Updates on new and changing regulations plus best practice in health, safety, quality and environment

Kidde Fire Protection fined £165,000 following fatality due to very poor gas cylinder storage

This is another topic close to our hearts.  Much like the pillar drill issue raised in July, the securing of gas cylinders is a near constant part of our audits and advice for new clients.

The accident below illustrates exactly why we always make time to speak to new clients about the need for good practice, the consequences can be fatal

Three companies involved in a project failed to identify and manage the risk associated with the storage of gas cylinders.  80 cylinders, each two metres high and weighing 142kg we’re stored without their safety citical proection caps.  Beyond this, they weren’t even stored in secure racks.

The accident occured because one of more were most probably knocked over and this sheared the unprotected valve from the body.  The sudden release of energy catapulted each cylinder into another causing a total of 66 cylinders to become damaged and turned into missiles which flew through the air with such force that they went through walls and ceilings and anything and any one which stood in their path.

More surprising still is just who was involved as they should most certainly have known better.  Kidde Products Ltd (fined £165,000 with £59,696.72 in costs for breaches of the CDM Regulations 6 and 13) and Kidde Fire Protection Services Ltd (fined £165,000 with £59,696.72 in costs for breaches s.2-3 of the HSWA) and also Crown House Technologies (fined £117,000 with £119,393.65 in costs for breaches s.2-3 of the HSWA).

Guidelines for safe storage of gas cylinders

  1. Ensure cylinders are fitted with protection caps. These prevent damage to the valve if it’s knocked over and your gas supplier should be able to provide these;
  2. Store cylinders away from sources of ignition and external heat (including direct sunlight) that may affect their physical integrity;
  3. Rotate cylinders stocks to prevent them being stored for excessive periods. Also, don’t order too many – keep numbers to an absolute minimum;
  4. Properly restrain cylinders – unless they’re designed to be free-standing. In most instances, this means strapping them to a trolley, chaining to the wall when upright and in use, or keeping them in a specially designed storage cage;
  5. Check that any storage area is adequately ventilated. The ideal location is a dry, flat spot in the open air;
  6. Don’t store oxygen together with fuel, for example, oxygen and LPG should never be stored next to each other.

If you need help or advice on storage of gas cylinders or any aspect of health and safety then please use the links below to contact us or request a call back – or call and speak directly to a friendly consultant on 01453 800100. You can become a member of our Safety~net support service over the phone and get help right away, whatever your problem.

  • Request a call back from one of our consultants
Posted by Roger Hart

New guidance clarifies insurance position on safety

Health and safety has long been classified as a ‘burden on business in the popular press and amongst many business owners.  However, a little probing by the government has revealed that the crux of the issue isn’t the health and safety people themselves (good news for us!) but rests largely with the application of insurance and how claims are covered.

Issues emerged during government led reviews which showed health and safety being used as an excuse for lack of service, events being cancelled and for business not offering young people much needs work experience.  A contributing factor to this was that some insurance companies were asking for more than was necessary.

In response the ABI (Association of British Insurers) has issued some clear and very welcome guidance on what business can expect from their members and what they in turn expect from the insured, a copy of which can be down loaded here; Health and safety for small/medium sized businesses

Note:  ABI members make up 90% of insurance policies in the UK but its good practice to make sure your insurer is an ABI member by visiting; https://www.abi.org.uk/

Your insurer;

  1. expects you to take reasonable steps to comply with health and safety law;
  2. will not refuse to pay a claim purely because of a breach of health and safety regulations;
  3. will not withdraw cover mid-term simply because of a breach of health and safety regulations; and;
  4. only expects you to hire a health and safety consultant if you lack in-house expertise and need the help due to the complexity or nature of the business.

You, as the insured;

  1. Don’t have to have annual PAT inspections unless it’s in conformance with HSE guidance;
  2. Should have good record keeping if you want to be able to defend a claim;
  3. Should check the guidance defining what is an employee (usually work experience students, apprentices, operators hired or borrowed from another employer, labour-only sub-contractors and home workers);
  4. Should complete inductions, training courses, workplace inspections and risk assessments;
  5. Should have access to a competent consultant on health and safety if your business doesn’t have the necessary expertise in house.

In summary, this is nothing but common sense and hopefully the start of something good.  Working together with industry we’d hope to see a tightening of defences against claims, a reduction in premium for well managed business (think OHSAS 18000) and the return of apprentices and younger work placement staff to job sites.

If you need help or advice on health and safety please contact us or request a call back – or call and speak to a friendly expert on 01453 800100.

