Phil Chambers at Strategic Safety Systems Ltd.

Composite container manufacturer CBT Packaging fined after a worker's hand was injured

2012-01-06T13:32:00.002Z

Line supervisor Lynda Jackson's hand became trapped when using cleaning paper to dry machine parts after the paper got caught between two glue rollers and her right hand was pulled into the machine, severing two fingers on 22 March 2011.

Following an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the company was fined £12,000, with costs of £4,971.45. HSE Inspector Julie Rayner said: "Lynda Jackson was failed by the company's lack of proper training, inadequate assessment of risks, an absence of safe working practices and preventing access to dangerous equipment. It is simply unacceptable that this lady should be injured at work as a consequence of her employer's negligence. I hope other employers take note of this case and review their own processes."

The investigation found that, although the company's stated policy was not to clean the gluing machine while its rollers were rotating, it was standard practice to ignore this. Basildon Magistrates' Court was told staff were not given adequate training in how to clean the machine safely, and the guard it had been fitted with was not well enough maintained to prevent access to the rollers.

Jackson was off work for approximately two months but has been told the nerve damage she suffered to her fingers may be permanent.

CBT Packaging was not available for comment.

Source: Print Week 6th Jan 2012

More senior managers prosecuted for health and safety failings

2012-01-05T21:16:00.001Z

The number of directors and senior managers prosecuted under section 37 of the HSWA 1974 has rocketed by more than 400 per cent in the last five years, according to unofficial figures released by the HSE in response to a freedom of information (FoI) request.

In October last year, solicitor Lee Hughes asked the regulator a number of questions regarding prosecutions of individual directors over the last 12 years. The figures reported back to Mr Hughes show that 43 directors and/or senior managers and company secretaries were prosecuted under s37 of the HSWA in 2010/11* – the highest since 1999/2000. The total also represents a significant increase on the 12-year-period’s low of 10 prosecutions under s37 in 2005/06, and follows the period’s previous high of 36 – recorded in both 2008/09 and 2009/10.

The total number of individuals convicted under s37 in 2010/11 was 35 – a substantial increase on the five convictions secured in 2005/06.*

Interestingly, of the senior managers and directors prosecuted in 2010/11, seven faced charges as a result of an investigation that followed a fatal incident; 15 were prosecuted for offences that resulted from an investigation where there had not been a fatal incident; and 21 resulted from an investigation where no incident of any nature had occurred.

Following conviction, three directors were disqualified for periods of between four and five years under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. Data in relation to this matter were not available prior to 2008/09, a year in which three directors were also disqualified. None was disqualified in 2009/10.

Disqualification is not confined to s37 breaches; other reasons could include breaches of sections 3(2), 7, 8 and 36 of the 1974 Act, as well as contravention of Improvement or Prohibition Notices. Nevertheless, a general lack of awareness among HSE operations directors and their local-authority counterparts of the 1986 Act provisions was highlighted in an influential research report prepared for the HSE in 2007 by academics at the University of Warwick.

The research, which looked at the period between the 1986 Act coming into force and 2005, concluded that just 10 directors had been disqualified for health and safety reasons over this timespan – a figure dwarfed by the 1500, or so, directors disqualified for insolvency, or other financial reasons over the same period.

In September last year, the Lib Dems put forward a policy paper at their party conference, advocating that the power to disqualify an individual from being a company director should be extended to serious failure to protect employees’ well-being .

Moreover, despite calls for the Institute of Directors/HSE code of practice on directors’ duties to be made statutory, it remains voluntary.

* The HSE cautions that this data has not been validated and may not be completely accurate.

Source: SHP 04 January 2012

Disqualify directors who ignore well-being, say Lib Dems

2012-01-05T21:11:00.001Z

Company directors should be disqualified for serious cases of failing to protect their employees’ well-being, according to a new policy paper from the Liberal Democrats.

Presented at the party’s annual conference in Septmber 2011, the paper details the Lib Dems’ proposals to improve people’s quality of life and well-being. Several proposals concern the workplace, with the party recognising that employers should take action to make their workplaces better environments in which to work, and measure this through employee satisfaction.

It suggests, for example, that employers should implement measures that allow staff to gain a sense of control over how they carry out the task they are doing, and increase flexible-working arrangements. By 2014, it wants to see the 9000, or so largest organisations – which, together, employ half of the UK workforce – report on employee satisfaction and the extent of flexible working.

It also believes that a new National Institute for Well-being should be set up and tasked with creating a way to report this information in an accessible way, so that employers will be encouraged to use it to improve their well-being performance.

Although the Lib Dems argue that these policies should be implemented through cultural change rather than compulsion, the party does believe that the existing power to disqualify an individual from being a company director for financial impropriety should be extended to serious failure to protect employees’ well-being.

According to an HSE-commissioned report published in 2007 on the effectiveness of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, company directors are almost 300 times more likely to be disqualified by a court from acting as a director for financial reasons than for breaching health and safety rules. Researchers from the University of Warwick found that, up to 2005, just ten directors had been disqualified for health and safety breaches, while some 1500 were disqualified for insolvency, or other financial reasons over the same period.

In a speech at the Liberal Democrat conference, the party’s deputy leader, Simon Hughes, said “a new attitude to work could make the biggest change” to quality of life and well-being.

He said: “In the UK, we have one of the most unequal distributions of work in the developed world. Almost four out of every ten men and nearly one out of every eight women work more than 45 hours a week – more than twice as many as our western European neighbours.

“This is a particular problem in the financial sector and at the top of large businesses, where many people work extremely long hours accumulating huge amounts of money, which they barely have the time to spend. At the same time, we also have one of the highest rates of people who work less than 20 hours a week.”

Calling for a radical redistribution of work, he added: “Overwork has hugely damaging consequences for families, relationships and the quality of personal and community life. Lack of work is one of the biggest causes of poverty and poor physical and mental health.”

He concluded: “If we really want to make a difference to quality of life in our country, we need also to tackle inequality of wealth by tackling inequality of work.”

Despite calls for the Institute of Directors/HSE code of practice on directors’ duties to be made statutory, it remains voluntary.

Source: SHP 22 September 2011

Rationalising health and safety law

2011-12-29T14:20:00.002Z

Self-employed people in low-risk occupations will be among the first to benefit from a wholesale revamp of health and safety regulation, which has been promised "sooner rather than later" by employment minister, Chris Grayling, in response to 'Reclaiming health and safety for all: An independent review of health and safety regulation'.

While the review by Professor Lofstedt concludes that the regulatory regime offers vital protection for employees and the public, it identifies factors such as inconsistent enforcement and the influence of third parties that drive businesses beyond what the regulations require and generate excessive paperwork. It makes a total of 26 commendations, of which the following five are being acted upon as a priority:

1) The Health & Safety Executive has been asked to take urgent action to draw up proposals exempting from health and safety law those self employed people in low risk occupations that represent no risk to others.
2) HSE will review its Approved Codes of Practice (ACoP), which, according to Lofsted, are often written in a legalistic manner that confuses, rather than helps, duty-holders. The initial phase of the review should be completed by June 2012.
3) HSE is to undertake a programme of sector-specific regulation consolidation that will reduce the number of regulations by more than 50%, without reducing protection.
4) HSE will be given the authority to direct all local authority health and safety inspection and enforcement, ensuring consistency and the targeting of the most risky businesses.
Regulatory provisions that impose strict liability should be reviewed by June 2013 and either qualified with 'reasonably practicable' where strict liability is not absolutely necessary or amended to prevent civil liability attaching to a breach.

Mr Grayling also announced that the government will form a new panel, where businesses can challenge the decisions of health and safety inspectors and get them overturned immediately if they have got it wrong.
'Reclaiming health and safety for ail: An independent review of health and safety regulation' (Cm8219) is available - at £16.75, from The Stationery Office; tel: 0870 600 5522 - or online, at http://tinyurl.com/bizinf51m67 - pdf.

'The Government response to the Lofstedt Report' is at http://tinyurl.com/bizinf516c7 - pdf. Additional background information is at http://tinyurl.com/blzinf5167p (DWP Information Orderline; tel: 0845 7313233: HSE Infoline; tel: 0845 345 0055).

Make sure you regularly inspect equipment

2011-12-13T15:33:00.001Z

Two construction companies must pay a total of £125,000 in fines and costs for failing to ensure that a cherry-picker, which was involved in a fatality, was safe for use. Amey Infrastructure Services Ltd and Mouchel Parkman Services Ltd were working as a joint venture to carry out maintenance work on the A5036 Princess Way, in Seaforth. A team of six workers were cleaning and replacing the lights on the central reservation when the incident took place on 20 August 2006.

Peter Cole, 61, was employed by Amey Infrastructure Services and was part of the maintenance team working on the dual carriageway. He had repaired one of the lights from inside the basket of a cherry-picker when, as he was being lowered, the vehicle’s lifting arm collapsed. He fell eight metres and landed on the back of the vehicle. He was taken to hospital but died from his injuries the next day.

The HSE’s investigation learned that the cherry-picker, which was one of three identical vehicles rented from Highland Access Ltd, was nine years old and had a lengthy maintenance record. The joint on the cherry-picker’s arm had progressively degraded as a result of exposure to the elements, and, consequently, it could not cope with the force exerted when lowering Mr Cole.

Inspectors also found that Amey Infrastructure Services and Mouchel Parkman Services had a system in place that required the vehicles to be inspected daily, but these checks weren’t consistently carried out. During inspections of the two other hired cherry-pickers, the HSE found faults with the emergency stop mechanism on both vehicles. As a result, both companies were issued with two Prohibition Notices, which required both vehicles to be taken out of service until they were repaired.

HSE inspector Dave Guyers told SHP that both companies should either have ensured that newer cherry-pickers were used, or made sure that regular safety checks on the existing hire vehicles were carried out continuously. He said: “Both companies had a legal duty to ensure Mr Cole remained safe but their checking and maintenance systems were inadequate, and thus allowed him to use a cherry-picker that was in a poor condition.

