A Cambridge instrument company and a health and safety consultant have been fined for risking the health of employees from hazardous chemicals.

Paint sprayer Adam Coventon, 36, suffered irritation to his eyes, breathing difficulties, headaches and lost the ability to concentrate after working with harmful substances at Prior Scientific Instruments Ltd in Fulbourn. He is now no longer able to work.

Cambridge Magistrates’ Court heard yesterday (10 January) that his job was to prepare and paint small components for scientific instruments, which involved working with chemicals including trichloroethylene, a powerful de-greaser used to clean metal before it is painted, and paints containing isocyanates.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that Prior Scientific Instruments did not provide suitable equipment to adequately remove the hazardous fumes from the workplace, especially where items were left to dry.

HSE also found that in addition to inadequate controls, the company failed to provide employees with the necessary health surveillance for workers using hazardous substances. Health surveillance is a key part of ensuring that peoples’ health has not been affected by the chemicals they use at work.

The Court was told that between September 2002 and December 2009 the company employed Keith Whiting, trading as KW Consultants, as a health and safety consultant. However, he did not provide suitable information and advice to enable the company to ensure the health and wellbeing of employees.

Prior Scientific Instruments Ltd, of Wilbraham Road, Fulbourn, Cambridge, was fined £9,000 and ordered to pay full costs of £2,852 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Keith Whiting, trading as KW Consultants, of West Street, Chatteris, Cambridgeshire, was fined £1,500 with costs of £1,000 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 3(2) of the same legislation.

After the hearing HSE Inspector Robert Meardon said:

“Prior Scientific Instruments failed to ensure the health of its employees because it employed the wrong person to give it health and safety advice.

“Mr. Whiting’s background was in quality control and he did not have adequate knowledge of health and safety for the work going on in this company. He failed to make them aware of the ‘do’s and don’ts’, regarding the use of hazardous chemicals.

“In 2010, the Government commissioned Lord Young to review health and safety laws and among the findings, the inquiry recognised that there were a lot of people claiming to be health and safety experts, who were in fact, not. The national register of health and safety consultants has been set up as a result. All the consultants who are registered are members of a recognised professional body, and it is important that firms seeking to use a consultant choose one from the register.”

Adam Coventon’s partner, who does not want to be named, said:

“This whole thing has had a huge effect on our lives, as we have to constantly plan around Adam’s symptoms. We all just wish that his remaining symptoms go so that he can once again be fit and strong.

“This case highlights the important job the Health and Safety Executive do, and the need for companies to monitor and control chemicals they use so they do not wreck peoples lives in the way that ours has been.”

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

• Request a call back from one of our consultants

So, you’ve been appointed as the director with particular responsibilities of rhealth and safety at your business, congratulations.  But, what does this actually mean to you?  Can all of the other directors now relax and leave health and safety in your hands knowing that you are crrying the can for their actions – not quite.

You should also note that in teh recent Corporate Manslaughter case involving Lion Steel Equipment the judge noted that a Health adn Safety Director would be expected to “show the skill and care of a competent practitioner in that field”

Your alternative to this is of course to have the outsourced support of someone like ourselves to support and advise you – contact us on 01453 800100 or use these links to get in touch.

You are not aways available for blame

The first concern that most directors hav is that by agreeing to be responsible for health and safety they are sticking a sign on their back saying  to the HSE ‘Kick Me’, this certainly isn’t the case ut you shoudl be aware of the duties you have and where this hands back to your other board members.

As HSE guidance on the subject clearly states;

“board members are collectively responsible for providing leadership and direction on health and safety. The goal of effective management of occupational health and safety is more likely to be achieved where all board members have a proper understanding of the risks, the systems in place for managing the risks and an appreciation of the causes of any failures”

What is my role then?

The true role of the health and safety director is to ensure that the health and safety aspects of the decisions being considered are part of the boards decision maling process.  They shoudl advise the board on the potential impacts of the choices which they are making, examples being the changing of budgets for training or PPE or perhaps the introduction of new plant or equipment into the workplace.

My business is too small to have what you’d call a board but we do have directors

In this case you probably still have meetings, they may not be as formal as a larger business but you shoudl still minyte these meetings and show how health and safety is considered in your decision making process.  This is a key item of evidence to show that you are running your business safely and responsibly should an accident happen.

How can I benchmark our performance?