Posted by Roger Hart

HSE releases Construction Division plans for 2013/14

With 60% of all HSE visits now resulting in a Fee for Intervention invoice (currently £124 per hour) its clear that you need to be aware of what priorities the HSE is setting for the next 12 months.
It’s clear that the focus has shifted away from strategic issues and projects to freeing up resources for more inspections – which in turn will mean more fee’s from intervention invoicing.
Key areas being targeted are;
  1. asbestos removal work;
  2. small sites/projects;
  3. refurbishment;
  4. major projects/large contractors and clients;
  5. other local priorities

Please note: smaller sites contributed 70% of the 50 fatalities in 2011/12 and HSE will now commit 35% of its resources to be put into inspecting smaller projects

  1. Once on site Inspectors will review any evident risk to life before considering the following five generic issues;

  2. work at height;

  3. asbestos risks;

  4. provision of welfare facilities;

  5. site conditions (good order);

  6. respiratory risks and adequacy of PPE use.

Poor standards in any of these areas is almost certain to land you with a bill for the inspector’s time under FFI so make sure your staff are updated with this information.

One word of warning on hard hats too.   The Construction (Head Protection) Regulations 1989 have recently been repealed and HSE will  be keen to ensure that use of protective helmets is not affected, the requirement of the regulation is still there, its covered under the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 .

Don’t forget the basics and also the role of management in making adequate arrangements for health and safety.

HSE will also be looking at the following;

  1. the effectiveness of leadership by directors and senior managers;
  2. the management of health risks;
  3. involving workers in site safety;
  4. the competency of organisations and individuals;
  5. the management of temporary works including a focus on how the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 are being applied

If you need help or advice on health and safety please contact us or request a call back – or call and speak to a friendly expert on 01453 800100.

Posted by Roger Hart

Construction sites to face HSE’s Fee For Intervention blitz in September

Construction sites across the midlands will come under scrutiny from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) this month as part of a national push to reduce death, injury and ill health within the industry with refurbishment projects being particularly targeted as the Fee for Intervention scheme bites hard on construction.

Inspectors from the HSE will make more than 2,000 unannounced visits to ensure high risk activities, such as working at height and the potential exposure to harmful dusts, are correctly managed.  Clients should also expect increased checks to welfare facilities and employee health surveillance arrangements.

HSE statistics have revealed that those working in construction are four times as likely to be killed at work compared to the average worker, with an estimated 70,000 suffering ill health as a result of their work, despite a reduction in fatalities within the workplace in 2012/13.

Richard Lockwood, HSE Construction Principal Inspector said:

“Too many people die every year on Britain’s construction sites as a result of entirely avoidable incidents. Just as importantly, the cause of ill health, such as unnecessary exposure to asbestos or silica dust can also have fatal or debilitating consequences.

“Often we find it is smaller companies working on refurbishment and repair work who are failing to protect their workers through a lack of awareness and poor control of risks.

“This initiative provides a chance to engage with these firms to help them understand what they need to do, so they can put in place practical measures needed to keep people safe.”

He added: “However if we find evidence that workers are being unnecessarily and irresponsibly put at risk we will not hesitate to take robust action.

“Companies who deliberately cut corners and put their workers or others at risk will feel the full weight of the law.”

If you need help or advice on health and safety or assistance in managing construction safety then please use the links below to contact us or request a call back – or call and speak directly to a friendly consultant on 01453 800100. You can become a member of our Safety~net support service over the phone and get help right away, whatever your problem.  Contact us using the links below to find out more;

  • Request a call back from one of our consultants
Posted by Roger Hart

RIDDOR Regulations to change

On October 1st 2013 changes will be introduced to the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR).  These changes are intended to simplify the mandatory reporting of workplace injuries for businesses, while ensuring that the data collected gives an accurate and useful picture of workplace incidents.

These changes are directly linked to a recommendation by Professor Ragnar Löfstedt in his report ‘Reclaiming health and safety for all: An independent review of health and safety legislation’. Although the process for implementing the changes is on track for implementation from October 2013, they remain subject to Parliamentary approval.

The main changes are to simplify the reporting requirements in the following areas:

  • The classification of ‘major injuries’ to workers is being replaced with a shorter list of
    ‘specified injuries’.
  • The existing schedule detailing 47 types of industrial disease is being replaced with eight categories of reportable work-related illness.
  • Fewer types of ‘dangerous occurrence’ will require reporting.

There are no significant changes to the reporting requirements for:

  • Fatal accidents.
  • Accidents to non-workers (members of the public).
  • Accidents which result in the incapacitation of a worker for more than seven days.

If you need help or advice on health and safety please contact us or request a call back – or call and speak to a friendly expert on 01453 800100.

Posted by Roger Hart

Environment Agency follows HSE’s lead with ‘Polluter Pays’ charges of £84 per hour

Our work covers not just health and safety consultancy but also environmental consultancy and one thing which clients should be aware of is the PICR (Pollution Incident Cost Recovery) Scheme.