“Heavy usage and a regular repair record demand that checking and maintenance procedures are carried out thoroughly. This is vital with cherry-pickers, which place users at great risk when working at height.”

Amey Infrastructure Services appeared at Liverpool Crown Court on 1 December and pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) of the HSWA 1974. It was fined £30,000 and ordered to pay £32,500 in costs. Mouchel Parkman Services appeared at the same hearing and pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) of the HSWA 1974. It was ordered to pay the same level in fines and costs. In mitigation, both firms said they had cooperated with the investigation and have subsequently hired new equipment, ensuring that daily checks are carried out on the vehicles.

After the hearing, a spokesperson for Amey Infrastructure Services said: “This case arises out of an accident that occurred over five and a half years ago. The judge noted that none of the acts, or omissions were in any way causative of the death of Mr Peter Cole.” The HSE also brought charges against Highland Access Ltd but the company went into liquidation in July and the case is no longer being pursued.

Source: SHP

Government vows to restore clarity to health and safety regime

2011-11-28T16:15:00.000Z

The Government has announced an immediate consultation on the abolition, consolidation and further review of large numbers of health and safety regulations and aims to remove the first rules from the statute books within a few months.

The announcement follows the publication today (28 November) of Professor Ragnar Löfstedt’s review of health and safety legislation and the Government’s response.

A major change is the establishment from 1 January of a new challenge panel, which will allow businesses to get the decisions of health and safety inspectors overturned immediately if they have got it wrong. However, a DWP spokesperson confirmed to SHP that this is the Government’s interpretation of a specific recommendation in the report, which made no mention of inspectors’ decisions being challenged; rather, Professor Löfstedt proposes that the Government look at introducing a challenge mechanism that allows for cases of incorrect and over-application of health and safety legislation to be addressed.

In general, Prof Löfstedt found that the problem lies less with the regulations themselves and more with the way they are interpreted and applied. Nevertheless, noting that the sheer mass of laws is a key concern for businesses, the report recommends that the HSE undertakes and completes a programme to consolidate sector-specific regulations by April 2015.

In supporting the recommendation, the Government said that, combined with ongoing HSE plans, the consolidation programme would reduce the number of health and safety regulations by more than 50 per cent.

The HSE has also been told to draw up proposals for changing the law to remove health and safety burdens from the self-employed in low-risk occupations, and whose activities represent no risk to other people. The Government said this would bring Britain in line with other European countries and will free around 1 million people from “red tape without impacting on health and safety outcomes”.

It also insisted that where activities of self-employed people could pose a risk to themselves or others – for example, in the building trades – health and safety laws would continue to apply.

Very few laws are to be revoked, but those identified as strong candidates for the scrapheap include the Notification of Tower Cranes Regulations 2010 – because there is no evidence of quantifiable benefits to health and safety outcomes – and the Construction (Head Protection) Regulations 1989 – because they duplicate the responsibilities set out in the PPE Regulations 1992.

The review also recommends amendments to a number of regulations, including: the Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981 – to remove the requirement for the HSE to approve the training and qualifications of appointed first-aid personnel; RIDDOR 1995 – to provide clarity for businesses on how to comply; and the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 – regarding the regularity of PAT testing.

In addition, to provide further clarity, especially for smaller businesses, the HSE is recommended to review all its Approved Codes of Practice, and to have completed an initial review phase by June next year.

The role of the HSE in relation to local authorities should also be significantly strengthened, says Professor Löfstedt, not only to address inconsistencies in enforcement but also to ensure it is targeted at workplaces that present the highest risks.

Despite all this extra work sent its way, the HSE said it would meet the timescale for completing all recommendations for which it is responsible. However, asked if the regulator will be given more resources to carry out its expanded role, a DWP spokesperson said it could not comment on budget issues at present.

Professor Löfstedt said: “A transfer of responsibility to HSE may risk losing the synergies with other local-authority enforcement responsibilities but it will ensure that activity is independent of local priorities and concerns and clarify the distinction between health and safety and other regulatory issues, such as food safety and environmental protection. This will, in turn, provide greater assurance and consistency for businesses.”

On Europe, the Professor found no evidence of gold-plating but conceded that the scope for changing health and safety regulation is severely limited by the requirement to implement EU law. His report nevertheless recommends that the Government works more closely with the European Commission – particularly during the planned review of EU health and safety legislation in 2013 – to ensure that both new and existing EU health and safety legislation is risk-based and evidence-based.

Finally, while recognising that the Government is in the midst of undertaking an overhaul of the civil justice system, the review also says the status of pre-action protocols needs to be clarified and strict liability provisions should be reviewed. The Professor found that, often, employers are encouraged to settle compensation claims if all the paperwork related to pre-action standard disclosure lists is not in place, regardless of their overall compliance record and despite the fact that minor non-compliance should not be viewed too strictly.

IOSH said it supported the streamlining and simplification of regulations but is keen to find out how the Government intends to reduce the number by half without increasing the risks to workers and members of public.

Speaking at the launch of the review in Whitehall this morning, the Institution's chief executive, Rob Strange OBE, said: "We are also concerned about the proposed exemption of self-employed people from health and safety obligations. This approach seems to contradict the development of a more risk-aware society, which the report is keen to promote."

The TUC described the report as “a missed opportunity” to consider positive steps to improve Britain’s health and safety record.

Its general secretary Brendan Barber said: “There is little doubt that removing the self-employed from the regulations will increase their risk of illness and injury and lead to a rise in the number of bogus self-employed in sectors like construction.”

Acting general secretary of UCATT George Guy added: “This proposal from Löfstedt would be disastrous if implemented in the construction industry. Workers would not know if they were covered by safety legislation. While, companies would try to divest themselves of safety duties, by increasing the number of false self-employed workers. Already construction companies all too often fail to comply with basic safety legislation and this proposal will make a bad situation far worse.”

EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation welcomed the report, not least the call on the Government to take action at a European level.

On the challenge panel, the body’s head of health and safety, Terry Woolmer, added: “This is a welcome step which will allow businesses to get the decisions of health and safety inspectors overturned immediately if they have got it wrong. However, it is unclear how this will work alongside the existing appeals process for enforcement notices, or the intended appeals process to be set up as part of HSE’s proposals for cost recovery and ‘fees for intervention’. Perhaps more thought is required before this is implemented.”

To download the full report, Reclaiming health and safety for all: An independent review of health and safety regulation, go to: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/health-and-safety/#review

Source: SHP

Proposed changes to Asbestos Regs.

2011-11-04T17:43:00.003Z

The HSE are proposing 3 categories of work on asbestos. These are:

Non-notifiable licenced work (NNLW)
Notifiable licenced work
Licenced work (notifiable by default)

These are the proposed definitions of these categories:

Proposed non-notifiable, non-licenced categories

Regulations 9 (notification of work with asbestos) and 22 (health records and medical surveillance) do not apply where the exposure of employees to asbestos is sporadic and of low intensity; and

It is clear from the risk assessment that the exposure of any employee to asbestos will not exceed the control limit; and
The work involves:

i) short, non-continuous maintenance activities in which only non-friable materials are handled, or

ii) removal without deterioration of non-degraded materials in which the asbestos fibres are firmly linked in a matrix, or

iii) encapsulation or sealing of asbestos-containing materials which are in good condition, or

iv) air monitoring and control, and the collection and analysis of samples to ascertain whether a specific material contains asbestos.

Proposed notifiable, nonlicenced categories

HSE’s initial view is that NNLW will normally include, (assuming in all cases exposure is sporadic and of low intensity and will not exceed the control limit):-

Minor maintenance work involving asbestos insulation where the work to be done meets the definition of ‘short duration work’, ie. work which does not require a licence. For example, repairing minor damage to a small section of pipe insulation where the exterior coating has been broken or damaged.
Minor removal work involving AIB where the work to be done meets the definition of ‘short duration work’, ie. work which does not require a licence. For example, removing AIB panels fixed with nails or screws. (Note: the definition ‘short duration work’ will only apply to asbestos insulation and AIB)
Removal work involving textured decorative coatings where the method of removal requires deterioration of the material. For example, where the material is treated by steam, hydrating gel etc and scraped off the underlying surface.
Removal of asbestos paper and cardboard products if not firmly bonded in a matrix.
Maintenance work on asbestos cement (AC) which cannot be described as short and non-continuous, but which does not require a licence because exposure is sporadic and of low intensity and will not exceed the control limit.
Removal of AC which is substantially degraded eg. badly fire damaged material, or where significant breakage (deterioration) is unavoidable to achieve removal, but which does not require a licence because exposure is sporadic and of low intensity and will not exceed the control limit.

NNLW will not normally include the following, which will continue to be categorised as non-licensed work, (assuming in all cases exposure is sporadic and of low intensity and will not exceed the control limit) :-

Short, non-continuous maintenance work involving AIB which is in good condition. For example, drilling holes in AIB to attach fittings or to pass through cables/pipes, cleaning light fittings attached to AIB, repairing very minor damage, eg a single broken corner, lifting ceiling tiles for inspection or access purposes.
Short, non-continuous maintenance work on AC.
Removal of AC. Weathered AC is likely to be able to retain the vast majority of fibres in its matrix and so should not normally be regarded as degraded. Most AC can be removed whole and the inadvertent breakage of the occasional piece during manual removal will not attract NNLW requirements.
Short, non-continuous maintenance work on textured decorative coatings. For example, drilling holes, inserting screws.
Removal of textured decorative coatings when this can be achieved without deterioration of the material eg. by careful cutting around backing sheets to achieve removal intact.
Removal, for example, of gaskets or asbestos rope cords from heating appliances which can be left in situ for disposal or can be lifted out virtually intact, without substantial breakage.
Short, non-continuous maintenance work on clutch discs, brakes, friction products etc unless significant damage (deterioration) is required eg. by power tools.
Work to enclose or seal asbestos materials which are in good condition (and which does not require a licence).
Air monitoring and control, and the collection and analysis of samples.

