Avoid tyre damage due to speed humps

In Daily Telegraph car section:

Q: Can speed bumps wear out the inside of tyres if you straddle them?

A: This is exactly how speed cushions destroy the inner shoulders of car tyres. Always drive with one wheel over the centre of the cushion and one on the flat. You feel the bump, of course, but you don't suffer hidden tyre damage that could cause a serious accident. 

SSS comment: When claims are made about safety devices, often the negative effects are ignored. We're missing data on how many have been killed by sudden tyre failure caused by speed humps.

Be wary of FFI fee reimbursement schemes

There are companies offering an FFI fee reimbursement scheme.

The HSE now charge a fee for intervention (FFI) of £114 per hour for any situation where they do work as a result of a material breach of health and safety regulations.  The idea is that those that are at fault should pay, rather than the taxpayer.

The FFI fee reimbursement scheme seems to be an insurance policy where you pay a premium and can then claim back the whole of the fee that the HSE has charged you.

Insurance is essential for many situations and, on the face of it, this might seem to be one of those.
I am not suggesting that those who are selling this scheme are dishonest, but I offer the following observations:

• Unlike an injury or similar claim which could runs to 10's or even 100's of thousands, FFI is not a great amount; whilst nobody like to pay this fee, it is not crippling.
• There is an excess of £150, so that is 80 minutes of FFI.
• Advertised limits are £10,000 for each claim and £25,000 per year. Really, if you are anticipating getting charged this much, you've got serious problems. You need to put the effort into correcting the problem, rather than accepting that it will happen.
• FFI is contestable.  SSS have contested an improvement notice and FFI for one client and the HSE withdrew the notice and the fee. 

Rather than sign up for an FFI fee reimbursement scheme, talk to a health and safety practitioner and make sure you are on top of your health and safety issues.

Safety bills passing through Parliament.

Two bills are passing through the House of Lords.

The Deregulation Bill has just passed through the House of Lords without any amendments to its first clause, the element of the Bill that concerns some safety organisations. 

Clause 1 makes some individuals totally exempt from the health and safety regime prescribed by the Health and Safety at Work, etc.,1974 Act, but the numbers that will be fully exempted are likely to be relatively low and the risk they pose to themselves or others in their work activities will equally be comparatively low.

There is an uninformed minority who are constantly reinforcing the view that health and safety is in some way excessive and a barrier to business.  This should be contrasted with the view (reported in the SSS second October newsletter) of Judith Hackitt, Chair of the HSE, who urged people not to confuse health and safety with liability limitation.
  

The general feeling is that Clause 1 is a symbolic totem to the idea of deregulation and will not have much material impact.

The next bill was intended to address the "compensation culture", in this case for situation where a person might not rescue a drowning person for fear of being sued.

The Social Action, Social Responsibility and Heroism Bill was described in the House of Lords on 4th November as "useless, trivial and pointless", and "stood out, not because it was important, but because it had no importance at all." 

So that looks like a no-hoper for addressing the prime problem we have with the compensation culture.

Companies fined nearly £63,000 after worker crushed by falling steelwork during dismantling operation

Two Derbyshire companies have been fined at total of £62,692 for safety failings after a worker was crushed whilst dismantling steelwork.

The circumstances were:

• Instant Installations Ltd, had been contracted to supply labour for the dismantling of steelwork at MMD Mining Machinery Developments Ltd's site.
• Both companies failed to plan the dismantling work and to record the arrangements for carrying out the work.
• Employees of Instant Installations were using a scissor lift  to gain access to surplus steelwork.
• However, the scissor lift was also used to lower steel beams at height by resting them on the guard rails of the platform. 
• The scissor lift was not designed for such work and an appropriate lifting device or crane should have been used.
• Having removed single section beams (each typically weighing 430kg) using the scissor lift, the injured person and a colleague worked from the scissor lift and attempted to remove a compound crane beam. 
• This was longer and heavier, weighing over a tonne, which was more than twice the scissor lift’s safe working load.
• After removing bolts keeping the beam in place using a cherry picker, the injured person raised the scissor lift underneath the compound beam without the stabiliser legs deployed.
• When the guard rail rested up against the beam, the lift’s alarm sounded, informing the workers the lift was overloaded. 
• Repeated attempts to place the handrail of the platform against the underside of the unfastened compound beam led to the beam becoming unstable and it toppled towards the factory floor.
• The compound beam had been positioned centrally on the scissor lift, and the injured person was operating the platform controls from a position between the compound beam and the handrailing.
• As the beam toppled towards the factory floor, the injured person was struck by the falling compound beam, causing him serious head and chest crush injuries. He remains off work.
• The compound beam falling to the ground also caused the elevated platform to sway significantly, leaving the co-worker fearful of being thrown from the lift platform.

