A six year jail sentence under gross negligence manslaughter, a fine of £400,000 and £55,000 costs hit Allan Thomson, director of demolition firm, Building & Dismantling Contractors Ltd. The firm who subcontracted this work to them, C Smith & Sons (Rochdale) Ltd, were also fined for breaching both the CDM Regulations and Work at Height Regulations, Director Michael Smith was jailed for eight months, fined £90,000 and ordered to pay £45,000 court costs.
Two of Mr Thomson’s workers fell from the roof they were dismantling on the same day, one suffered life changing injuries and the second person died from major head trauma.
The chain of events which led to these tragic accidents are scarcely believable, read on below to find out more.
Originally C Smith & Sons (Rochdale) Ltd were contracted to carry out demolition of some buildings in Stockport in 2014, this work was then subcontracted to Building & Dismantling Contractors Ltd.
A method known as remote demolition was selected which meant minimal risk to staff as it was to be carried out using machinery. However, after winning the control Mr Smith decided to dismantle the building piece by piece requiring work at height to remove roofing sheets prior to the structure being dismantled – this work being subcontracted to Allan Thompson of Building & Dismantling Contractors Ltd.
Repeated failures
In January four men employed by Building and Dismantling Contractors Ltd travelled to Stockport to carry out the task of taking the roof apart piece by piece including a 47-year-old man who would sustain life-changing injuries and 42-year-old Scott Harrower, who died as a result of the negligence of Thomson.
The roof comprised corrugated steel sheets and plastic skylights. The skylights had deteriorated over time and had subsequently been covered with corrugated steel sheets in a bid to repair this damage.
On 20 January 2014, Mr Harrower stepped on a skylight but somehow managed to prevent himself falling 30ft to the concrete floor below. Despite this very serious “near miss” the men returned to continue their work the next day.
At just after 9am on Tuesday 21 January 2014, one of the group fell through a skylight to the concrete floor below, fracturing his spine, pelvis, right leg, heel and wrist.
Ambulance and police attended the scene which was “deemed to be an accident” and after advice was given regarding the obligation to inform HSE the police officers left the scene.
Near miss turns into fatal fall
Despite their colleague suffering these horrific injuries, the workmen men were ordered to return to the roof just hours later. At 4pm Scott Harrower, the same person who had almost fallen the previous day, fell through another skylight to the concrete below suffering catastrophic head injuries which led to his death.
Detective Chief Inspector Richard Eales commented:
“It is clear from the evidence that both Smith and Thomson saw an opportunity to make a quick profit without any thought for the workers they sent on to the roof, and as a direct result of that greed Scott died and another man suffered life-changing injuries.
Smith and Thomson’s remorse did not then stretch to admitting their guilt, as both tried to hide behind their companies and refused to plead guilty to the charges levelled against them personally.
Thankfully, the jury saw through their attempts and both now can face justice for the decisions that they made, decisions that have robbed one family of a loving partner, father, and son, and another of a man’s ability to live a life untainted by severe physical injury.”
HSE Inspector Sandra Tomlinson, said:
“Falls from height, and in particular falls involving fragile roofs, are one of the main causes of work-related deaths in Britain. The risks are therefore well-known and documented, as is the guidance on how to reduce these risks.
The roof dismantling works were not properly planned or supervised and adequate precautions, such as netting, were not put in place.
This led to two men falling in separate incidents and resulted in one man suffering life-changing injuries as well as the dreadful tragedy of Mr Harrower’s death.”
Both industrial and construction sites we visit and support often have scaffolding in place and regardless of if you are a client or an experienced contractor, its nice to have sufficient knowledge to complete a quick assessment or to just be able to spot when something is amiss.
For example, you’re a safety manager in an engineering business but work is being done to the roof, or you’re having an extension completed. Or perhaps you’re a site manger in construction but you’d benefit from knowing a bit more.
Scaffold inspection – a need to know more…
With this in mind the National Access and Scaffolding Confederation (NASC) – the leading trade association for the industry within the UK has just completed a 20 page guide which you’re likely to find very useful.