Licenced categories

Licensable work with asbestos is—

work where the exposure of employees to asbestos is not sporadic and of low intensity; or
work for which the risk assessment demonstrates that the control limit will be or is liable to be exceeded; or
work on asbestos coating; or
work on asbestos insulating board or asbestos insulation for which the risk assessment demonstrates that the work—

(i) is not sporadic and of low intensity; or

(ii) will be or is liable to exceed the control limit; or

(iii) is not short duration work

'Alchemist’ jailed after experiment goes wrong

2011-10-30T12:20:00.001Z

A man has admitted arson and endangering the lives of others after trying to turn his own faeces into gold.

Paul Moran has been jailed for three months after an experiment caused around £3,000 worth of damage to his housing executive home in a block of flats at Derrin Park in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland in July.

Moran left his faeces, along with other waste products such as fertiliser on a heater, which then caught fire.
Moran admitted arson and endangering the lives of others.

At Enniskillen Magistrates’ Court, his honour Judge McFarland told him: “Rather bizarrely you were attempting to make gold from human faeces and waste products. “It was an interesting experiment to fulfill the alchemist’s dream, but wasn’t going to succeed.”

Moran’s barrister, Des Fahy, agreed that the case was bizarre. He said Moran was a man of considerable intellectual ability but there was a clear problem over the years relating to drug abuse. Moran will spend a further 12 months on licence when he is released.

Source: Info4Fire

Waste Regs. change (already)

2011-10-19T10:21:00.003+01:00

The Waste (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2011 specify a change but this only affects waste with ionising radiation properties, ie nuclear. SSS will not change the register of legislation now but will include it in the next change.

Civil vs. Criminal liability

2011-09-29T10:20:00.002+01:00

There's an interesting article in SHP On-Line. This includes the paragraph:

"For a defendant to be guilty of a criminal offence the jury must be sure of his guilt: it must be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. So, in statistical terms, the probability that the defendant is innocent must be very small. Civil liability, on the other hand, is determined on a ‘balance of probabilities’ – i.e. the defendant is liable even if the probability that he is innocent is 49 per cent."

So, another reason to be beware of civil cases.

RIDDOR phone reporting changes 12th Sept. 2011

2011-09-13T08:03:00.003+01:00

From 12th September, you will only be able to use the phone to report fatal and major injuries and incidents to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). You will have to report all other work-related injuries and incidents via one of a suite of seven online forms available on HSE’s website.

Also, later in September, HSE’s Infoline telephone service which currently provides a basic information service to callers will end.
Instead, from 30 September, those seeking information and official guidance will be directed to HSE's website which the HSE state as being a huge knowledge bank where you can access and download resources and use interactive web tools free of charge.

What are the benefits of OHSAS certification?

2011-09-03T18:22:00.001+01:00

Many organisations might have a health and safety policy and manual but, often, they simply pay lip service to health and safety. Increasingly, prospective clients are demanding proof that health and safety controls are also effective.

OHSAS 18001 provides an approved 'best-practice' framework for delivering a practical workable solution to reduce risk across an organisation.

Those organisations that create, implement and comply with a health and safety management system compliant to OHSAS 18001 will have a structure in place that provides reassurance that all necessary policies, procedures and controls are in place to continuously , improve health and safety. Businesses that decide to achieve certification benefit from both an operational and commercial perspective. Operationally, a culture of health and safety will create a greater awareness of risks to the business, employees and stakeholders. As a result, a proactive approach to preventing incidents and reducing risk is embedded into day-to-day working life.

Commercially, organisations benefit not only by demonstrating a commitment to health and safety internally, therefore resulting in cost savings through less absenteeism and claims, but also by showing a commitment to other stakeholders, particularly clients and prospective customers. In many sectors, certification to OHSAS 18001 is so well regarded it has now become a pre-requisite to trade; Indeed, those companies not certified to OHSAS 18001 may, in certain sectors, struggle to even get on the first rung of the ladder in the tender process.

Some organisations choose OHSAS 18001 simply to get the 'badge; so it can be displayed an their company marketing literature and website. However, do not get caught out by buying a cheap certificate on the Internet, as it will be practically worthless. Certification should always be sought through a certification body approved by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS).

Certification by such a body can also provide other financial benefits, such as helping to reduce insurance costs. However, one of the biggest benefits from a commercial perspective is that OHSAS 18001 certification will demonstrate credibility and confidence to support the retention of existing clients and help win new business.

Source: SHP September 2011

http://myemail.constantcontact.com/News-and-Legal-Updates-from-Strategic-Safety-Systems-Ltd--.html?soid=1104240615758&aid=G1dpB4CjxGE

2011-08-31T17:36:00.000+01:00

http://myemail.constantcontact.com/News-and-Legal-Updates-from-Strategic-Safety-Systems-Ltd--.html?soid=1104240615758&aid=G1dpB4CjxGE

RIDDOR reporting period to be changed to 7 days

2011-08-18T15:18:00.001+01:00

The reporting period for injuries sustained at work is to be extended from three to seven days, following analysis of responses to the consultation on RIDDOR carried out earlier this year.

At a meeting of the HSE Board today (17 August), it was decided to recommend to the Work and Pensions Secretary that the proposed change to reg.3(2) of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 be carried into effect. The decision was based on 776 finalised responses to the consultation – held between February and May this year – among which there was a two-to-one majority in favour of the change.

According to the HSE, a majority of respondents felt the change would not have an adverse consequence on national statistics. Other positive key themes identified from the consultation were that admin burdens will be reduced; aligning the reporting period with that required under the new fit-note system will make sickness absence easier to manage; and the extended period will allow more time for employers to investigate the incident internally.

Concerns highlighted by those against the change included the likelihood of a negative impact on the health and safety culture of organisations, leading to a lowering of standards; less opportunity for duty-holders and regulators to spot trends and incidents that could have resulted in more serious injuries; and overall less compliance with RIDDOR – under which around half of all non-fatal workplace injuries currently go unreported.

Around 8 per cent of respondents felt the change would have no advantage for either their organisation, or the national health and safety system. A number of others, including IOSH, the CBI and trades unions, while supporting the change, called for a fuller review of the Regulations. Head of policy and public affairs at IOSH, Richard Jones, said: "In our own survey on RIDDOR, members were two-to-one in favour of the change, but a significant number had concerns that this would lead to ‘over three-day’ accidents being trivialised. We also believe a wider review of RIDDOR is needed.”

To this end, the HSE has signalled its intention to look at wider issues surrounding RIDDOR 12 months after the current amendment comes into effect, which is likely to be from 6 April next year.

Jason Cropper, a regulatory lawyer and director at DWF, said the move could mean that health and safety will no longer be at the forefront of duty-holders’ minds. Echoing his colleague Steffan Groch, who spoke on the proposed changes to RIDDOR at the SHP Legal Arena at the NEC in May, Mr Cropper said: “I think this change will diminish what health and safety is about, and affect how seriously it is taken in organisations.

“The quality of data collection, too, will be poorer, which will cause the HSE all sorts of problems. It will be less able to understand trends in injuries and occurrences and therefore affect how it strategically targets resources over the medium to long term.”

Given that under-reporting of injuries and incidents is already a huge problem, Mr Cropper said the change to the over-seven-day period is likely to make things “significantly worse”.

The HSE’s chief statistician, however, assured the board that the regulator would still be able to spot trends “for the whole of the workforce and each sector, and feed these into the HSE’s planning process”.

Source: SHP 18 Aug. 11

Groundwater Daughter Directive

2011-08-13T09:39:00.001+01:00

We reviewed the consultation document on the Proposed Methodology for Determination of Substances for the Purposes of the Groundwater Daughter Directive (2006/118/EC). This does not seem to pose any problems for the industries with with Strategic Safety Systems are involved.

Road deaths fall despite fewer speed cameras

2011-08-06T17:15:00.002+01:00

The number of people killed and seriously injured on the roads continued to fall despite speed cameras being stripped out throughout the country, according to the latest government figures.
The Department for Transport latest statistics show that deaths dropped by 10% to 1,870 for the 12 months ending in March 2011.
Over the same period, the number of people killed and seriously injured fell to 24,770, a decline of 5%.
There was a 35% reduction in people killed in drink-drive accidents, with 250 deaths compared with 380 in 2009.
The apparent improvement in road safety will hearten ministers, who had been attacked for withdrawing funds for speed cameras and safety campaigns.
Source: Daily Telegraph 5 August 2011

Fire risk assessor and hotel manager jailed for fire safety offences

2011-07-12T11:53:00.000+01:00

An external fire risk assessor and a hotel manager have both been jailed for eight months for fire safety offences.

David Liu, who runs The Dial Hotel and Market Inn, both in Mansfield, had previously pleaded guilty at Nottingham Crown Court to 15 offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, while John O’Rourke of Mansfield Fire Protection Services pleaded guilty to two offences under the legislation.

The Judge said that the time had come to send out a message to those who conduct fire risk assessments, and to hoteliers who are prepared to put profit before safety.

Officers from Nottingham Fire and Rescue Service visited both hotels as part of a routine inspection. They found that both premises were being used to provide sleeping accommodation on the upper floors and that fire precautions, which should have been provided to safeguard the occupants in the event of a fire, were inadequate.

Due to the serious risk to life, they issued prohibition notices preventing any further use of both premises for sleeping accommodation until suitable improvements had been made.

Mr O’Rourke was prosecuted because he had prepared fire risk assessments for both premises. However the fire risk assessments failed to identify a number of significant deficiencies, said the prosecution, which would have placed the occupants at serious risk in the event of a fire.

The offences common to both hotels to which Mr Liu, as the responsible person, pleaded guilty were:

A lack of a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment
A failure to ensure effective means of escape with doors leading onto corridors not being fire resisting or having self-closers fitted
A failure to ensure that emergency routes and exits were provided with emergency lighting
A failure to ensure the premises were equipped with appropriate firefighting equipment, detectors and alarms in that there was no fire detection within the bedrooms
A failure to ensure that equipment and devices provided were subject to a suitable system of maintenance in that the fire alarm system, emergency lighting system and firefighting equipment were not tested.