Use the checklist below, taken from INDG417 to measure your peformance against others, you can download a copy of this document here;

• How do you demonstrate the board’s commitment to health and safety?
• What do you do to ensure appropriate board-level review of health and safety?
• What have you done to ensure your organisation, at all levels including the board,
  receives competent health and safety advice?
• How are you ensuring all staff – including the board – are sufficiently trained and
  competent in their health and safety responsibilities?
• How confident are you that your workforce, particularly safety representatives, are
  consulted properly on health and safety matters, and that their concerns are
  reaching the appropriate level including, as necessary, the board?
• What systems are in place to ensure your organisation’s risks are assessed, and
  that sensible control measures are established and maintained?
• How well do you know what is happening on the ground, and what audits or
  assessments are undertaken to inform you about what your organisation and
  contractors actually do?
• What information does the board receive regularly about health and safety,
  eg performance data and reports on injuries and work-related ill health?
• What targets have you set to improve health and safety and do you benchmark
  your performance against others in your sector or beyond?
• Where changes in working arrangements have significant implications for health and
  safety, how are these brought to the attention of the board?

Electrical inspections – test requirements clarified

We often get clients asking for advice when its comes to electrical testing.   From PAT (portable appliance tests) through to building supply inspections it seems that the waters are rather murky and many business people are frustrated by a lack of clear guidance on what they must do rather than what they could do.  This is further complicated by a range of suppliers who all provide information in a way which makes you suspect that their intentions are more commercial than educational.  If you need access to a quotation for PAT please use the request callback link.

So what are the facts?

Portable appliances
You should have a scheme of inspection (could be visual) by a person competent to spot the risk issues (not necessarily an electrical engineer). However, you’ll find that pretty much everyone interprets this as having a company carry out portable appliance tests once a year for portable equipment (less often for fixed equipment like photocopiers and more often for equipment in tough environments like workshops or construction).

It is your choice to do otherwise but we’d recommend the above, if you wish to do it in house companies such as ourselves can offer one day training courses to give sufficient competence to operate a tester and carry this task out.

Electrical installations
Typically your insurer will ask to see evidence of inspection and test on a five yearly basis. If you have recently moved into your offices you should be in receipt of a handover certificate which states that the installation was carried out in line with the requirements of the current IEE Regulations (17th Edition) and all is well. Once you get five years beyond this its time to review and you’ll need to get hold of a competent contractor to do this for you (NICEIC for example).

Remember, there can be a lot of power moving through the system hidden behind walls and in risers cupboards, poor connections can be overheating or perhaps sparking leading to fire and major problems. Perhaps have a shop around, a larger contractor with heat sensing camera equipment might actually work out to be better value than having to shut down sections whilst the survey is completed.

In summary, none of this is strict law but it is alluded to in the regulations as being reasonable. The fact that just about everyone else is doing it makes complying your best option in this case.  If you have questions then please contact one of our health & safety consultants by calling us on 01453 800100.

More information on PAT test frequency

After a big push on this issue a few years ago HAVS (Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome) is emerging as one of the areas which needs to be reconsidered in terms of its impact on the health of our workers.  Use of a simple annual health questionnaire may be enough for you to comply with the requirements of the regulations but research recently completed indicates that as few as 18% of companies are carrying this out.

Video: Managing risk from Hand Arm Vibration (HAVS)

Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome – Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005

These regulations set out the levels which are acceptable and the requirement of health surveillance required should you workers exceed the action value (2.5 m/s-1 averaged over an eight hour period).  Don’t forget however, that your first point of action should be to reduce exposure to a level below this figure to effectively control exposure and prevent Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome, this can be done in several ways;

1. Purchase of new equipment of lower vibration
2. Changes in the process to reduce the requirement for holding vibrating tools
3. Changes in work practices to limit exposure
4. Changes in the planning of the work to exposure several staff for shorter periods rather than one worker for an extended time
5. Mechanisation of the process to reduce exposure
6. Lowering the energy requirement of the process (less air pressure, motor speed and so on)

Getting a true picture of exposure

One other aspect which many companies do not have clear enough data on is the true period of exposure.  For vibration exposure we mean the actual time spent using the tool whilst it is vibrating and this can be significantly different to what you might assume.  For example, a road gang may be exposed to very high levels of vibration using abrasive wheels and pneumatic drills but how long is the true exposure?

It might be just a few minutes per day and shared between several staff and this presents a very different picture to an industrial process where exposure can be several hours.

Can we help you prevent staff getting Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome?

If you have an issue with vibration or noise we have the skills and experience to help.  Talk to your retained consultant or if you are not a Safety~net client call us on 01453 800100 to chat through your specific situation and we’ll let you know exactly how we can help.

Two workers injured in explosion after waste burned at site – company prosecuted for actions

Staff employed by 1st Surface Ltd were clearing an overgrown garden. As they worked to clear the various overgrown trees and shrubs they accumulated a large amount of waste –  enough to fill five skips had these been provided.