This 20-page document (free to download from the NASC Website or to be distributed by email to those who need it) is intended for use by anybody with responsibility for the management, use, monitoring and provision of scaffolding.
Sections of the document describe:
current scaffolding regulations
what to expect from operatives according to the level of proficiency they have attained, i.e. whether they have CISRS Part 1 or Part 2 or Advanced Scaffolder
scaffold design requirements and how to tell they’ve been met
the minimum personal protective equipment to be worn/used
One of the key things people learn on their first safety courses are key phrases used in health and safety. We, like all professions, are awash with different phrases and acronyms and one of those is ITIS (as in healthandsafetyitis – a condition which can affect us all as some point on another).
However, the phrases behind this is important; Information, Training, Instruction, Supervision. We are told in the classroom that no matter what, we never loose that responsibility to keep pushing the safety and health messages out to our staff. But, the law often sees things in a different and generally quite stark light where things are either OK or not, adequate or simply inadequate.
The case below can therefore be helpful to shed a little more of this light on what a judge might think is appropriate, our only caveat is that this is one case and represents a specific set of circumstances.
A case has recently been heard by the Court of Appeal involving Dean Quantrell and TWA Logistics Ltd. Quantrell was operating a gas powered lift truck to unload vehicles but somehow managed to end up underneath the truck and sustained leg injuries, exactly how this happened is unclear.
Quantrell asserted that he was travelling at low speed when his left foot slipped from the pedal causing him to overbalance and fall. However, the judge at the first hearing in Liverpool was seemingly unconvinced by Quantrells version of events and noted that he had been inconsistent in his story during questioning. In addition, a reconstruction showed the events described to be all but impossible when moving at slow speeds.
The judge concluded that it was more likely that the accident occurred due to a sharp turn at high speed which caused it to tip and the case was dismissed.
The case was taken to the Court of Appeal where Quantrell argued that the accident had happened at low speed and confirmed story he had recounted was broadly correct. He alleged that there were several areas in which TWA Logistics had failed including inadequate training as it had not included specific instruction in driving gas-powered FLTs or familiarisation training at the workplace as required by the Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) for lift trucks. He also felt that insufficient weight had been placed on the lack of enforcement over wearing a seat belt.
The court of appeal disagreed with both arguments and then dismissed Quantrells claim. It found that although the training was not fully compliant with HSE ACoP it had covered the “basic” element just not the required “specific” and “familiarisation” parts. HThe Court felt that there was no link between the accident and any inadequacy of training. The question of seat belt usage was also found to have been given sufficient consideration by the business and although enforcement was not rigorous, it had been reasonable. Evidence being the business supplying buzzers to alert drivers when the seat belt was not used and notices being displayed to remind drivers to use seat belts.
So an interesting conclusion and one which will serve to give some assurance to safety managers and directors alike. Our advice? Make sure you keep records of any reminders, toolbox talks or disciplinary action take relating to safety, it great evidence when you need it.
A CDM Client which failed to appoint a Principal Contractor under the CDM Regulations 2015 has been prosecuted and fined £50,000
Any Client who has building work completed which falls under CDM must appoint a Principal Designer and Principal Contractor in writing – this is one of the key requirements placed on any client under the regulations.
The CDM Client (Ziman Trading Ltd) was developing the New York Hotel in Porth when an investigation found that the company had failed to put in place appropriate measures to control risks from risk on site including fire, asbestos and falls from height. To compound matters, Ziman Trading also failed to co-operate with the investigation and to comply with the enforcement action taken by HSE.
Ziman Trading Limited, of Cefn Coed Road, Cyncoed, Cardiff, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 13(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 and Section 33(1)(G) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £50,000 and ordered to pay costs of £5,478.
CDM Client prosecuted for failing to appoint a Principal Contractor;
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 – Regulation 13(1) which requires a principal contractor to plan, manage and monitor the construction phase and coordinate matters relating to health and safety during the construction phase to ensure the construction work is carried out without risks to health or safety.
Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 – Section 33(1)(G) which is an offence to contravene any requirement or prohibition imposed by an improvement notice or a prohibition notice.
If you’re a client with CDM responsibilities please contact us on 01453 800100 or use the links above and below to find out more about how we can support you. We’ve been involved with CDM Client support since the very start of the CDM Regulations back in 1995 and have several key staff who are very experienced CDM Consultants.
We have yet to meet a client who doesn’t let out an involuntary sigh when we mention the above. To be truthful we do have a slight sinking feeling ourselves and often look around the office for the best person to pass the enquiry to!
There is a lot of advice on how to proceed but an awful lot of information is now outdated or wasn’t the best route in the first place.
First the bad news, the process hasn’t suddenly simplified. The better news, the process has been better defined and there are some short cuts you can make towards getting the right answer.
Step 1 – Get a test
You need to be able to prove competence and that means sitting through and passing the Health, Safety & Environment Test and it must must be passed within the past 2 years.
However, don’t assume this is your only step – not any more. You’ll also need to show evidence of a relevant professional qualification or membership. In fact, even a labourer needs a one day Site Safety Plus or an IOSH Working Safely course under their belt.
Step 2 – Use the Card Route Finder
We’d suggest visiting http://www.cscs.uk.com and heading to the “Use our card finder” button, then click “Search by occupation” .
You’ll need to enter what you do, or you could just view the full list of occupations using the links at the bottom of the web page. once you’ve done that you’ll see a list of card colours and test types and also some guidance on the evidence which you’ll need in terms of qualifications.
But, be careful
Please be aware that a search on the web may lead you to a number of websites which look to profit off the back of this process. Make sure you visit http://www.cscs.uk.com or you could end up paying more than you need to; a test should cost £19.50 and a card should cost £30.00 if you’re paying more than that you’re most likely on the wrong site.
The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations are still raising a huge amount of questions, especially amongst those with new safety duties – designers / architects / structural engineers. We would strongly encourage you to take the time to get some solid guidance which comes (in part) right from the HSE themselves through our Principal Designers Training Day.
We’ve run several of these events and they are always sold out so please book your place soon.
CDM Regulations 2015; Principal Designers Training Awareness Day
Designer Awareness Day CDM 2015:
– prevention through design
– risk appreciation
– supporting small contractors
The South West Working Well Together (WWT) group and the Health and Safety Executive are inviting you to a Designer Awareness Day.
This is a seminar which will include presentations by the Health and Safety Executive and other experienced Construction industry safety Professionals.
WWT is a construction industry led partnership aiming to improve the standards of health and safety. The goal is to achieve a meaningful and sustained reduction in injury and ill-health in the construction industry.
Many people with design responsibilities are not clear how to address, mitigate or eliminate risk at the design stage and are therefore unable to meet the standards expected of them. Designers have a crucial role in improving the performance of the industry.
This event is supported by the professional institutions and HSE. You will gain valuable information about the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDM 2015) which spells out your duty of care – certificates will be provided.
I look forward to meeting you at this seminar.
Pete Creese, Chair Working Well Together South West
Event Programme:
09:00- 09:15 REGISTRATION TEA/COFFEE AND BREAKFAST ROLL
09:15 – 09:30 Welcome and introduction Pete Creese, Chair WWT South West
09:30 – 12:30
CDM 2015 overview and your role PD
Designing in Fire Safety
Pre-Construction Information
Preparation health and safety File
Red, Amber, Green (RAG) lists and their purpose
During the event industry champions will be on hand to answer questions. Refreshments provided.
PARKING
There is plenty of free parking at Plymouth Training Centre. Please park in the car park provided to the left as you enter for the Training Centre.
One of a series of free events which we support with WWT Southwest, this event specifically aims towards the needs of those new to the industry and preventing accidents – ideal for those taking on younger workers and hosting work placements over the summer months
You’re able to book a free place using the link below, read on for more details of what will be covered.