In addition at the Dial Hotel, officers found both staircases from upper levels terminating in the same ground floor area with no alternative escape routes or separation, a locked fire exit door, and exit routes obstructed by combustible materials.

The other offence at the Market Inn related to a missing fire door and a window not being fire resisting.

Mr Liu was also ordered to pay costs of £15,000.

John O’Rourke, as a person other than the responsible person who had some control of the premises, pleaded guilty to two counts (one for each hotel) of failing to provide a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment. He was ordered to pay costs of £5,860.

Source: Info4Fire

Call for evidence - Loftstedt Review

2011-07-02T12:31:00.003+01:00

The Loftstedt Review, which is looking at the possibility of combining, simplifying or reducing health and safety regualtions is calling for evidence to be submitted by 29th July 2011.
They want evidence on whether regualtions have:

Impacted positively on health and safety outcomes
Led to unreasonable outcomes or inappropriate legislation or comepnsation
Unnecessarily enhanced the requirements of an EU directive

Details are available on http://tinyurl.com/bizinf-313k3 .

Economic climate leads to a fifth of employers ‘revising’ fire safety measures

2011-07-01T15:03:00.000+01:00

UK employers are potentially putting their employees’ lives at risk by cutting back on fire safety in the current economic climate, according to a survey commissioned by the Fire Industry Association (FIA).

Almost a fifth of bosses said they had revised fire safety measures, such as delaying maintenance checks of fire safety equipment, reducing staff training or delaying updating their fire risk assessments. This is despite the fact that 20% of them saying they have had a fire in their premises.

Some 16% admit to not having an up to date fire risk assessment and a quarter don’t even know who does their fire risk assessment.

The survey also found that a third of staff don’t know what to do in the event of a fire. Over half of staff surveyed don’t know how to use a fire extinguisher or fire alarm, while a quarter of workers don’t know where their nearest fire exit is and a third don’t know where their fire assembly point is.

A representative of the Fire Industry Association, said:

“The figures are very worrying; 82% of employees would like more training on fire safety and 14% don’t believe their company has any fire protection. We would like to remind all businesses across the country to review their fire risk assessments, making sure they are up to date, and to continue the maintenance schedule for all their fire safety equipment.”

Source: info4fire

Bushell + Meadows win major contract

2011-06-22T07:36:00.003+01:00

Congratulations to Bushell + Meadows, a precision engineering company in Tewkesbury, who have just been awarded a substantial contract for medical components. Bushell + Meadows received the enquiry about these components 2 months after gaining certification to ISO 13485 Quality Management - Medical Devices.
Bushell + Meadows used Strategic Safety Systems to provide their systems for ISO 13485 and ISO 9001, and use the SSS INTACT action management system as a key tool in their quality management programme.

See more about SSS certification support.

UPP gain ISO 9001 certification

2011-06-10T08:18:00.002+01:00

Congratulations to UPP, the University Partnerships Programme, who have recently gained certification to ISO 9001:2008. UPP manage residential facilities at several universities, including Exeter and Lancaster.
See about our certification successes.

Don't get us confused with Strategic Safety Services

2011-06-10T08:08:00.006+01:00

Strategic Safety Systems Ltd., have been confused for many years with Strategic Safety Services.
According to Companies House, Strategic Safety Services are in liquidation.
But we would like to say that, we at Strategic Safety Systems Ltd., are still going strong, as ever!
Go to SSS.

Beware Free Granted Funded ISO Certification

2011-06-07T09:31:00.003+01:00

Just received leaflet on Free Granted Funded ISO Certification.
The problems with what is being offered are:

The certification body is not UKAS accredited. Without this, the certificate has the same value as Monopoly money.
The organisation developing the system cannot be the same as the certification body.

Beware of such enticing offers. In reality, ISO certification using a UKAS accredited certification body does not have to be complex or expensive.
See how to get 14001 or 9001

Where are we with "white asbestos"?

2011-06-03T08:11:00.004+01:00

An article has just been published entitled "White asbestos definitely a top-level carcinogen, says expert". The opening paragraph states that the Government’s chief scientific advisor has no valid reason to demote crysotile (white) asbestos to a less-serious category than a Class 1 carcinogenic substance.
Basically, the article then goes on to say that unlike the amphibole forms of asbestos (brown and blue) where there is a lot of data there is much less data on pure crysotile, so it's being assumed as being a concern. This is the safe and arguably sensible stance to take, but hardly a "definite" conclusion.
See article

Business Continuity Management always a good idea

2011-04-23T11:41:00.004+01:00

As part of our Business Continuity Management (BCM) services, we have helped one of our clients set up a BCM programme. This highlighted exposure in having only one sub-contractor approved by one of their (aerospace) clients for a particular anodising process.
On the Monday, they made their customer aware of this situation. With perfect timing, on the Tuesday, this sub-contractor had a fire which will put them out of operation for 3 months. Had they started the BCM process earlier, they would have had an alternate sub-contractor already approved. Instead, they had to initiate a hurried approval process; it could have been worse.
See about our BCM programmes.

Health and safety consultants national register launched

2011-04-01T14:17:00.002+01:00

28 March 2011

A national register to help businesses find qualified health and safety consultants has been launched with the backing of the government.

More than 1,600 consultants have signed up to the Occupational Safety and Health Consultants Register (OSHCR), which has been created to increase employers’ confidence that they are receiving “good quality, proportionate health and safety advice”.

In order to be eligible, each consultant must belong to a professional body, have a degree-level qualification, at least two years’ experience and have demonstrated a commitment to continuing their professional development.

Launching the register, employment minister Chris Grayling said:

“We have launched an official Occupational Safety and Health Consultants Register for those health and safety practitioners who are properly accredited to one of the professional bodies in the industry. Those who do not have the requisite expertise and experience will be excluded from the register, making it easier for employers to access reliable, reputable advice.”

In response to various calls for a single national register specifically for fire risk assessors, various organisations are working to establish an agreed unified competency standard, although progress has been slower than expected. At present, however, there are only separate registers of fire risk assessors run by individual bodies.

OSHCR has been established by a number of professional bodies representing general safety and occupational health consultants, with support from the Health and Safety Executive, in response to the government-commissioned Common Sense Common Safety report into Britain’s health and safety system, which called for improved competence in health and safety advice.

View the regsiter here

Source: Info4Fire.com

Huge fine for vehicle manufacturer for forklift fatality

2011-03-28T08:18:00.000+01:00

An automotive-parts manufacturer has been fined £400,000 after an employee was killed during what was supposed to be his last day with the company.

Darren Small, 35, was working as a distribution clerk at Calsonic Kansei UK Ltd’s factory in Llanelli, Wales, when the incident took place, on 17 March 2008, which was meant to be his last day at the company before he took voluntary redundancy. He had gone on to the factory floor to give an instruction to the driver of a reach truck. When the conversation ended the truck driver reversed and accidently struck Mr Small, knocking him to the ground. He suffered serious head injuries and died in hospital three days later.

HSE inspector Stephen Jones told SHP the incident could have been avoided if the firm had procedures in place to separate pedestrians from traffic inside the factory. He explained that Mr Small would not have needed to approach the driver if vehicles had been fitted with two-way radios, or if a safe zone had been created where the driver could have met him to receive instructions. He said: “It's fairly routine for forklift trucks to operate within the same area as pedestrians in this industry. However, working procedures and systems need to be in place to prevent vehicles colliding with people. ”This tragic incident could have been avoided had all contractors and employees been aware of the risks, and had the safety procedures been taken to avoid such risks.”

Inspector Jones also revealed that the company had reported a similar incident in 2006, when a forklift truck ran over a worker’s ankle. Following that incident, the HSE wrote to Calsonic Kansei UK, urging it to review its safe system of work for moving vehicles at the site.

Swansea Crown Court heard that the truck drivers at the factory were employed by David European Transport, trading as FT Logistics, which is based in Calcea, Italy. The company went into liquidation shortly after the incident and the HSE didn’t think it was worthwhile pursuing charges against it.

Calsonic Kansei UK Ltd appeared at Swansea Crown Court on 18 March and pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) of the HSWA 1974 and was fined £334,000. It also pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) of the same Act, for putting FT Logisitcs staff at risk, and was fined £66,000. The company was also ordered to pay £44,790 in costs.

In mitigation, Calsonic said it has implemented a number of changes following Mr Small’s death, which include creating a new policy to prohibit workers from being within one metre of a moving vehicle. It has also invested a lot of money in replacing many of the reach trucks with tow tugs, which are automated guidance vehicles with sensors that isolate the tug if people approach while it is moving.

Source: SHP

Waste (England and Wales) Regs. 2011

2011-03-16T14:31:00.004Z

The long awaited Waste (England and Wales) Regs 2011 are available for consultation. Unfortunately, they don’t live up to the promise of their 2009 version and they don’t replace as much as they could do. Main features are:
• Repeals some legislation (see bottom of blog) and combines regulations.
• Specifies a hierarchy of
1. Prevention
2. Reuse
3. Recycling
4. Recovery eg energy recovery
5. Disposal
taking into account technical and economic feasibility, protection of resources, etc., and requires producer to confirm that they have applied this hierarchy.
• Specifies (in Sch.2) amendments to Hazardous Waste Regulations, (in Sch.3) amendments to Environmental Permitting Regulations and (in Sch.4) amendments to other regulations.
• Covers activities by local authorities. Requires producer to register (by Dec.13) if they carry their own controlled waste.

Repeals:
Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991
Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 (as amended 1995, 1997)

Engineer maimed during second day at new job

2011-03-06T11:24:00.000Z

An engineering firm failed on three separate occasions to make sure that a drill had adequate guarding before it was used by an employee.
Michael O’Brien, 60, suffered permanent loss of movement to three fingers in his left hand after his glove was drawn into the chuck of a drill, while working as an engineer on only his second day at Jex Engineering Company Ltd.

