CE Marking - when does it apply?

Some people get confused about when the Supply of Machinery Regulations 2008
(the UK enactment of the Machinery Directive 2006) applies.
Reg. 3 states: 

() In these Regulations, subject to paragraph (2)—

(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.

Translating this into English, it means that it only applies if:

• You are placing equipment on the market in the EU for the first time, ie it does not apply if you are selling a piece of used equipment. Note that it applies if you are importing even second-hand equipment into the EU for first-time use within the EU
  
• It implies that machinery put into use, even within your own company, must conform. Note the terms "distribution or use".

Government plan to simplify work experience H&S requirements

 On 21st June Ministers outlined plans to make it as easy as possible for employers to take on work experience students. These include:

• A committment from the insurance industry to treat work experience students as employees for the purposes of insurance against bodily injury, and confirmation that simply giving work experience opportunities to students will not in itself impact on insurance premiums.
• HSE has issuing guidance providing clarity on employers’ obligations with regard to risk assessments - making it clear that if workplace risk has already been assessed with young people in mind, a business does not need to repeat this for each new student.
• Publishing by DfE and Ofsted of a guide to clarify the health and safety responsibilities for educational establishments organising work experience opportunities.

See more on this

Lack of proper guarding causes finger loss on chocolate machine

Chocolate maker Ashbury Chocolates Ltd., was fined £8485 (inc.cost) after an employee's finger was severed in an inadequately guarded machine.
The circumstances were:

• The machine was a depositor, which pipes liquid chocolate into moulds
• It was only partially guarded
• There was an interlocking guard at the top of the stirrer cavity but there was no protective device in place at the bottom.
• This meant that it was possible to reach in through the bottom even though the machine was running
• Joao Countinho was cleaning the machine on 29 February 2012. 
• He had removed the rotors and reached up to check the stirrer cavity was clean but the stirrers were still rotating. 
• His left index finger became trapped and was partially severed. It had to be fully amputated later in hospital.

The HSE inspector said: "This was a serious incident that could have easily been prevented. Ashbury Chocolates Limited had a duty to ensure its employees were protected from the dangerous moving parts of its machines. It failed in that duty. The company has since installed a new guard to prevent a recurrence but it is a pity a man had to suffer a painful injury for that to happen."

£300,000 in fines after death from fall through fragile roof

The death of a worker who fell 6m through a fragile roof has resulted in major fines for 2 companies.

The circumstances were:

• The building was a warehouse in Dover owned by Allied Domecq Spirits and Wine Ltd., trading as CG Hibbert Ltd.
• Allied Domecq contracted Richard Parker, trading as Ovenden Engineering to fix a leak in the roof and clean the gutters.
• Allied Domecq had used Richard Parker many times for roof work, as often as every month.
• There was no safety equipment in place for anyone working on the roof, which was itself fragile.  There were no crawling boards, scaffolding boards, harnesses or nets to protect workers from the risks.
• Allied Domecq had responsibility for the site but did not ensure that contractors planned their work and carried it out safely and that proper control measures were in place.
• The worker, Robert Rogers, was on the roof with his brother, Trevor, also an employee of Richard Parker
• He fell through one of the 80 skylights and hit the concrete floor below. He suffered multiple injuries and died later in hospital.

Richard Parker was fined £30,667 (inc. costs) on 18th June.
Allied Domecq Spirits and Wine Ltd., was fined £277,429 (inc. costs).

The HSE Inspector  said:
"This is a tragic case in which a devoted husband, father and grandfather has lost his life whilst at work. It is sickening that such incidents happen despite the widespread industry knowledge of the risks of working at height and of working on fragile roofs with equally fragile skylights. Mr Rogers’ death was entirely preventable. Mr Parker should have provided his workers with suitable equipment to work on the roof. He failed to do so. Allied Domecq do not contract out their health and safety responsibilities just by contracting out a particular job. It was their duty to ensure there was a safe system of work before the job started and that their contractors followed agreed safe procedures. They too failed to do so."

Mixing of old and new substance symbols

Somebody asked me today if it was OK to mix the old and new types of symbols which denote if a substance is hazardous to health. He was concerned with the containers having new symbols whilst the MSDS had old ones.

There is a long transition period from 2009 to 2015 for the new "red rhomboid" symbols to take over. In my opinion, because there is no confusion between the symbols (with the possible exception of that shown above where ! means caution), there is low risk in mixing these and therefore it is acceptable to have different styles in use, but not on the same document or label.

Proposal to remove 12 pieces of H&S legilsation

CD260 is a consultative document issued on 17th June which covers the HSE's proposals to remove 2 acts and 10 regulations which they believe are redundant.
They propose that the following legislation be removed:

• Factories Act 1961 (FA61)
• Offices, Shops & Railway Premises Act 1963 (OSRPA)
• Factories Act (Docks, Building and Engineering Construction, etc) Modification Regulations 1938
• Factories Act 1937 (Extension of Section 46) Regulations 1948
• Factories Act 1961 and Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 (Repeals and Modifications) Regulations 2009
• Factories Act 1961 (Repeals) Regulations 1975
• Factories Act 1961 etc (Metrication) Regulations 1983
• Factories Act 1961 etc (Repeals and Modifications) Regulations 1974
• Factories Act 1961 etc (Repeals) Regulations 1976
• Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 (Repeals and Modifications) Regulations 1974
• Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 (Repeals) Regulations 1975
• Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 etc (Repeals) Regulations 1976

 See or respond to CD260

Worker falls when standing on pallet on forklft truck

LE Jones Ltd, a haulage company of Ruthin, was fined £19,041 (inc. costs) after an employee fell 2m from a pallet on the forks of a forklift truck on 22 February 2011.
The circumstances were:

• The employee was asked to repair a high level tear in the curtain sided lorry trailer unit
• The work had not been properly planned and no suitable equipment had been provided by the company.
• The firm also failed to monitor and supervise the work of its employees.
• To reach the tear, he got on top of a wooden pallet which was raised off the ground by a forklift. 
• After completing the work, he called for another worker to lower him down. 
• The lift truck lurched backwards, causing him to fall off the pallet.
• He suffered serious fractures to both his heels

The HSE Inspector  said: "This entirely preventable incident could have caused much more serious or even life-changing injuries. The company could have provided a permanent gantry or a cherry-picker for routine repairs on its quite large road fleet. Work at height must be properly planned and organised by a competent person. This prosecution should send a strong signal to all companies that improvised work platforms are not acceptable in the modern workplace and HSE will take action where ineffectual monitoring and supervision leads to any incident."