In the absence of any plan for disposal, the workers decided to burn it.  Management at the company wre not involved in this decision and did not direct the staff to follow the course of action but were prosecuted for the resulting injuries.

As on old air raid shelter was present on site the workers decided to use this as an incinerator and added an amount of dry wood plus petrol to get the fire started.

Given the enclosed nature of the shelter the petrol vapours accumulated in the air raid shelter and built up quickly to a level where they formed an explosive mixture with air. One of the workers then threw a lit taper down the chimney of the shelter and when the flame reached it the vapour exploded.

Injuries to workers

Both men were standing on the shelter and received burns to their faces before being thrown to the ground. Both workers were hospitalised and has not yet returned to work nearly two years after the event.

HSE investigation blamed employer

When HSE investigators reviewed the incident they blamed the employer in spite of the fact that the method of waste disposal had not been sanctioned by management.

HSE considered that the men would not have followed the method of work they resorted to had the employer made suitable arrangements to remove the waste safely.

1st Surface Ltd pleaded guilty to health and safety charges and were fortunate to be fined a small amount of £9,000 with £2,571 in costs.

Link to petrol safety advice

See our guidance on how to store petrol safely

Published on October 30th HSE’s figures show a reduction in deaths in UK workplaces withe to total falling from 175 last year to 173. However, workplace ill health continues to be a concern and this strengthens the likelihood of it being a key issue for FFI as we thought in our recent FFI white paper.

In the year to March 2012 fewer people were killed or injured at work in the UK (173 Vs 175) compared to 2010/11 and numbers remain below the five-year average (more…)

Norfolk based business AgChemAccess, an international agrochemicals supplier with a workforce of about 65 people, intends to sue the HSE for around £2m in lost business.

The HSE took enforcement action on 10 July, prohibiting the company from moving any of its UK stock, as the regulator believed there was a breach of safety regulations relating to the packaging of a shipment of the herbicide glyphosate.

Nick Gooch, managing director at AgChemAccess, slammed the HSE for being too heavy-handed by imposing a blanket ban on the movement of all its products stored in two warehouses, instead of focusing on the shipment issue in isolation.

Note: Prohibition notices should focus on imminent danger and also be localised to that danger

The company sought a judicial review in the High Court but before this could be heard the HSE agreed, on the 29 August, to lift the enforcement ban.

The company’s legal fees of around £200,000 will now be met by the taxpayer, but AgChemAccess is also seeking damages for contracts lost during the eight weeks of the ban. Ten employees also lost their jobs, as a direct result of the freeze in trading, according to the firm.

“They [HSE inspectors] were told that a small amount of this product had leaked,” he explained. “They didn’t stop and ask any questions – they just ploughed on.”

“This has been absolutely disastrous for us. We have got products left in store, which we can’t sell for another year, and if it had gone on another two or three weeks, we would have gone out of business.”

“Not only have we had to shed 10 jobs, but our UK and international reputation has suffered. We have long-standing customers who have gone elsewhere because we could not deliver to them. Potential new contracts have also been lost.”

Darren Bowen, a partner at Leathes Prior Solicitors, which represents AgChemAccess, said he was surprised by the actions of the HSE inspector in this matter.  He remarked:

“The HSE has an important role to play in protecting the public interest but, as demonstrated in this case, this needs to be balanced against the rights of a business to undertake its legitimate trade. I believe it is fair to say that, on this occasion, the HSE got it very wrong.”

An HSE spokesperson confirmed that there is an ongoing investigation into the activities of AgChemAccess Ltd, as well as ongoing legal proceedings being brought by the company against the HSE. The spokesperson added that, on both matters, “it would be inappropriate to comment further” at this time.

With many businesses are currently preparing for the introduction of the HSE’s Fee for Intervention (FFI) scheme, set to come into operation in just a few days on October 1st, there remain concerns from employers and lawyers about the approach inspectors will take.

Paul Verrico, principal associate at Eversheds law firm, expressed concern that there could be more incidents of regulatory exorbitance once the FFI programme is up and running, commenting:

“One of the chief complaints made by AgChemAccess was the HSE’s complete failure to engage with the company’s concerns about disproportionate use of the HSE’s powers, which effectively meant the business could not trade.

“Next month, companies will also be ineligible for defence-costs orders, even when they successfully defend a regulatory case at court and are found not guilty. This can be seen as further weakening the accountability of regulators and has led to some commentators fearing that more prosecutions could be brought in situations where a conviction is less certain.”

However, our hope is that the AgChemAccess case will help to make inspectors more appreciative of commercial realities and mindful that their actions are necessary and proportionate.