A court heard that the incident took place on 1 December 2009, while Mr O’Brien was installing a machine during the construction of a waste-transfer station in Leyland, Preston.
He was drilling holes into a steel plate as part of the installation of a conveyor belt, which was being built to transfer waste at the site. Jex Engineering had hired a magnetic drill stand and drill unit but didn’t check that the machine’s guard was in place. As Mr O’Brien began drilling, the back of his left glove touched the rotating drill and his hand was pulled into the machine. He spent four days in hospital and required several skin grafts. He has been unable to return to work owing to his injuries.

HSE inspector, Allen Shute, revealed that the company wasted several opportunities to make sure the drill had adequate guarding. It could have made appropriate checks when the drill was delivered, when it was issued to Mr O’Brien, and when it carried out a full-site risk assessment before the work began.
Inspector Shute said: “These injuries have had a devastating impact on an engineer who relies on being able to use his hands for his job. Sadly, he has been unable to find work since the incident.
“Jex had three separate opportunities to make sure the drill was fitted with a guard, but it failed to act on all three occasions. Even small drills have the potential to cause serious injuries if they are not fitted with a guard. It’s therefore vital that companies take the risk seriously.”

Jex Engineering Company appeared at South Ribble Magistrates’ Court, in Leyland, on 23 February and pleaded guilty to breaching Reg. 11(1)(a) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, for failing to prevent access to dangerous machine parts. It was fined £4000 and ordered to pay £3250 towards costs.
In mitigation, the firm said it had no previous convictions and it stopped using the drill immediately following the incident. It has introduced a company-wide policy stipulating that all hired machinery must be checked to make sure it is safe for use before being issued to staff. The company has also sent its senior managers on health and safety training.

Speaking after the case, Mr O’Brien commented: “I’d only been working for the company for a couple of days but you just expect employers to know what they’re doing when it comes to health and safety.
“Two of my fingers have been virtually paralysed and I now find it very difficult to grip with my left hand. Things I used to be able to do naturally, like holding a fork or opening a jar, now take real effort. I just hope the same thing doesn’t happen to someone else, as I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.”

Source: SHP 25/2/11

EU orders UK to tighten asbestos laws

2011-02-24T11:33:00.000Z

The European Commission has requested that the UK amend its regulations on asbestos at work because they do not comply fully with the parent EU Directive.
Delivered in the form of a reasoned opinion under EU infringement procedures, the Commission wants the UK to change provisions in its legislation that exempt some maintenance and repair activities from the application of the EU Directive on the protection of workers from asbestos.
It follows a complaint received by the Commission that Article 3(3)(a) and (b) of the asbestos Directive 2009/148/EC has not been correctly transposed into UK law. Article 3(3) offers the possibility for an exemption from three obligations set out in the Directive for activities that involve only sporadic and low-intensity exposure to asbestos – for example, in the case of some maintenance and repair activities.
However, in the Commission’s view, the UK law omits specific parts of Article 3(3)(a) and (b), and so widens the scope of the exemption. The Commission says the UK legislation focuses on the measurement of exposure to asbestos but not enough on how the material can be affected by the work involved. The Directive deals with both exposure and the material.
The UK now has two months to bring its legislation into line with EU law, or risk the matter being referred to the EU’s Court of Justice.
Commenting on the development, TUC general secretary, Brendan Barber, said: “This is another nail in the coffin of the myth that the HSE has been ‘gold-plating’ regulation. European regulations are there to protect workers, and governments should see them as being minimum standards rather than trying to weasel out of their commitments.”
Alan Ritchie, general secretary of construction-workers’ union UCATT, added: "Construction workers, especially those involved in maintenance work, are now at the greatest risk of being exposed to asbestos and developing asbestos-related diseases.
“It is essential that they are given the greatest possible training, education and protection when it comes to dealing with asbestos. UCATT’s advice is clear: if you are not a specialist, do not work with asbestos. If, at any point, you think you are working with asbestos, stop work immediately and get it checked out.”
A spokesperson for the HSE said: “The reasoned opinion is a long and complex legal document and we need to look at it carefully before we decide how to respond.”

Source: SHP

Occupational Safety and Health Consultants Register up and running

2011-02-21T17:16:00.002Z

This register is now up and running. This came about because of Lord Young's report which suggested that individual consultants were to blame for the silly stuff like banning conkers whereas really the compensation culture needs to be addressed first. However, people who have chartered status as a health and safety consultant (like me) can now register. Eventaully, the public will be able to access this register.
Trade associations don't have to register and, one supposes that Lord Young decided they were quite able to select advisors who are suitably qualified.
The general consensus is that this register will have no effect.

Changes to RIDDOR

2011-02-07T14:32:00.000Z

The following changes are proposed to RIDDOR:

Change reporting threshold from over 3-days to over 7-days
SSS stance: In favour. This reduces the workload on industry and removes the confusion when 3 days includes a weekend. However, data will be lost and there is the danger that 3 days will be regarded as not serious.
Include a requirement to investigate reportable incidents
SSS stance: In favour. All incidents must be investigated, but this must be to an appropriate level.
Include travelling on company business as a work activity
SSS stance: In favour. Travelling on company business can be a serious source of incidents.
Improve the sharing of information from the HSE
SSS stance: In favour. It's been a long-standing gripe of ours that the HSE do not share all this information that RIDDOR brings in.

SSS has responded to the consultation process.

Air conditioning checks

2011-01-15T11:58:00.000Z

If your air-conditioning system has an output of over 12kW, you need to meet certain requirements for inspecting the energy efficiency of your systems. If you have more than one air-conditioning unit within a building they are considered to be a single system.

In England, Northern Ireland and Wales, from 4 January 2011, if your air-conditioning system has an output over 12kW it must be inspected at least every five years. If your system was first put into service on or after 1 January 2008, it must have its first inspection within five years of the date when it was first put into service.

Inspections must be carried out at least every five years by an accredited energy assessor who will assess the efficiency of the system and advise on improvements.

Source: NetRegs

INTACT 7.0 released

2011-01-10T17:03:00.002Z

The integrated action mananagment system, INTACT, is now available as version 7.0.
What we've done is to take 4 sets of requirements developed to meet the requirements of 4 companies and to merge them into the standard version. The new features cover the areas of:

Training - advanced listing and team briefing reports
Quality assurance - advanced data entry, analysis and reporting

Examples of the additional features are:

With the team briefing, INTACT now gives a listing of all people who have missed a briefing.
With QA, INTACT can now provide rework and scrap tickets, removing the need for duplicate data entry.

2 new PEFC standards

2010-12-29T10:11:00.002Z

There are 1 new and 1 updated PEFC standards:

PEFC ST 2002:2010 Chain of Custody of Forest Based Products (replaces Annex 4)
PEFC ST 2001:2008 PEFC Logo Usage Rules - Requirements (2nd edition)

The standards are to be welcomed as they now are formatted like other standards and we no longer have Annex 4 as the PEFC standard.

Clause 6.8 Sub-Contracting has been added to PEFC ST 2002:2010; before this, there was no PEFC requirement for sub-contracting. For those companies that already have an SSS system for sub-contracting of FSC products, your existing system already meets the requirements of PEFC but it may need references added.

The main requirement for those companies with systems compiled by Strategic Safety Systems for FSC/PEFC is that the references will have to change; for a start Annex 4 will need changing to PEFC ST 2002:2010, but all the clause numbers are different.

Clause 6.8.2 is rather clumsy and may be interpreted as not allowing sub-contractors to ship onwards to the next link in the chain; the product must be returned to the company owning the certificate.

New features added to INTACT

2010-12-19T16:54:00.002Z

For some time now, we've realised that links between the audit schedule and the audit form could make the audit entry process more user friendly.
What we've done is to:

Make a link so that, if you double click on a system in the audit schedule, it takes you to the audits for that system, and
When you click on the Sign Off button on an audit, it updates the schedule so that the present audit is signed off with today's date and a new one scheduled 1-year hence.

SSS reach certification milestone

2010-12-13T08:51:00.001Z

The recent certification to ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 for Vibixa is a milestone for Strategic Safety Systems.

Vibixa is the 40th company we have helped to gain ISO 14001 certification
Vibixa is the 20th company we have helped to gain OHSAS 18001 certification

See a list of our successes for these plus ISO 9001, FSC, PEFC and other standards.

Vibixa gain 14001 and 18001 certification

2010-12-13T08:34:00.004Z

Congratulations to Vibixa, the Cheltenham-based carton manufaturer who have recently gained certification to ISO 14001 Environmental Management Standard and OHSAS 18001 Health and Safety Management Standard. The systems used by Vibixa were developed by Strategic Safety Systems and extensive use is made of the SSS INTACT integrated action management system. SSS have been associated with Vibixa for many years, providing health and safety support and are delighted that the approaches that Vibixa have taken have been rewarded by certification.

Bushell and Meadows gain ISO 13486

2010-11-28T12:50:00.004Z

Congratulations to Bushell and Meadows, a precision machining company in Tewkesbury for gaining certification to ISO 13485 Medical Devices - Quality Management System using SSS-developed systems.
This is in addition to earlier certification to ISO 9001 for which SSS also provided the systems.
See more.

6 new health and safety bills

2010-11-26T09:42:00.001Z

Six new Private Member’s Bills were presented to Parliament last week on the back of recommendations in Lord Young’s review of health and safety, published on 15 October.

