action.

The system collects all the necessary data through audits and inspections and keeps it up to date.   A training matrix is prepared with the various course types and due dates entered.  The client is alerted by email whenever a test or inspection needs to be arranged, documents need to be updated or someone’s training is due for a refresher.   The user can see an audit report summary which shows all sites and outstanding issues, inspection dates, copies of reports and so on.  Sub-contractor assessments and approvals can also be monitored.  All safety documents are stored on line for ready access.

“Many of our clients are finding it a major headache to keep on top of the increasing body of safety legislation” says Roger Hart of C&G Safety & Environmental.  “Safety 247 looks after it all.  It also allows clients to present a more professional image to clients, and to keep costs down.”  More information at www.safety247.co.uk

Most of us use the services of an insurance company not just for our insurance needs but also to carry out thorough inspections, tests and examinations of the plant, equipment and machinery which we have within the business, typically forklift trucks.

In a situation such as this imagine that the insurance inspector identifies that one of the trucks has a serious defect with its lifting chains making it unsafe to use. The inspector contacted you and advised that it needed to be taken out of service immediately pending corrective work.

A few days after the visit by the insurance assessor, you are then contacted by your local HSE office. They had been told of the faults with the forklift truck and wanted to know what was being done about it.

Why did the insurer reported this?

Regulation 10 of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations states that the competent person completing the statutory inspection must do the following:

“Where there is in his opinion a defect in the lifting equipment involving an existing or imminent risk of serious personal injury, send a copy of the report as soon as is practicable to the relevant enforcing authority.”

Technically, the competent person completing the inspection should always tell you that they need to report the defects to the HSE but this doesn’t always happen. So we would suggest that if you are informed that any item of equipment or plant has a serious defect, ask whether it’s serious enough to be reported to the HSE or other any other authority.

Whilst its true that you can’t stop the report from being made, you can take steps to demonstrate that the truck was taken out of service immediately, that you have commissioned a company to complete the works required, and systems have been put into place to help prevent this happening again.

Remember

Your plant, equipment and machinery should be under a regime of regular maintenance to make sure that they can’t get into a condition whereby a serious defect report would need to be made in the first place.  Review your recent reports and if you find that serious reports have been brought up before then re-examine your current maintenance arrangements.

HSE and Local Authority inspectors will soon embark on a round of over 3,000 inspections centered on those with LPG installation at their sites. If you are within scope you should have received and completed a questionnaire within the past few months.

However, if you received but choose not to complete the questionnaire then prepare yourself for a visit. A selection has been made and this will be a mix of people who completed and returned the questionnaire but all of those who choose not to.

If you think you might be one of those who will be visited (or simply if you have a LPG installation at your site) use the following key points to review your current arrangements;

• Storage vessels. Details of the type, size and number of bulk tanks, their condition, separation from buildings etc.
• Environment. The safety of the location, e.g. whether the tank is protected from vehicle impact, the presence of safety signs and delivery facilities.
• Pipework. The safety of both visible and underground pipework including the materials used, condition, protection from damage and the inspection regime.
• Risk of fire/explosion. Factors which increase the likelihood of a leak entering buildings, e.g. routing of pipework.
• Management. The overall management approach, including the training of staff and the implementation of plans to replace buried metallic pipework.

If you require any assistance with this matter please contact us.  Our expert Dangerous Goods Safety Advisors (DGSA) and safety consultants are here and ready to help you.  Just call 01453 800100 or contact us using the form on this website.

Most businesses use agency staff at some point.  Whether to cover a longer term absence, cope with an upturn in business or to cover a the absence of a key worker.

Naturally, the person who is employed to carry out this role has a right to expect a safe workplace and you, as an employer, have a duty of care towards them.  But what of the employment agency?  How can you share the risk of employment and what should your agency be doing to help you manage the risk?

Read on for an interesting update of what should be happening and what you can do to share the burden of risk management.

The Employment Agency Standards (EAS) inspectorate has reported that eleven out of twelve employment agencies it investigated were failing in their health and safety duties.  If you do use agencies you should be aware that they share the burden of good health and safety with you and must play their role to ensure that their staff are safe whilst working on your premises.

The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 (CEAEBR) clearly sets out the safeguards which should be in place. In total, the investigation found evidence of 57 infringements. Of particular concern were the breaches of the CEAEBR health and safety requirements. These state that an employment agency may not, “introduce or supply a work-seeker to a hirer unless the agency or employment business has obtained sufficient information from the hirer”. Specifically, the agency must identify from the hirer “any risks to health or safety and the steps the hirer has taken to prevent or control such risks”.