This is one of a series of free partnership events run by the industry for the industry, as part of the UK-wide Working Well Together (WWT) campaign
The aim of this free Safety and Health Awareness event is to raise awareness of key health and safety issues facing the construction industry today. Also, to give practical advice on how to avoid risks on building sites of all sizes – in particular for Apprentices.
The South West Working Well Together Group is running this event, in conjunction with MGF to get our message to apprentices and trainees in construction alongside their employers.
Health and safety professionals and specialist plant providers will be available throughout the day to answer your questions and you will have the opportunity to see live demonstrations of the latest equipment and techniques.
There is no charge for the event. You will be asked to complete a feedback form in return for a Certificate of Attendance.
Your feedback form will be put into a free prize draw
The prize will be an IPad Mini donated by MGF
Parking is on the campus
Event Programme:
08:30 – 09:00 REGISTRATION TEA/COFFEE AND BREAKFAST ROLL
09:00 – 09:15 Welcome and introduction Pete Creese, Chair WWT South West
09:15 – Finish
The programme will consist of talks and demonstrations on:
Have you ever wondered what actually goes on behind those locked doors at a trial for health and safety offences?
Now is your chance to see who gets blamed for what and why and how they get sentenced – a real eye opener for all of us and something worth seeing or perhaps encouraging your Managing Director to attend.
This is an event which is run by Working Well Together Southwest, a partnership between the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and a group of construction and safety professionals, including ourselves.
Even better, our MD, Roger Hart, is the person in the dock! So if you’d like to see him sweating under the glare of the lights and the scrutiny of Pinsent Masons please read more and book your place using the link below.
The health and safety team at Pinsent Masons will present a half day mock trial based on a fictional construction based scenario.
This event will follow the legal process of a criminal trial through to the passing of a verdict and will help provide delegates with an idea of what it feels like to “have your day in court”. This is a hugely informative and a must-see event, providing a valuable and sometimes chilling insight into the legal responsibilities of all decision-makers who arrange and carry out construction work, especially Clients and their Contractors.The event is essential viewing for:
Client decision-makers at all levels
Construction Contract managers
Construction Site managers
The charge for the event is £35 WWT Members £45 Non WWT Members BOOK NOW as places are limited.
Event Programme
9.00 – 9.30 Welcome and introduction to the court 9.30 – 12.00 The Trial 12.00 – 12.15 The Verdict 12.15 – 12.30 Discussion on the verdict and questions 12.30 – 13.30 LUNCH
Due to the restricted size of the Guild Hall, places are limited so please book early to avoid disappointment.
Exeter Guild Hall High Street EX4 3EB Exeter United Kingdom
Wednesday, 29 June 2016 from 08:30 to 13:30 (BST)
Contact us on 01453 800 100 if you need expert help with health and safety for a fixed cost or request a call back.
Welding fumes from mild steels, zintec (zinc alloys), stainless steels, brass, aluminium and phospor bronze all carry a significant risk of long term health problems if exposure is not properly controlled. As occupational hygienists and qualified safety consultants we have many years experience of carrying out air sampling surveys to determine occupational exposure to welding fumes and similar substances.
Air sampling – Welding of Galvanized (zinc coated) Products
Welding of galvanized steel is completed in a very similar way to welding of the bare steel of the same composition. The same welding processes, volts, amps, travel speed, etc. can be used with little modification when the switch is made from uncoated steel to galvanized steel, unless the zinc coating is unusually thick.The difference between welding galvanized steel and welding uncoated steel is a result of the low vaporization temperature of the zinc coating. Zinc melts at about 480°C and vaporises at about 900°C. Since steel melts at approximately 1,500 °C and the welding arc temperature is 8,300 to 11,000°C, the zinc that is near the weld is vaporised. By the time the weld pool freezes, the zinc is gone giving rise to two immediate consequences:
The vaporized zinc increases the volume of welding smoke and fumes.
The zinc at and near any welds is actually burned off by the heat of the arc, removing the protective zinc coating.
Sometimes a white dust can be seen following welds and this is typically zinc oxide, inhalation should be avoided.