Health and Safety at Work (Amendment) Bill – to amend the HSWA 1974 to make provisions for separate risk-assessment requirements for play, leisure and work-based activities; and to introduce simplified risk assessments for schools;
Compensation (Limitation) Bill – to prevent conditional fee agreement success fees and after-the-event insurance premiums being recoverable from the losing party in civil litigation; to facilitate damages-based agreements for contingency fees in respect of successful litigants;
Health and Safety Consultants (Qualifications) Bill – to introduce qualification requirements for health and safety consultants; and to provide accreditation for such consultants; (Note: SSS comply with this already.)
Low Hazard Workplaces (Risk Assessment Exemption) Bill – to exempt employers from the requirement to produce a written risk assessment in respect of low-hazard workplaces and the premises of those working from their own home with low-hazard equipment;
RIDDOR Regulation Bill – to reduce the duties on employers to report matters under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995; and
Self-employment (Risk Assessment Exemption) Bill – to exempt self-employed persons engaged in low-hazard activity from the requirement to produce a written risk assessment.

Source: SHP

Beware the CE Mark, yet again

2010-11-07T10:50:00.003Z

Here's something really scary. If you thought the CE mark, meant "Check Everything", there's the China Export mark which looks remarkably similar.

Environmental Civil Sanctions to be introduced Jan. 2011

2010-11-03T20:42:00.003Z

The Environment Agency in England and Wales will start using new enforcement powers, called civil sanctions, from 4 January 2011.
They give the environmental regulators a wider range of options to use against a business committing certain environmental offences as alternatives to prosecution and criminal penalties of fines and imprisonment.
They allow the Environment Agency to take action that is proportionate to the offence and the offender, and reflect the fact that most offences committed by businesses are unintentional.

The Environment Agency will still be able to use criminal punishments for serious offences.

The new civil sanctions the environmental regulator can use against a business committing certain environmental offences include:

Compliance notice - written notice to take steps to ensure that an offence does not continue or recur.
Restoration notice - written notice to restore harm caused by non-compliance.
Enforcement undertaking - voluntary agreement by business to take corrective action to make up for non-compliance.
Fixed monetary penalty - a low level penalty for minor offences fixed at £100 for an individual and £300 for a company.
Variable monetary penalty - a monetary penalty for more serious offences with a maximum of £250,000.
Stop notice - written notice to stop an activity which is causing harm.Civil sanctions have been introduced for a limited number of offences. Initially they will cover offences relating to harm to water resources, hazardous waste and packaging waste.

Other offences, including those covered by the Environmental Permitting regime, will be added by future legislation. The Orders specify which civil sanctions can be used for which offences.

Source of information: NetRegs

Asbestos action

2010-10-11T20:11:00.002+01:00

We've been asked advice by a very small building firm who undertook some shop refurbishment. On looking at ceiling tiles, the builder asked the shop owner if they contained asbestos and was assured that he'd had a survey carried out and this was negative.
A member of the public reported to the HSE that material which looked like asbestos was in skip in the street. Examination showed this to be crysotile and amosite (white and brown asbestos.)
What the builder should have done was:

Demand to see a copy of the asbestos survey report and/or
Take samples and have them analysed

before starting any work which would disturb the tiles. Any work involving removing the tiles would have to have been done by a licenced asbestos remover, using appropriate techniques.

Beware the CE Mark, yet again

2010-10-11T19:59:00.003+01:00

We've just been asked our advice about an accident that occurred on a machine in Germany. This machine was purchased with a CE mark from outside the EU. The accident caused the loss of several fingers, and there is now an urgument between the purchaser and manufacturer as to who was to blame.
Remember that the "CE marking" process is one of self certification for most types of machinery, and there are obligations on the purchaser to ensure that the manufacturer had followed a rigorous process in ensuring that the machine complied with appropriate harmonised European standards and essential health and safety requirements. In such cases, it is advisable to ask for a copy of the technical file (that whoever applied the CE mark must be able to compile.).
There are also obligations under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) (or the German equivalent in this case) on the user of the equipment, who is normally the company that owns the equipment and employs people to use it. It is highly unlikely that the HSE will pursue an action against a company in another country, let alone outside the EU.
See more about CE Marking.

Culture of blame on Transocean rigs

2010-09-24T08:56:00.000+01:00

A culture of fear and blame is rife across the operations of offshore drilling contractor Transocean, according to a leaked HSE inspection report.

The company, which BP blamed in part for the Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico in April, was the subject of an HSE investigation across four of its North-Sea rigs last year. The resulting report, which was leaked to the RMT union, highlighted many strengths within Transocean – such as an emphasis on training, support and implementation of key safety initiatives, and good communication of safety-related incidents to personnel – but found that health and safety was in danger of being compromised by an organisational culture of “discipline, blame and zero tolerance”.

The report, which the company has had for several months, states that “unacceptable behaviours by offshore management were raised on more than one rig visited”, including “bullying, aggression, harassment, humiliation and intimidation”. Such behaviours, the report reveals, “are causing some individuals to exhibit symptoms of work-related stress, with potential safety implications”.

Evidence cited by the HSE of the negative impact the company’s culture has had on its workforce include concern among personnel that they will be punished should they be involved in an accident. Staff are also “trying to avoid risky jobs, in case they make a mistake, or have an incident and will then be fired”, and that the expected management response to an incident is “affecting reporting rates, such that some events go unreported”.

While the report underlines the inspection team’s conviction that “senior management are committed to the health and safety of their workforce”, the company’s health and safety policy statement “places emphasis on individual involvement, personal responsibility and accountability”, instead of recognising that incidents tend to result from failings in management control.

Following the leak, an HSE spokesperson said it did not want to comment in detail as it is not a public report, but confirmed: “This particular non-technical report was sent to Transocean in February. No enforcement notices were issued as a result.”

Source: SHP 20 Sept 2010

Transfer between MS Access and MS Excel

2010-09-11T18:01:00.002+01:00

SSS have carried out work on behalf of one of clients to export data from Access to Excel and also manipulate the appearance within the spreadsheet from the Access code. Functions achieved were:

Export of 7 queries to separate worksheets within the same spreadsheet
Export of data to another spreadsheet, setting the cell colours dependant upon the urgency level of the data.

We can see applications of this arrangement within INTACT.

New 9001 certifications

2010-09-02T16:34:00.002+01:00

Congratulations to VCG Colourlink who have become certified to ISO 9001:2008 with the help of Strategic Safety Systems Ltd.

Legal updates

2010-09-02T16:09:00.003+01:00

There are some changes to legislation:

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Amendment) Regulations 2010
Amends the previous regs., replacing ‘dangerous substance or preparation’ with ‘dangerous substance or mixture’ and (as from 1 December 2010 and 1 June 2015) substitutes new definitions of ‘dangerous substance or mixture’. Also other changes that do not affect those people on the SSS Register of Legislation.

Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010.
Have been updated. The main impact is the removal of the need to register for exemption. See an earlier blog on this.

SSS will be sending out issue "P" of the Register of Legislation to all those companies to whom we have supplied 14001 or 18001 systems.

Waste storage at place of production

2010-08-25T08:26:00.002+01:00

The storage and treatment (eg shredding or compaction) of waste at the place of production has been clarified.
You no longer have to be registered as being exempt if:

You only store waste at the place where it is produced,
You don't bring waste from lots of different sites back to one site,
You store waste for less than 12 months

You must store the waste in a secure place (ie ensure that waste cannot be windblown, etc.)

You may also carry out "ancillary treatment" including:

Compaction of paper and cardboard stored within a container,
Shredding confidential papers for crushing,
Compacting large items, or
Separating recyclables.

More information on this is available from the Environment Agency via this link.

Need to register a compactor

2010-08-19T09:18:00.002+01:00

The Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010 have closed the loophole where you didn't need to register for exemption if you were compacting waste paper or plastic on the site where you produced it.
You now have to register for exemption if you compact (over a 7-day period):

Paper or cardboard up to 500 tonnes (outdoors) or 3000 tonnes (indoors)
Plastic up to 100 tonnes (outdoors) or 3000 tonnes (indoors)

Contact the Environment Agency and state that you would like to register a T4 activity for exemption.

Yes, I know it's ridiculous and would drive behaviour in the wrong direction (ie not compacting, thereby requiring more waste company vehicle journies, thereby using up natural resources and adding to CO2 emissions), but we're stuck with it.

Forklift accident despite risk assessment

2010-07-27T13:38:00.000+01:00

Tyre manufacturer Pirelli failed to act on the findings of a risk assessment that identified a failure to separate vehicles and pedestrians at its factory in Carlisle.

North Cumbria Magistrates’ Court heard that 62-year-old contractor, Alan Miller, was feeding an electric cable into a sub-floor gallery when the incident took place on 29 October 2008. Once he had finished, he walked through an area within the curing department at the Dalston Road site, and was struck from behind by a pallet being carried on a forklift truck. He suffered a broken leg and has been unable to return to work owing to his injuries.

HSE inspectors learned that several similar incidents had previously taken place in the same area of the factory. In March 2008, a contractor stepped off a walkway in front of a forklift, which forced the vehicle to make an emergency stop. The truck’s sudden halt caused one of the pallets it was carrying to fall and land on the contractor, who suffered a broken leg.

The investigation found that forklift drivers’ vision was frequently obscured because they had to lower their loads to avoid overhead obstructions. Pirelli had identified the problem during a previous risk assessment but had failed to take steps to make the area a pedestrian-free zone.

HSE inspector Michael Griffiths issued an Improvement Notice on 4 December 2008, which required the firm to ensure that vehicles and pedestrians were separated.

Inspector Griffiths said: “The storage area should have been clearly marked as ‘pedestrian free’, and the injured worker should have been told of the risks prior to the incident in October 2008.

“Site operators should provide contractors with appropriate health and safety information, so that they can do their work safely. In practice, this means sharing information about the workplace, the routes to be used, and types of vehicles and equipment on site. Specific hazards and other people on site, including other contractors or visiting drivers, should also be considered.”

Pirelli appeared in court on 16 July and pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) of the HSWA 1974. It was fined £9000 and ordered to pay £4282 towards the costs of the prosecution.

In mitigation, the company told the court that it had subsequently put up signs to warn employees that the area was a pedestrian-free zone. It also identified safe crossing points and put barriers in particularly dangerous areas. It has also installed CCTV to ensure that drivers follow the marked-out routes.