MMD Mining Machinery Developments Ltd was fined £ 34,679 (inc.costs) 

Instant Installations Ltd, of Station Lane, New Whittington, was fined £28,013 (inc. costs) 

The HSE inspector said:

“This incident, which saw completely inadequate equipment being used to remove heavy steel beams at height, could easily have resulted in a fatality. It is the duty of employers to ensure that the correct work equipment is provided to carry out the work they have been tasked with. The failure of MMD Ltd in not notifying this work as a construction project also precluded them the opportunity to seek competent advice for the construction work. The failure to make the statutory notification meant they then carried the statutory duties of the ‘client’, ‘CDM co-ordinator’ and ‘principal contractor’. This incident demonstrates they were not competent to undertake those roles. Had they sourced and properly made such appointments then it is unlikely this incident would have occurred. This work was not properly planned out by either company and that lack of planning has led to a worker suffering very serious injuries which he is still recovering from more than three years later.”

Vector Aerospace fined £52,514 after failing to assess operations resulting in hand-arm vibration syndrome

Vector Aerospace International Limited, of Gosport, was fined £52,514 (inc. costs) on 3 November 2014 after personnel developed hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS) symptoms.

The circumstances were:

• Vector Aerospace has a workforce of 1,100 at Gosport. 
• They surveyed the tools being used by workers in 2007. 
• At that stage they took the decision that no controls were needed.
• As a result the recognised risks of vibration from the use of around 1,600 tools by 400-450 employees on the site was never controlled. 
• Personnel using such tools had not been provided with any information or training about the risks posed from the work they were carrying out.
• The absence of mitigating measures for the workers led to some being exposed to vibration levels likely to have exceeded the legal limits.
• 13 cases were identified in 2013/14 after improved health surveillance was eventually introduced.
• Two of them were diagnosed at Stage 3 – showing the most severe and painful symptoms.

The HSE inspector said:

“Vector Aerospace had the resources to protect its employees from the well-known effects of excessive exposure to vibration but failed to do so over a significant number of years. As a result, 13 employees developed symptoms of HAVS which can affect all aspects of their lives. HSE’s intervention in 2013 was as a result of the company bringing in health surveillance for the first time. Although this identified these cases, it came too late for these workers. The company failed to assess the risks and implement the necessary controls. Employers have a duty to provide effective measures to ensure the health of their staff is not seriously or permanently harmed by the work they are asked to do.”

Plastics company fined after worker was struck by molten plastic

Ebac Ltd., of County Durham was fined £9,000 (inc. costs and surcharge)  after a worker suffered serious burns when he was struck by a jet of hot molten plastic.

The circumstances were:

• John Calcutt was helping clear solidified plastic from a large plastic injection moulding machine on 9 September 2013.
• A blockage was identified at the machine’s injection unit, where the raw material is fed into the machine, melted and mixed before being injected into the mould cavity.
• Ebac had not carried out an assessment of the risks to employees while clearing blockages on the feed / injection system.
• Ebac did not ensure workers were using personal protective equipment.
• Mr Calcutt had not received any training on clearing blockages on the machine. 
• Mr Calcutt and two colleagues attempted to clear the blockage. 
• None of those involved in the task were wearing any form of eye or face protection.
• Hot liquid plastic was ejected from the machine and struck Mr Calcutt across the left side of his face and his left hand and arm by the  causing serious burns.
• He was airlifted to hospital and kept in for three days. He is still receiving treatment and physiotherapy but has returned to work at Ebac Ltd.

The HSE Inspector said:

“This incident could have been easily prevented if Ebac Ltd had a safe system of work in place for dealing with blockages. The potential for ejection of hot molten plastic is highlighted in the industry’s own guidance and this was a foreseeable risk that should have been part of the risk assessment process for clearing blockages. The company should have also had monitoring in place to ensure that its employees were using the appropriate personal protective equipment that had been provided. Instead, the firm’s failures mean a worker has suffered serious injuries.”

How often should fire risk assessments be reviewed?

There was an interesting article in today's IFSEC Global's Fire Briefing on how often fire risk assessments need to be reviewed and what the review should comprise.

Strategic Safety Systems promote the policy, for all and not just fire risk assessments, that risk assessments should be reviewed at least every 2 years, unless there is reason to suspect that the assessment is no longer valid.

So, for example, one of our clients has just extended their factory, changing the area of course, but also changing the fire exits and adding a 2-storey work area in one corner of the extension.  As this is a significant change, SSS reviewed and updated the fire risk assessment, even though it was only 10 months since it was last reviewed.

A review does not necessarily mean a complete re-assessment, though SSS and other consultancies typically do that if another organisation has carried out the assessment and we find it deficient.

The key questions to ask in any review are:

• Has anything changed which makes the assessment invalid?  This can include changes within the organisation, changes made by neighbours, incidents at similar facilities and so on.
• Have actions raised from the assessment been completed?

You need to document the review and state the next review date.

See article