If you would like more information and access to our White Paper on FFI and how it will affect your business please contact us.

Sherborne School in Dorset has been fined £60,000 with £13,000 costs for failure to manage the risk from exposure to asbestos fibres and for failings under the CDM Regulations 2007.

(Note: both contractors and designers have a duty to inform the client of their duty to appoint a competent CDM Coordinator for all projects lasting more than 30 days or 500 person days, however, ignorance of the law provides no defence for the client).

The school and a construction company director were both prosecuted after exposing several people to asbestos and for failing to appoint a Construction Design Management Coordinator (CDMC) on a refurbishment project.  Both building contractors and a teenage work experience student were exposed to asbestos fibres after insulation boards were removed in an unsafe way largely from inadequate planning from as far back as the initial design phases in 2009 which resulted in a complete failure to carry out an appropriate asbestos survey.

All of this was despite the fact that asbestos had been previously identified and removed from other parts of the l and an asbestos register being available.

The court heard that despite the project, despite being large enough to require a CDMC, had not had one appointed. A competent CDM Coordinator would have ensured a full demolition asbestos survey (type 3) was carried out before works had commenced.

Sherborne School was found guilty of breaching Regulation 4(8) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and Regulation 14 of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 and was fined a total of £60,000 and ordered to pay £13,000 in costs.

Peter Eldridge, the construction company director, was found guilty of breaching Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act for his neglect as an individual director. He was also found guilty of breaching Regulations 11(3) and 18(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. He was fined a total of £16,000 in fines and costs.

Speaking after the prosecution, HSE Inspector Joanna Teasdale, said:

“Both Peter Eldridge and Sherborne School knew about the risks posed by the presence of asbestos in the school buildings, and yet they failed to manage the risk of exposure to asbestos fibres during the refurbishment project.  As a result several people, including at least one teenager, were put at unnecessary risk. In being exposed to asbestos fibres they could develop a serious and potentially fatal illness.

“Although Sherborne School was the client, it still had a duty to manage the control of asbestos on its site, and to be aware of the requirements of removing asbestos safely.  This incident and the risk to those involved could have been easily avoided if competent people had been engaged during the planning of the refurbishment project to advise the school, such as a CDM coordinator.”

Contact us on 01453 800 100 if you need expert help with health and safety for a fixed cost.

A recent case involved a builder being fined £100,000 for the deaths of an elderly couple following renovations to their home.  This is a case which is worthy of note and this update contains information, particularly in the graphic below (developed by British Gas)   vital information for anyone having work conducted at their premises or home which involves work close to a gas flue.  Read on for more information and please review the graphic for guidance.

Mohammed Jamil was contracted to raise a garage roof at a house on Mallock Road in Leyton, London, between 14 February and 31 March 2009. During these works he also renovated the garage to allow access to the property’s extension.

On 21 April 2009, homeowners Donald O’Sullivan, 74, and his wife Rosetta O’Sullivan, 71, were found dead at the property having suffered carbon-monoxide poisoning.

As a result of the garage roof being raised the flue of a boiler had become enclosed,which allowed the gas to travel back into the boiler. The gas was able to leak into the house via a crack in the boiler’s casing.

HSE inspector Kevin Smith explained that the flue needed to be positioned a minimum of 300mm above the roof but Mr Jamil had failed to contact a Gas Safe registered engineer to move the flue to comply with these requirements; instead, he cut a hole in the roof, which he assumed would be sufficient to allow the hot gases to escape.

“This graphically illustrates the dangers of builders carrying out work without considering the effects on gas appliances,” said HSE inspector Kevin Smith.

“The builder failed to comply with the standards and regulations relating to gas fittings, which resulted in work that left flues in a dangerous condition, and allowed a colourless, odourless, ‘silent killer’ to enter the property.”

Jamil appeared at the Old Bailey on 20 July and pleaded guilty to breaching reg.8(1) of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998. He was fined £75,000 plus £25,452 in costs, and was given a 12-month community order, which required him to undertake 150 hours of community service.

In mitigation, Jamil said he hadn’t taken steps to raise the flue because he was following instructions from the homeowner. He entered an early guilty plea and had no previous convictions.

Contact us on 01453 800 100 if you need expert help with health and safety for a fixed cost.

C&G Safety & Environmental Safety are pleased to announce that their specialist in Road Transport has successfully been granted membership to the Association of Industrial Road Safety Officers..

AIRSO is a registered charity whose aim is to provide a platform for all who work in the wider area of road safety, whether that be, just to name a few, as a road safety officer, an emergency service worker, a driving instructor, a road or highways engineer, collision investigator, or in vehicle safety product design or development