Its really very similar to the HSE Fee For Intervention scheme, albeit at a lower fee per hour of £84 rather than £124. You should be aware however that costs may still be recoverable even if the incident does not cause pollution and when an offence has not been committed – somewhat stronger than the HSE version.

Costs which can be recovered include:

  • tracing the source of pollution
  • assessing the possible impact
  • urgent remedial/preventative work
  • materials required
  • samples taken
  • ongoing supervision and other additional specialist costs e.g. fish restocking.

Non-rechargeable costs are:

  • any investigative work once the source of the pollution has been established e.g. follow-up visits to the incident site to check on remediation measures or to monitor the effect on controlled waters
  • any work associated with case file preparation for enforcement action.

The advice remains the same as for FFI; act swiftly to reduce your costs and work with the Inspector to ensure that the offence is brought under control as soon as possible.

More information can be found here; http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/regulation/38813.aspx or use the contact us links above to speak to one of our consultants.

If you need help or advice on health and safety please contact us or request a call back – or call and speak to a friendly expert on 01453 800100.

Posted by Roger Hart

Revised ACoPs have now been issued in draft by HSE, what are the changes?

The coalition have long promised to tame the health and safety monster.  As we have previously reported, most of this has been huff and bluster about removing a third of regulations and scrapping various requirements.  The overall impact on business has been little or no change.

We now have the first of the revised Approved Codes of Practice (ACoP) being issued in draft form for comments and this will give a good indication of the likely impact of the planned changes.

ACoPs are important as they set a base level against which compliance can be judged.  In effect, HSC translate European Directives into UK law and HSE give background and guidance through ACoPs on how UK industry should or could comply with these new requirements.  This is quite valuable and is also used when making a legal argument as to whether a business has complied with its duties under law in the case of prosecutions and claims in the civil and criminal courts.

HSE has been tasked with updated all existing ACoPs and many rumours have surfaced including cutting all documents to no more that 32 pages and cutting out a number of them altogether.  Now that the ACoPs for the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 have been released we can start to learn more about what the approach of HSE is likely to be.

The changes

Beyond the addition of some hyperlinks taking you directly to guidance material on the HSE website there is a lot to report beyond the fact that the are an easier read and some updates have taken place to remove references to legislation which is no longer in force.

The summary:  keep on doing what you’re doing.  The changes are looking to be subtle and the only reports where duties and requirements are being cut are made in the headlines of papers and on press releases from the government – if anything changes rest assured that we’ll do our best to update you!

If you have questions on health and safety or would like to work with a young, business focused, dynamic team of safety consultants (no, really, we are dynamic and business focused – especially compared to our competition) then please contact us or directly on 01453 800100.  We don’t have a sales team and so you’ll speak directly to a person able to answer your questions.

Posted by Roger Hart

Guarding of pillar drills – please don’t repeat this accident

We are only too aware of the reluctance of many businesses to put in place guarding to the chucks and spindles of pillar drills.  We also insist that smaller pillar drills are fixed to the floor to prevent toppling in use (or at least to a large metal plate for smaller works and occasional use).

Read the following and you might see where we’re coming from…

Reproduced from SHP 22 July 2013

A worker suffered a broken neck when his overalls got caught in an unguarded drill bit at a factory in Shropshire.The 39-year-old worker, who wishes to remain anonymous, was working for steel engineering firm CRF (UK) Ltd when the incident took place at its factory in Wem on 6 December 2011.He was operating a twin pillar drill to create a hole in a metal box section, when the sleeve of his overalls became entangled in the running drill spindle, which was unguarded. His arm and body were pulled into the machine and he was pinned against the machine bed. As he couldn’t reach the stop button, he shouted for help and was eventually freed by a colleague.He suffered three fractures in his neck and serious cuts and burns to his right forearm. He spent seven weeks in hospital and was required to wear a neck brace for six months. The left side of his body has been permanently weakened owing to his injuries.

The HSE found the firm had failed to create a safe system of work, with no guards in place to prevent access to the rotating spindles. The investigation also identified that the work wasn’t properly supervised and operators hadn’t been given adequate training to use the machine.

The Executive issued an Improvement Notice to the firm, which required it to create a safe system of work. HSE inspector Marie-Louise Riley-Roberts said: “The custom and practice of the company were to rely on experience rather than on the need for guarding, with the addition of supervision and further instruction and training, as necessary.

“These failings had existed for a considerable amount of time until the practice of using unguarded machines became normal working practice for the employees. The result was that this was an accident waiting to happen and the employee suffered serious injuries.