If you’re using employment agencies:

• Supply your agency with copies of relevant risk assessments.
• Set out details of the experience, training, qualifications and any particular authorisations required.
• Remind the agency of their legal responsibility under the CEAEBR to pass on the information about the risks of the job and to check that the workers they supply will meet all of your requirements.
• Ask them to sign to confirm that they have fulfilled all of these responsibilities.

A stonemasons has been fined £30,000 after employees working around silica based materials fell ill with lung diseases. William Anelay Limited has been told by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to take correct safety precautions after two employees developed the potentially life shortening illnesses upon exposure to uncontrolled levels of respirable crystalline silica.

The York based firm admitted breaching the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. The city’s crown court heard the exposure, between May 1994 and July 2008, is caused primarily by dry stone carving without extraction ventilation or use of protective equipment.

William Anelay, of Murton Way, Osbaldwick, had employed the two stonemasons for many years and high levels of airborne silica were identified 14 years before the case was brought, but measures previously taken to protect workers were inadequate, York Crown Court heard.

The victims’ disabilities were so severe that one took early retirement and the other was unable to work as a stonemason. HSE Inspector Julian Franklin said: “Had the company acted on the information they received after a survey in 1994, these men may not now be suffering from serious illnesses.”

We provide a full range of air sampling and COSHH assessment services covering welding fume, solvent vapours, solder fume, tributyl phosphate and almost any other substance used in the workplace. Call us to clear common sense advice on your COSHH risk assessment needs.

An HSE inspector prosecuting a theme-park firm over the death of a worker ended up in the dock owing to her behaviour in court.

Inspector Helen Diamond was fined £2000 at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court on 10 November after being found in contempt of court. The charge related to her behaviour in court and towards a defence witness during the trial of Parkware Ltd, owner of the Loudoun Castle theme park in Galston, Ayrshire.

Martin Smith, who worked as a ride operator at the theme park at the time of the incident, who had given evidence for the defence, was later approached in the common area outside the court room by Diamond who asked him what his degree was in, and when he replied accountancy she told him it could have been in drama after his “performance”.

Then, while another defence witness was giving evidence, Sheriff Elizabeth McFarlane noticed the inspector pulling faces and shaking her head in the public gallery, although the Sheriff decided not to bring her behaviour to the court’s attention at this point.

Susan Duff, who was representing Parkware, made a motion to the court to have Diamond excluded because of the incident with Smith. Sheriff McFarlane agreed and told Diamond that she was considering whether her actions were in contempt. The trial ended on 10 October, with Parkware found not guilty of a contravention of section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, at which point Diamond was recalled to answer a charge of contempt of court, which she accepted.

Diamond was fined £2000 by the Court and a further £500 by HSE plus has been banned from promotion for 3 years and been issued a final written warning.

A spokesperson for the Health & Safety Executive said: “This is a matter of great regret to both the inspector and the HSE. We accept and understand the decision of the court, and HSE has taken its own disciplinary action against the individual, in addition to the sentence imposed by the court. We expect the highest standards of conduct from all our employees and regret what happened in this case.”

The HSE also confirmed that it intends to write to its field staff to “remind them about court etiquette”.

The death of a seven-year-old, who’d managed to gain access to scaffolding, led to a successful prosecution by the HSE.
Background
Lovell Partnerships Ltd erected a scaffold so that its staff could repair a chimney flue whilst controlling the risk of falling from height, all well and good you might think. The plan was to put the scaffold up, complete the work, and then take it back down again shortly afterwards. However, work was delayed due to an unexpected hold-up and the scaffold remained in place.
As the scaffold was there with no one using it, local children soon adopted it as a playground. They even built a den on the roof of the building. However, twelve days after the scaffold was erected, seven-year-old Adam Triffin fell from it to his death.
Prosecution
The subsequent HSE investigation identified that the accident happened because the scaffolding had been in place long after the time when it should have been needed. The HSE Principal Inspector stated that had the scaffold been removed promptly when it was no longer needed the accident would not have occurred leading to a fine of £75,000 and costs of £46,109 against the company.

Rough justice
You could argue that this was a little heavy handed. Although the company had left the scaffold in place this was due to unforeseen circumstances, further, the company had taken steps to make access more difficult including the removal of access ladder to the lower levels of the platform. However, in this case access was made from the balcony of the building which children did have access to (the area was not fenced off as a construction site and the work area was in the middle of a housing estate), had the company netted the scaffold to prevent this access the courts decision could have been different.

Lessons
If you leave items plant, equipment or access you could be at risk. Construction sites are an attraction to children and the Courts recognise this fact when considering cases such as these. Take some time to review your current arrangements and see if you would pass this test, if you need help in this simply contact us for some free advice and assistance.