Welding fumes sampling method
A measured volume of air is drawn through a membrane filter mounted in a sampler, and the mass of fume collected is determined by weighing the filter before and after sampling subject to a period of stabilisation. The difference in weight reflects the mass of the fume collected and this, coupled with the flowrate and time period, enable the fume levels to be quoted as milligrams per cubic metre (mg.m-3).
Use of welding fume data for the assessment of exposure
Compliance with Regulation 6 of the COSHH Regulations will be ensured if the occupational exposure standard for particulate welding fume does not exceed 5 mg.m3, provided exposure to other toxic constituents of the fume which have lower occupational exposure limits are adequately controlled. It follows that where the fume contains one or more toxic constituents which have lower occupational exposure limits the OES of 5 mg.m3 may no longer apply.In these circumstances the exposure to individual constituents of the welding fume may have to be quantified separately. This procedure may be simplified for purposes of assessment and, where appropriate, monitoring under the COSHH Regulations. The total weight, in mg.m3, of welding fume at which each of the components of the fume will reach its occupational exposure limit can be calculated from the consumable suppliers’ fume analysis data.
Welding Fumes- Background Information
Welding fume is a varying mixture of airborne gases and fine particles which if inhaled or swallowed may be a health risk. The degree of risk will depend on:
the composition of the fume;
the concentration of the fume; and
the duration of exposure.
The main health effects are:
(a) IRRITATION OF THE RESPIRATORY TRACT
Gases or fine particles of fume can cause dryness of the throat, tickling, coughing, tightness of the chest and difficulty in breathing.
(b) METAL FUME FEVER
Inhaling many freshly formed metallic oxides, such as those of zinc, cadmium, copper etc., may lead to acute flu-like illness termed metal fume fever. With the exception of exposure to cadmium fume serious complications are rare. The most common cause of metal fume fever is welding galvanised steel.
(c) SYSTEMIC POISONING
Systemic poisoning can result from inhaling or swallowing substances contained in welding fumes such as fluorides, hexavalent chromium, lead, barium and cadmium. The presence of these substances in the fume depends upon the welding process being used and the material being welded.
(d) LONG TERM OR CHRONIC EFFECTS
Inhaling welding fumes can lead to benign X-ray changes, referred to as siderosis. A subject of current concern is whether welders have an increased risk of developing respiratory cancer, as certain constituents of some welding fumes, such as hexavalent chromium and nickel, may be carcinogenic.
ORIGIN AND CONSTITUENTS OF FUME
To evaluate the risk to health from exposure, information is required on the sources of welding fume and gases. Usually more than 90% of particulate welding fume arises from the vaporisation of the consumable electrode or rod. The metal being welded usually dictates the welding process and the consumable used, but it does not itself contribute significantly to the particulate fume composition except at certain operations which include:
(a) welding through metallic coatings, e.g. zinc and cadmium plated materials;
(b) welding through painted surfaces such as those which contain lead compounds;
(c) removal of base metal, e.g. cutting or arc gouging.
Depending on the welding process, gases encountered during welding may be:
(a) fuel gases which are used in gas welding and cutting which on combustion will produce carbon dioxide and in some circumstances carbon monoxide;
(b) shielding gases such as argon, helium, carbon dioxide or mixtures of these gases. These gases may be toxic or asphyxiant;
(c) gases produced by the action of heat upon the welding flux or slag, such as carbon dioxide and monoxide;
(d) gases produced by the action of heat or ultraviolet radiation upon the atmosphere surrounding the welding arc. These may include nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone. Ozone may be formed at some distance from the arc, depending upon the welding process being used and the metal being welded.
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE COMPOSITION AND CONCENTRATION OF FUMES AND GASES
The quantity and composition of welding fume and gases are influenced by a number of variables, usually dictated by the job requirements. The most important variable is the type of process: however, it does not necessarily follow that exposure to welding fume will be the same for all welders using a similar process. Therefore each welder should be assessed individually in relation to the job that is being carried out. To ensure an adequate assessment of exposure is made it is necessary to consider each of the factors which are relevant to the particular welding operation..