“This accident could have been prevented by the simple measure of providing guarding to prevent access to the rotating parts.”

CRF (UK) appeared at Shrewsbury Magistrates’ Court on 19 July and pleaded guilty to breaching reg.11 of PUWER 1998. It was fined £13,000 and ordered to pay £7871 in costs.

In mitigation, the firm said it had no previous convictions and complied with the Improvement Notice. It has subsequently installed chuck guards on all of the drilling machines. It has also engaged the services of a new health and safety consultant.

Posted by Roger Hart

Small businesses are spending more on outsourced and external help with health and safety

According to the Forum for Private Business “Sweeping changes” to health and safety laws due to take effect in October should, we are told, see a significant drop in the time and costs spent by smaller business in ensuring they remain compliant with health and safety legislation.
The FPB, whose research of 4000 of its small-business members, was published on 8 July found that internal costs of health and safety compliance have dropped very slightly in the last year from £3.8 billion in 2011 to £3.7 billion 2012 but outsourcing to specialist safety consultants had leapt up by 43 per cent. Health and safety is the third biggest source of small firms’ compliance expenditure, after tax matters (£6bn) and employment law at (£4.7bn).
At seven hours a month, it’s the second biggest consumer of time, after employment law (12.2 hours a month) and before tax matters (6.3 hours). Internal time spent on overall compliance matters is down by 6.8 per cent but money spent on external consultants has risen by 19 per cent, up from £5.8bn to £6.9bn.
FPB policy advisor Robert Downes said the Forum expected a decrease in the cost of managing risk through the end of strict liability, adding: “This will mean firms can’t be held responsible for accidents beyond their control.”When it was pointed out that employers will still have to comply with their legal duties to protect the health and safety of their workers, Downes insisted that the “massive change” that is the removal of strict liability “will change the whole culture by making staff more aware of their own responsibilities”.
The Forum said it would also like to see an assessment of the need for businesses with five, or more employees to have a written risk assessment. According to its data, over the last two years the gap between businesses with fewer than five employees and other, larger, micro-businesses has increased.
If you are interested in outsourcing your business health and safety call us to speak directly to a specialist consultant who will be able to provide a cost either over the phone or within 24 hours, call 01453 800100 or request a call back
Posted by Roger Hart

Health surveillance is part of COSHH – you did realise that didn’t you?

lungsAs an occupational hygienist I did realise that, as a business person with a lot of hats to wear it’s entirely feasible that you didn’t.

If I was a new HSE Inspector tasked with fining people for material breaches of health and safety regulation then Regulation 11 of COSHH is exactly where I would start and I would hit my target for the two month cycle in less than two weeks!

My point is this, health surveillance is something which many people, even safety professionals, can find somewhat confusing resulting in it being put on the shelf to sort out at a future date.  This is why HSE is pushing it as something which needs attention and also why Fee For Intervention is targeting it.

Our advice is not to delay and to get some simple measures in place, for example; staff exposed to solvents on a daily basis should have some checks to make sure their health is being protected.  To begin with why not make use of the simple forms which we can provide to carry out dermatitis and respiratory health questionnaires.

When your staff have completed the forms review the and if they have concerns sit down and talk them through (bearing in mind that health problems can be caused just as easily by what they do outside of work, away from your protective equipment and controls, as they can by what they use within your business).

If you raise some issues you can follow up on this with a simple desktop review or ask one of our occupational hygienists or workplace health consultants to do this for you.  We’ll run through all aspects of the problem and help you determine what might have caused the problem, if it is related to their job and how you can go about controlling the risk and improving their health.

For many businesses simple questionnaires are all that’s needed but when you have higher risk substances and repeated exposures costs need not be high.  Even biological monitoring for the isocyanates used in 2 pack paints and adhesives can be easily completed using urine test kits at a cost of around £50-60 per person.

the bottom line is that you do need to do health surveillance, its written into the COSHH Regulations and has been for years.  Remember, this doesn’t have to be complicated, if you’re already a member of our Safety~net support service just call us and we’ll advise you without charge.  If you’re not yet a member just click here to find out how little it costs to join, click the link and you’ll be under our wing and talking to an expert safety consultant or occupational hygienist in minutes, use the contact links above to reach us or call us on 01453 800100

Reference to the COSHH Regulations:

Regulation 11(9) details the duties on the employer once an employee is found to have an identifiable disease or adverse health effect.  The employer should ensure that:

  • the employee is notified and advised about further health surveillance;
  • the risk assessment is reviewed;
  • the measures taken under Regulation 7 are reviewed;
  • consideration is given to assigning the employee other work; and
  • the health of any other employees who may have been similarly exposed should  be reviewed e.g. another medical examination is required.
Posted by Roger Hart