Source: SHP

Upgrades to INTACT

2010-07-15T21:22:00.003+01:00

Upgrades are being made to INTACT to meet the requirements of Bushell & Meadows, one of our clients, who make extensive use of it. These upgrades include bespoke non-conformance cards which can be printed and added to products, plus advanced analysis and reporting facilities which replace existing spreadsheet and Word methods.

See more about INTACT

Get up to speed on risk assessments

2010-07-15T08:09:00.002+01:00

There are two companies I have now started working with after they have fallen foul of the HSE.
After accidents resulting in a minor injury in both cases, the improvement notices state that "the company had failed to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment", with the implication that the accident would not have occurred if the assessment had been sufficient to identify the risk and the company had installed risk control measures.
Don't get into this situation.
Carry out suitable and sufficient risk assessments.
See how to carry out a risk assessment and download a risk assessment form from our "Useful information" page.

Hunts open print cafe

2010-07-14T15:13:00.003+01:00

Hunts People in Print, near Oxford, opened their Print Cafe on 8th July 2010.
This picture shows Timon Colegrove, MD of Hunts, explaining the concept before the formal opening by Michael Johnson, CEO of the BPIF.
Strategic Safety Systems are proud to have provided, and continue to provide, support for Hunts in the areas of:

Ruling on legal costs could see HSE shy away from prosecution

2010-07-08T10:23:00.002+01:00

Companies facing prosecution by the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) can take some comfort from a recent High Court decision, writes lawyer Bob Davies.

Serving its judgement on R (On the application of The Law Society) v The Lord Chancellor, the High Court declared that the lord chancellor’s scheme of capping the recovery of an acquitted defendant’s costs to legal-aid rates was unlawful.

Had the scheme, which came into force on 31 October 2009, not been declared illegal, a defendant that had successfully defended an HSE prosecution could have faced recovering its defence costs at an amount significantly below those that it had actually incurred.

However, the High Court’s decision restores a court’s power to award a successful defendant an amount of costs which “the court considers to be reasonably sufficient to compensate the defendant for any expenses which he has properly incurred in the proceedings”. This ensures that a defendant’s costs order (DCO), which an acquitted defendant is entitled to, is paid at market rates and reflects the true cost of the litigation.

Any DCO will have to be met out of public funds, so in an era when intense pressure is going to be applied to public funding, the HSE is going to face stern criticism if several of its prosecutions turn out to have little or no merit. Consequently, this could lead to the HSE taking a less aggressive approach and less keen to prosecute in the more risky cases.

However, it is not known at this stage whether the Government will accept the High Court’s decision, and the health and safety arena waits with bated breath to see whether it will appeal.

Source: SHP Plus. Bob Davies is an associate at law firm Berrymans Lace Mawer LLP

Case study - "CE Marking" for Global Cutting Technologies machine

2010-06-24T17:44:00.000+01:00

As an agent for a company making die cutting machines in Taiwan, Global Cutting Technologies of Wellingborough needed to follow the "CE Marking" requirements of the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008.
For such equipment, the "CE Marking" process is one of self certification by the supplier (or manufacturer) where the machine is designed and built to comply with Essential Health and Safety Requirements (EHSRs) specified in the regulations, plus applicable Harmonised Europeans Standards (HESs).
Global Cutting Technologies came to Strategic Safety Systems who provide support for this. An additional requirement that they had was that they wanted to be in a position where they could carry out this process themselves for future machines.
The approach taken by SSS was to provide a list of the standards, listed clause by clause stating whether or not the clause was applicable. Where it was applicable, SSS described how the requirements were met.
As this was at the design stage, SSS were able to offer advice on the features that needed to be incorporated to meet the standards.
The new standard EN 13849 requires calculations to be done to enable the appropriate protection level to be done, and SSS performed this service. We also assessed the risks, working with key Global Cutting Technologies personnel.
Global Cutting Technologies now have:

A set of documentation for the machine that was studied. This forms the basis for the technical file, required by the regulations.
A list of clauses for each standard, with statements of how the clause is met, if applicable, as an editable MS Word document
Risk assessment methodologies and forms
A spreadsheet for EN 13849 calculations.
A declaration of conformity certificate with the appropriate standards listed, as an MS Word document.

Global Cutting Technologies Managing Director, Bob Cosford said, “ Although we were already fairly up to speed with CE, a particular project called for us to re-assess what we were doing and we saw this as an opportunity rather than an imposition. In engaging SSS to help and guide us, we found a highly proficient partner who evidently knew the requirements inside out. The project was completed on time and on budget and we now feel even more confident with CE going forward to new projects and existing ones. “

PCS gain certification to ISO 9001

2010-06-21T09:23:00.002+01:00

Congratulations to Press Computer Systems (PCS) of Wolverhampton, who have just gained certification to ISO 9001:2008 with the help of Strategic Safety Systems Ltd. This is the second company within the Claverley Group we have helped with certification, the other being Precission Colour Printing of Telford who gained certification to ISO 9001 and ISO 14001.
The external auditor stated that the PCS systems were "one of the smoothest he'd every seen in an IT company."
See more about SSS support for 9001 and other system certification.

Government body found guilty of fire safety breaches.

2010-06-07T13:34:00.003+01:00

The London headquarters of Communities and Local Government – the government department that steers fire safety policy in England and Wales – has been served with an enforcement notice under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

An inspector from the enforcing authority, the Crown Premises Inspection Group, stated: “The concepts of ‘responsible’ and ‘competent’ persons, and the duties placed upon those persons under the Order, appear not to be understood within CLG premises”.

The notice, served on 16 February on the then secretary of state for Communities and Local Government, John Denham, details numerous shortcomings in fire safety measures and management at CLG’s Eland House premises in Victoria. It lists alleged breaches of 13 of the 15 Articles of the Fire Safety Order that impose duties on the CLG, as the responsible person, including:

Introducing a fire load in the atrium which was not considered in the building’s fire engineered design, by installing a cafeteria which, it is said, may lead to “uncontrolled fire spread throughout the building”
An unsuitable and insufficient fire risk assessment
Failing to nominate competent persons to help the responsible person discharge his duties
Failure to adequately maintain the fire alarm system, interconnections between fire safety systems, and smoke vents throughout the building
Lack of evidence of adequate training and provision of essential fire safety information to staff

Other deficiencies found include an “unacceptable” policy that no one should use portable fire extinguishers in the building; the inability of the building to support the phased evacuation strategy; no adequate arrangements to ensure visitors and contractors are accounted for in an evacuation; and shortcomings in the means of escape for the number of people likely to occupy the building.

Although Eland House is categorised as Crown premises, it is still subject to safety legislation including the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order, and enforcement procedures are similar to those of other premises. However, Crown Immunity means the responsible person cannot actually be prosecuted for offences.

The enforcement notice also reveals that the contracted facilities company, having some control of the premises, was sent a copy of the notice. However, it makes it clear that although the company is considered a ‘nominated competent person’, they had not been provided with sufficient means to undertake this role.

Responding to the revelation of the enforcment notice, a CLG spokesman said:

"Following the remodelling of parts of the interior of Eland House, the Department requested that the Crown Premises Inspection Group (CPIG) audit the facility to review the impact that the changes had on the fire safety of the building. The CPIG made a number of recommendations in the form of a Crown Enforcement Notice which was issued on 16 February 2010. The Department has accepted these recommendations which are now in the process of being fully implemented."

The enforcement notice is dated 16 February 2010 and relates to a fire safety audit which was carried out on 26 November 2009. Ironically, the Crown Premises Inspection Group comes under the remit of the government’s Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser, whose unit is itself based at Eland House.

In January, it was revealed that the Fire Service College – an executive agency of CLG – had not carried out a valid fire risk assessment at the time of the fire which destroyed an appliance bay at its Moreton in Marsh premises.

Source: Info4Fire

Permtting Regulations and the operation of a waste compactor

2010-05-31T19:02:00.002+01:00

There was a strange requirement in the Waste Management Licencing Regulations 1994. Regulation 18 covered registration in connection with exempt activities. 18(1) stated that "it shall be an offence to have an exempt activity involving the recovery or disposal of waste without being registered with the appropriate registation authority." The strange part is the combination of "exempt" and "registration".
I believe that whoever drafted these regulations realised that it was daft to require everybody who had a compactor for their own waste, or even a bin for their own waste which is subsequently compacted, to be registered for exemption; it would be a bureaucratic nightmare for no benefit.
Therefore, in the Permitting Regulations, this has been specifically revoked.
However, I don’t believe that the Environment Agency understand this yet and there are some who still believe it necessary.
If you want to see the whole rationale behind my opinion, go to this link.

CE Marking explanation updated

2010-05-30T12:19:00.002+01:00

SSS have updated the explanation of "CE Marking" and what it is all about.
What we've done is to remove the listing of the Essential Health and Safety Requirements and Harmonised European Standards and to put these in a separate webpage. That makes it all less cluttered but the listings are still accessessible.
See the new CE Marking explanation.
See the Essential Health and Safety Requirements and Harmonised European Standards list.

Graph function added to INTACT

2010-05-29T10:29:00.002+01:00

These show the graphical outputs from the customer complaints (CC) and internal problems (IP) function in INTACT.

INTACT has the ability to count not only the CCs and IPs, but to

Total their costs and
Compare the counts with the total number of jobs processed
Compare the costs with the turnover

These graphs show these outputs. There are 3 graphs because of the need to have 3 different Y axis scales.

The graphs were added in response to a customer request. They wanted to make more use of the recorded data.

Tesco fined for fire safety breaches

2010-05-28T20:52:00.001+01:00

Supermarket giant Tesco has been fined £95,000 and ordered to pay over £24,000 in costs after pleading guilty to five breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRO).

London Fire Brigade, prosecuting, said firefighters were called to a fire at Tesco’s Colney Hatch store in Barnet on 14 October 2007. When they arrived found the premises locked but managed to gain access after attracting the attention of an employee who was restocking shelves. There had been a fire in the staff kitchen but it had been put out by staff using extinguishers and a fire blanket. There was still a significant amount of smoke in the kitchen, the corridor and staff locker rooms and crews had to ask staff several times to evacuate the premises.