Gas shielded welding
Gas shielded welding uses a continuous solid wire consumable to provide filler metal and form the arc which is protected by an inert gas shield such as argon or helium (MIG (metal inert gas) welding), or an active gas shield such as carbon dioxide or mixtures of gases containing carbon dioxide or oxygen and an inert gas (MAG (metal active gas) welding). Process variables are important: the arc length increases with the current and the mode of metal transfer changes from globular to spray, with a consequent increase in emission of particles and pollutant gases. Another mode of transfer is obtained by using pulsed current conditions, the fume emission rate will depend upon the welding parameters.
Note: when welding aluminium a change to 98% argon gas can help to create cleaner welds and also reduces the generation of Ozone significantly (a respiratory irritant).
THE EFFECT OF WELDING CONSUMABLE ON CONCENTRATION AND COMPOSITION
The type of consumable used, and its chemical composition, will be dictated by the technical demands of the welding process. Various types are available. MIG consumables may consist of a solid bare wire, or copper coated wire and, in the case of FCW, a tubular wire containing flux in-fill. The type of consumable will affect not only the quantity of particulate fume produced, but also its composition.
An adequate assessment of the risk to health from exposure to welding fume needs information on the chemical constituents and their concentration in the fume. Welding fume will usually contain all the chemical elements present in the consumable, although the proportion and toxic nature will have changed as a result of physical and chemical processes which occur during welding. The most important changes concern consumables that contain chromium, such as those used in hardfacing and welding of stainless steel. Chromium metal in arc welding processes oxidises to trivalent chromium compounds but also some conversion to hexavalent chromium may occur. This is important because trivalent and hexavalent chromium have different occupational exposure limits. Trivalent chromium compounds have an OES of 0.5 mg.m3 whereas the ‘guidance value’ given in Table 4 of Guidance Note EH 40 for hexavalent chromium is ten times lower at 0.05 mg.m3. Where hexavalent chromium is present in welding fume it will therefore be the principal substance of hygiene interest.
Stainless steel MIG welding fume usually contains up to 18% chromium but only a small percentage is likely to be present as hexavalent chromium. An adequate assessment of health risk requires information on the chemical constituents and their concentrations produced from a given consumable during a specified process.
The Welding Manufacturers Association has produced a standard format for hazard data sheets for welding consumables to enable their members to comply with their legal obligations under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 Section 6. Most UK manufacturers and suppliers now provide information using this format. The hazard data sheets should include information on chemical analysis of substances of hygiene interest present in the fume produced by the consumable, the appropriate OELs, and an indication of the measures necessary to ensure adequate control.
THE EFFECT OF SURFACE TREATMENT AND PARENT METAL ON COMPOSITION
The composition of the welding consumable is of primary importance in assessment of exposure of welders to fume. In certain circumstances, however, and at specific types of welding operation the surface treatment and composition of the parent metal also need to be considered. Fume from oxygen arc cutting, and flame gouging processes and flame cutting will consist of particulates which are generally similar in composition to the parent metal. Information on the composition of the metal or alloy is important to establish the fume composition and the relevant OEL which will apply. It is likely, although no information is available, that chromium in fume from arc gouging of alloy steels will be present in the hexavalent form and the guidance value of 0.05 mg.m3 for hexavalent chromium will apply.
Surface treatment may include zinc galvanising, cadmium plating or applications of paint primers and sealers. When welding or cutting operations are carried out on coated steels additional constituents of the fume will be formed by the effect of heat on the surface coating. These may include oxides of the metal used for coating, or thermal degradation products from the primer application. Suppliers of coated steels and primer formulations have duties under HSW Act Section 6 to provide information on the composition of the material , the risks and precautions which should be taken during welding. Similarly welding directly on to steel which is coated with oil, to prevent corrosion, can give rise to smoke containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
Welding or flame cutting existing steel structures or cutting metal scrap presents particular problems, as the composition of the metal alloy and any surface coating will not be known. Old structures and plant are frequently coated with paint that may contain lead, zinc, chromate or cadmium pigments, which will increase both the quantity and toxicity of the fume emission. Surfaces treated with PVC and/or chlorinated rubber coatings decompose with heat to give fume and gases containing hydrochloric acid and phosgene. In all cases of cutting and welding it is necessary as part of the assessment to determine the composition of any surface treatment, and the metal where appropriate, before work starts, to prevent or control exposure to toxic substances.
