From February 1st 2013 the use of elemental copper as a biocidal treatment to prevent and control the growth of legionella is no longer legal despite opposition by the Health and Safety Executive.

Legionella bacteria

A decision was taken at EU level which means that as of February 1, the use of copper as a biocide is no longer allowed under the European Biocidal Products Directive and the Biocidal Products Regulations 2001. The HSE doesn’t agree with the EU here. In fact, it’s taken steps to have the decision overturned.  Further both HSe and local authorities will not be taking action against anyone who still has this system of treatment in place.

HSE has been quick to state that if your system makes use of copper as a treatment you shouldn’t just turn it off but you should be aware that your supplier is no longer allowed to replenish the system.

The HSE’s current position is as follows:

“The focus of any enforcement activity will be on the failure to control the risk of exposure to legionella bacteria and the likelihood of Legionnaire’s disease developing in a given situation, rather than on the means of control.”

 When we have more news we’ll post an update.

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

The use of electronic cigarettes is on the rise in the UK but questions remain over their use, particularly in the workplace.

E cigarettes; are they harmful and where can they be used in the workplace

We’re now used to the outlawing of smoking within the workplace but when someone is not technically smoking how do the rules apply?

Our advice is that you should treat e cigarettes as normal cigarettes in terms of where people are allowed to smoke and this includes from a safety perspective as well as a compliance one.

Arguments can be made that the liquids nicotine which is vapourised within these e cigarettes is relatively harmless but it is mixed with a number of other substances in order to produce the smoke like vapour including water, flavoring, and propylene glycol, a solvent for flavorings.

So, whilst there is currently no evidence to suggest that e cigarettes are harmful in themselves you should still have controls on their use in the workplace.

If you’ve got questions or need support on safety in the industrial, contracting or construction sectors please contact us for sensible and proportionate advice on 01453 800100

Since the advent of Fee For intervention on October 1st 2012 little has been heard about the level of activity on FFI or about how much the scheme will actually generate.  We now know from our own experience that FFI impact is only just being felt and that it is now being followed up by a major drive to target refurbishment projects in particular.

This has been coupled with some candid comments from David Ashton, HSE’s Head of Field Operations who stated at a recent conference on FFI progress that “the money is really coming in”.  Good news for a regulator whose budget has been slashed by 35% but perhaps bad news for a mix of businesses including building services engineers, Solar PV installers, electrical contractors and similar all of which have suffered in the recent refurbishment enforcement drive.

HSE’s FFI Scheme starts to accelerate, refurbishment, solar PV / renewables and contracting to be hardest hit

When we looked in detail at the statistics for FFI the current situation and what we can expect in the near future becomes far clearer;

• October 1 to November 30 2012, the HSE issued bills totalling £700,000 from 1,491 invoices with 903 visits completed;
• Based on that level of income the scheme would generate on £4.3 million in its first year – some £32.7 million behind target;
• In order to reach the target HSE will need to extend the scheme to reach far more businesses and for fines to be at a much higher level (fines in the first two months were low with less than 10% of cases resulting in fines of over £1,000 and 70% being less than £500);
• We can expect the coming months to build on current numbers and fine levels if targets are to be reached with each two month cycle requiring at least £3.6 million – a more than five fold increase;
• If you are unsure if HSE can or will proceed to reach the target HSE’s Head of Field Operations also touched on the impact of the scheme on his staff “It has been difficult,” “Some have said they didn’t join the HSE to be a revenue collector but I ask them to turn around and look at what is best for our customers, and that is an adequately-resourced regulator.”

With HSE admitting that it is now actively looking to recruit new inspectors clients should be aware, particularly those involved in contracting, that HSE inspection will become a more and more likely with event RIDDOR reports and complaints from staff and members of the public likely to trigger a visit from an Inspector.

Your only defence against this is good health and safety management and having the skills and resources to be able to react quickly when a breach is identified.  If you need more support and are a client of C&G Safety please contact us and ask about our discounted offer for additional cover and also about our insurance policies which may be able to protect you from all costs associated with FFI.

If you need to know more about the FFI scheme please click to download our FFI White Paper if you would like to speak directly to an experienced safety consultant about supporting and protecting your business from FFI simply request a call back or call us on 01453 800100

A recent case highlights that it is not only the HSE who are watching when contractors implement poor practices at site.  In fact, given the huge budget cuts that HSE is enduring at present we are seeing more and more instances when concerned third parties are the ones whistle blowing poor standards of safety management at site.

Remember, and make your staff aware, someone is always watching you…

A Willenhall refurbishment and shop fitting company has been fined for safety failings after instructing two employees to work at height without any protective measures or relevant roofwork training.

The men were working on the roof of a large furniture store in Bridgtown, Cannock, on 26 September 2011 for Fastrac Profiles Limited when they were spotted and photographed by a concerned member of the public.

A complaint was made to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which visited the Green Lane premises and found the workers were not trained for the roof repairs they were undertaking.

Dangerous work at height, elevating work platform, company prosecuted

Stafford Magistrates’ Court heard today (30 January) that they had been instructed to weld steel to uprights at the apex of a roof. The work was poorly planned and no risk assessment had been carried out. HSE inspectors also found that no fall-prevention measures, such as scaffolding, had been put in place.

Although the failings did not result in a fall or injury, the two employees, plus others working below them, were placed in unnecessary danger.

Fastrac Profiles Limited, of Neptune Industrial Estate, Willenhall, near Wolverhampton, was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay £3,761 in costs after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 4(1) of the Work of Height Regulations 2005.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Alastair Choudhury said:

“Falls from height are a significant cause of fatalities and serious injuries. The risks involved with work at height are entirely foreseeable, and it is essential that proper planning, assessment and training is undertaken to reduce these risks.

“Those who neglect to do this, like Fastrac Profiles Limited, and who don’t provide a safe system of work put workers at serious risk. They are clearly failing to comply with the required standard.

“I would like to thank the member of the public who brought this to our attention because the situation had the potential to lead to serious or fatal injuries for both men.”

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

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…)