This incident made officers concerned about fire safety in the store, so on the following day they inspected the premises. A number of breaches of fire safety legislation were found, including a failure to review the store’s fire risk assessment, a failure to ensure escape routes were kept clear and inadequate fire separation due to doors being wedged open. An enforcement notice was subsequently served on 2 November 2007.

Tesco pleaded guilty to failing to keep emergency exits clear (£20,000 fine); failing to keep an emergency route clear (£20,000); two counts of fire doors being wedged open (£20,000 each) and storing flammable materials under an emergency stairwell (£15,000). Sentencing took place at Wood Green Crown Court on 20 April 2010.

London Fire Commissioner Ron Dobson said: “Fire safety is a key part of good business management and the general public should feel safe from fire when they are out shopping. London Fire Brigade will continue to take action when businesses, large or small, do not take their fire safety responsibilities seriously. Failure to comply with the law can, as this case has shown, result in a prosecution.”

A Tesco spokesperson told Info4fire.com: "We take safety matters in all of our stores extremely seriously. We would like to reassure customers that this was an isolated incident and all issues at this store have been resolved."

Source: Info4Fire

Timber yard owner fined over fire safety breaches

2010-05-28T20:45:00.002+01:00

The owner of a timber yard has been ordered to pay a total of £130,300 after pleading guilty to several breaches of fire safety legislation.

P and S Ashley Timberworks, 'in breach of fire safety'

Paul Ashley, of P and S Ashley Timberworks, in Cheshire, was found guilty of eight offences against the Fire Safety Order at the Cheshire Crown Court on 11 May.

He was fined £80,000 and ordered to pay Cheshire Fire and Rescue service £50,300 in costs after repeatedly refusing to carry out fire safety measures.

Despite being visited on several occasions by fire safety officers, the first time in February 2008, Mr Ashley failed to provide a suitable fire alarm or proper means of escape. He also failed to implement a ‘suitable and sufficient’ risk assessment.

Mark Cashin, deputy chief fire officer, said: "This is an excellent result. Fire safety is a key part of good business management and Mr Ashley showed little or no regard for the safety of his employees or the people living and working around his premises."
Origin: Info4Fire
Find out more about Fire Safety Support from SSS

Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations- when they apply

2010-05-27T20:38:00.002+01:00

There is some confusion over when the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008 apply. We've had one instance where the HSE have said that it applies when you are selling old machinery.
This isn't true.

Reg. 3 states:
(a) references to placing machinery or partly completed machinery on the market are references to making it available in an EEA state—

(i) for the first time;

(ii) with a view to distribution or use, whether by the person making it available or another; and

(iii) whether for reward or free of charge;

Note that it only applies if it is for the first time. But beware; first time means first time use within the EU, and if you buy even a second-hand piece of machinery, say from the USA, then the regulations apply.

Note also that (ii) states distribution or use. So, even if it is for use within your own organisation, the regulations apply.

See more about CE marking support from Strategic Safety Systems.
See more about CE marking.

Graphical output added to INTACT

2010-05-23T11:22:00.001+01:00

In reponse to customer inputs, we'ev started putting graphical analysis outputs to INTACT.

LegalCheck.mdb version 2.0 available

2010-03-31T08:14:00.002+01:00

For those of our clients who are using INTACT to manage health, safety and enviornmental issues, there's an updated version of LegalCheck.mdb.
This is available from the information page on our website and may be downloaded as a zipped file. Simply unzip it and replace the existing copy of LegalCheck.mdb. There are instructions when you open it.

Open the information page. LegalCheck.zip is under Files.

Fire Safety (Employees' Capabilities) (England) Regulations 2010 come into force

2010-03-31T08:11:00.000+01:00

From 6 April 2010, new regulations will clarify your responsibilities to consider the capabilities of your workers to carry out any fire safety-related tasks or assignments.

These regulations (which comprise just a single sentence) mean that you will have to think about:

1. What a worker is able and unable to do when giving them tasks
2. How these capabilities may affect their ability to deal with fire-related risks

For example, you will have to consider a worker's capabilities as regards fire safety if you ask them to work with petrol.

These regulations should not impose any extra burden on your business. They simply re-impose a duty that:

* You had before the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 came into force in October 2006
* Is implicit in your wider health and safety duties

You are reminded that you continue to have a general duty to:

1. Carry out a fire safety risk assessment to identify the general fire precautions you need to put in place
2. Regularly review the assessment and make any necessary changes
3. Pay particular attention to young people when carrying out or reviewing a risk assessment

See more about health and safety services

FSC-STD-50-001, Requirements for Use of the FSC Trademarks by Certificate Holders come into effect.

2010-03-31T08:08:00.001+01:00

The new Forest Stewardship Council trademark standard, FSC-STD-50-001, Requirements for Use of the FSC Trademarks by Certificate Holders came into effect on 1st March 2010, it will become mandatory as of 1st January 2011.

On-product and off-product requirements as well as graphic rules are now in a single standard, replacing the 3 documents previously used.

The most significant change is the introduction of new trademark protection symbols and new label and logo designs, which include trademark license codes instead of certificate registration numbers.

More details are available from the link below which also provides an update of 5.1 cbpA FSC Rules for companies for whom SSS have developed FSC systems.

See more information

New FSC Standard

2010-03-18T20:47:00.005Z

Sorry chaps,
The Forest Stewardship Council have introduced a new standard covering the use of trademarks. ie their logo.
This is FSC-STD-50-001.
I'll be doing an explanation of this on the SSS website so watch it for updates. It will be in the Useful Information section.

Hunts get ISO 9001 certification

2010-03-17T18:44:00.000Z

Congratulations to Hunts, People in Print, who we have helped gain certification to ISO 9001:2008. This is in addition to the FSC, PEFC and ISO 14001 certification we helped them with ealier.
See ISO Without the Agony

EN 60204-1 not harmonised to Machinery Directive

2010-03-05T08:12:00.000Z

At the time of writing EN 60204-1 Safety of machinery. Electrical equipment of machines. General requirements, which is generally considered to be one of the key machinery safety standards, is not harmonised to the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC.
See article.

Pleural plaques not a casue for compensation.

2010-03-05T08:08:00.001Z

People with pleural plaques – small, symptomless areas of fibrosis
found in the lung, caused by exposure to asbestos – will not be able
to claim compensation, according to the Government recently.
A Law Lords’ ruling in October 2007, which upheld a Court of Appeal judgement that the existence of pleural plaques does not constitute actionable damage, caused huge controversy, leading the Government to publish a consultation paper to assess whether it should overturn the judgement, or pursue other options to support people diagnosed with the condition.
See full article.

INTACT extended following Trinity Mirror user group meeting

2010-02-26T14:19:00.001Z

INTACT, SSS's integrated action management system is being updated to meet additional requirements identified during a user group meeting at Trinity Mirror, Birmingham.
See more about INTACT.

A Local Printer gain ISO 14001

2010-02-22T17:24:00.003Z

Congratulations to A Local Printer gaining transfer certification to ISO 14001. There weren't even any observations, showing how well SSS and ALP had 14001 covered.
See more about ISO 14001 support from Strategic Safety Systems.

Latimer Trend FSC systems incorporated

2010-02-11T21:29:00.006Z

SSS developed an integrated ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 management system for Latimer Trend, the leading technical journal printer in Plymouth. Latimer Trend already had certification to FSC and PEFC using their own system, but recently required this to be part of the integrated system. Most of the FSC/PEFC system was already in the 9001 system, so it was a simple matter to add the few extra bits. See more about FSC and PEFC

A Local Printer switch to an SSS EMS

2010-02-06T10:19:00.002Z

A Local Printer, the Sussex-based environmental printer have switched to the environmental system developed by Strategic Safety Systems. They already have certification to ISO 14001 using systems they developed themselves, but following the introduction of the SSS-developed ISO 9001 system, they decided to change over to have a simple, integrated system. The change-over took one day.

Trinity Mirror Birmingam start ISO 9001

2010-02-06T10:16:00.002Z

Trinity Mirror at their Birmingham site have started work towards gaining ISO 9001 certification. The driver for this is internal, rather than the desire to gain a "badge" to help marketing. They see great benefits in having a more structured quality management system than at present. SSS continie to work with them on this.

Trinity Mirror Oldham attain OHSAS 18001

2010-01-29T14:45:00.000Z

Following the third day of the Stage 2 audit on 28th January, Trinity Mirror Oldham have been recommended by the auditor for certification to OHSAS 18001 Health and Safety Management. This is the 5th Trinity Mirror site that SSS have helped gain certification and we offer them our congratulations.
Trinity Mirror Oldham prints, amongst other titles, the Daily Mirror and the Independant.

OHSAS 18001 audit

2010-01-26T17:18:00.000Z

I'm at Oldham for an OHSAS 18001 stage 2 audit being carried out at Trinity Mirror by Certification International. This is the 5th Trinity Mirror site SSS have helped gain certification to 18001; we also helped with ISO 14001 at Birmingham and Cardiff.

New features added to INTACT

2010-01-24T09:58:00.000Z

Following a request from PCP, I have been modifying INTACT, the INtegrated ACTion management system so that it automatically e-mails a designated person when a customer complaint or an inernal problem is raised. This is similar to the version produced for Pindar, Tewkesbury, where the reponsible manager was automatically e-mailed.

This applies to both INTACT and the cut-down front end, EVENTS.

2010-01-18T09:53:00.000Z

Furfural and LEV testing at Heraeus Electro-Nite. Then down to Harwich to carry out the remaining 2 days of the Managing Safely in the Printing Industry course which I'm running at Sato UK.

2010-01-17T17:58:00.000Z

Just off to Chesterfield tonight so that I can be bright and early at Heraeus Electro-Nite to start furfural sampling at 06:00.
Phil