Welding certain metals can produce high concentrations of ozone. The predominant pollutant during MIG/MAG welding of aluminium and aluminium alloys is ozone, similarly significant concentrations of ozone are produced during TIG and MIG welding of stainless steel. Ozone is formed by the effect of ultraviolet radiation from the arc on atmospheric oxygen and can be produced some distance from the arc. Effective control of particulate fume emission in certain circumstances can result in significant increase of ozone generation. This is because particulate welding fume may reduce or inhibit emission of UV radiation from the arc.
JOB ASPECTS THAT AFFECT EXPOSURE TO WELDING FUMES
The type of process, size and composition of any consumable used will influence the amount of fume generated and its composition. However, the extent of exposure to welding fume is considerably influenced by the skill of the welder. Changes in current, voltage, welding angle and arc gap can significantly increase or decrease the quantity of fume generated in a given time.
Welding position
The principal welding positions are flat (downhand) horizontal, vertical and overhead. The downhand position is most commonly used and also induces the highest fume levels in the welder’s breathing zone. The welder’s posture in relation to the welding position is also important: exposures of welders in a crouching position are significantly higher than exposures of welders working in a sitting position, and exposure to fume when standing is intermediate between the crouching and sitting position. These differences reflect the proximity of the welder to the welding plume, and every effort should be made to prevent head and shoulder contact with the plume, by changes where practicable to the working position.
Welding location
Equally important is the location of the welding process. In a large workshop and welding on an open structure welding fume and gases will be partially dispersed and diluted by air movement, and although exposure of the welder may be high during arcing the fume and gases do not accumulate in the working area. In a small workroom, or in a space with restricted air movement, fume from welding processes will not disperse so readily, with the resultant increase in average exposure. Work in confined spaces, such as internal welding of process plant or in ship construction, can lead to accumulation of high concentrations of particulate fume, by-product and shield gases, which do not disperse and require the use of efficient ventilation systems to ensure that exposure is adequately controlled and there is no depletion of oxygen of the working atmosphere.
Duration of exposure
Both long term and short term limits relate to the concentration averaged over a specific reference period. For most substances contained in particulate welding fume the averaging period for the occupational exposure limit is eight hours. Exposure to welding fume will be intermittent, the highest exposures occurring during the welding operation, i.e. during arcing or flame cutting. The periods between the actual welding operation should give rise to minimal exposure to fume, although this will depend upon the size of the workshop, the number of welders, their work patterns and effectiveness of control measures and general ventilation. The pattern of work, the arcing time and down time for any individual welder will vary from day to day and similarly duration of exposure and pattern of work will vary significantly between welders although they may be doing similar work. Exposure (to substances hazardous to health) should be calculated according to the approved method, which is reproduced in Appendix 1 of Guidance Note EH 40. Assessment of average exposure becomes very difficult and will require frequent sampling unless the welding operation is of a routine nature, for example production line welding of domestic boilers.
Driving of fork lift trucks (FLTs) on the public highway
This is a question which has been raised by some clients about using fork lift trucks or other materials handling equipment on public roads and highways. Questions have circulated about the need for registration, tax, lights and MOT – read on to find out how you might be affected If you need advice the DVLA can be contacted on 0300 790 6802, please note that we do not provide advice on this issue.
Guidance
Picture of a fork lift truck
Once a vehicle passes onto a public road (or as seen below certain other categories of “road”) further legislation will apply.
The following information has been taken from advice supplied by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and supporting Guidance V355/1.
The Road Traffic Act 1988 requires that the driver of a motor vehicle when driven on a road must hold the appropriate driving licence, and, if only provisional entitlement is held, to observe the relevant provisional licence conditions.A ‘motor vehicle’ is defined in the 1988 Act as a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads. A “road” is defined as any highway, and any other road to which the public has access.
Consequently it would be advisable in our view for an individual to hold the appropriate driving licence entitlement before using any of these vehicles on a “road”.If the fork lift truck is electrically propelled the driver would need a licence covering category L. Alternatively, if the vehicle is exempt from duty, under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 because it is used for Agricultural, Horticultural or Forestry purposes (and its road travel does not exceed 1.5km each trip between different areas of land occupied by the same person) a category N licence would suffice. A full category B (motor car) licence gives full cover for both categories L and N.
The Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 provides that any mechanically propelled vehicle used or kept on the public road should be registered, licensed and display registration plates. A fork lift truck can also be licensed within the “works truck” taxation class. The term “Works Truck” means a goods vehicle (that is a vehicle constructed or adapted for use and used for the conveyance of goods or burden of any description) which is designed for use in private premises and used on public roads only;
i) for carrying goods between private premises and a vehicle on a road in the immediate vicinity;
or
ii) passing between one part and another or to other private premises in the immediate vicinity;
or
iii) in connection with road works at or in the immediate vicinity of the site of such works.
‘The immediate vicinity’ is a phrase that has been the subject of much debate and ultimately only the courts can decide what is considered to be the ‘immediate vicinity’. We suggest that travelling any distance on a road as qualifying in respect of registration and road tax. To register a fork lift truck you should contact your nearest Vehicle Registration Office. They will also advise you about the taxation position, depending on the form of propulsion and usage that the vehicle in question is put to.
The driver of a fork lift would not be required to hold a driving licence when driving a vehicle on private land/site to which the public has no access, although the insurers of the vehicle may have their own policy on such matters. We would therefore suggest you contact a reputable insurance company to establish whether they would issue insurance cover to a non-licence holder.”
The “Special Vehicle” tax class encompasses the following vehicles:
Mobile Crane
Mobile Pumps
Digging Machine
Road Roller
Showman’s HGV
Showman’s Haulage Special Trailer
Works Truck – The term “Works Truck” means a goods vehicle (that is a vehicle constructed or adapted for use and used for the conveyance of goods or burden of any description) which is designed for use in private premises and used on public roads only:-i) for carrying goods between private premises and a vehicle on a road in the immediate vicinity; orii) passing between one part and another or to other private premises in the immediate vicinity; oriii) in connection with road works at or in the immediate vicinity of the site of such works.
Vehicles of these descriptions weighing up to 3,500kg pay the PLG rate and tax in the PLG class. Vehicles of these descriptions over 3,500kg pay the basic HGV rate and tax in the Special Vehicles class. If these vehicles are used for purposes outside this concession, the appropriate HGV rate applies.
Exempt Vehicles ‘Limited use’ vehicles, vehicles used by a disabled person, Disabled Passenger Vehicle, Historic vehicles, National Health Service vehicles.
‘Limited Use’ applies to a vehicle used solely in connection with agriculture, horticulture or forestry and its road travel does not exceed 1.5km each trip between different areas of land occupied by the same person.
A six year jail sentence under gross negligence manslaughter, a fine of £400,000 and £55,000 costs hit Allan Thomson, director of demolition firm, Building & Dismantling Contractors Ltd. The firm who subcontracted this work to them, C Smith & Sons (Rochdale) Ltd, were also fined for breaching both the CDM Regulations and Work at Height Regulations, Director Michael Smith was jailed for eight months, fined £90,000 and ordered to pay £45,000 court costs.
Welding fumes from mild steels, zintec (zinc alloys), stainless steels, brass, aluminium and phospor bronze all carry a significant risk of long term health problems if exposure is not properly controlled. As occupational hygienists and qualified safety consultants we have many years experience of carrying out air sampling surveys to determine occupational exposure to welding fumes and similar substances.