Phil Chambers at Strategic Safety Systems Ltd.: June 2013

Friday, 28 June 2013

Government plans to reduce work experience H&S requirements - full text

The Government is to simplify the health and safety requirements for businesses planning to offer work experience to school pupils as part of its crackdown on "burdensome" rules, it has announced.25 Jun 2013

New guidance issued by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) states that young people should be treated in the same way as ordinary employees, and that businesses that have already performed a risk assessment with young people in mind do not need to repeat this assessment every time they take on a new student.

"Work experience is an important step in preparing young people for the world of work," said HSE chair Judith Hackitt. "Our revised guidance makes it clear – and easy – for employers and work experience organisers to understand what they need to do."

"There is no need for lots of paperwork or an over-cautious approach. Employers who are already managing the risks in their business effectively for employees are unlikely to need to do anything in addition for work experience. Schools and colleges just need to ask a few questions to ascertain that appropriate measures are in place," she said.

Alongside the new guidance, the Association of British Insurers has confirmed that work experience students will be treated as existing employees for the purposes of compulsory employers' liability insurance policies. Employers will also no longer have to carry out disclosure checks on staff supervising young people aged 16 or 17 on work experience.

The announcement is the latest in the Government's drive to cut down on unnecessary and over-burdensome health and safety regulation. Recent announcements have seen low-risk businesses taken out of the health and safety inspection regime, and proposals to remove around 800,000 self-employed people whose work poses no harm to others from health and safety regulation. From October this year, the law will also be changed so that businesses will no longer be liable for workplace accidents where they were not negligent.

The new guidance from the HSE in relation to work experience placements makes it clear that employers are "best placed to assess whether or not they need to do anything additional for a new young person joining them". Under health and safety law, work experience students become employees and should be treated no differently to other young people working for the employer, it says.

Employers should use their "existing arrangements" for the assessment and management of risks to young people, according to the guidance. For a business with five employees or fewer, written risk assessments are not required. Businesses that do not currently employ young people or that are taking on a work experience student for the first time should review their risk assessment before they start, but they do not need to repeat the assessment if a subsequent student is "of a broadly similar level of maturity and understanding" and has no additional needs.

Placements in "low-risk environments, such as offices or shops" should not require any additional preparatory work by the employer. Employers should "make arrangements to manage the risks" where the environment is less familiar to the student, according to the guidance. These arrangements could include induction, supervision, site familiarisation, protective equipment and control measures for specific high-risk factors, depending on the nature of the workplace, according to the guidance.

Schools, colleges and those organising placements are advised in the guidance to "simply ask sensible questions, in proportion to the level of risk", to satisfy themselves that the appropriate arrangements are in place. They should not be "second-guessing employers' risk assessments or requiring additional paperwork", according to the guidance.

Thursday, 27 June 2013

Worker escapes death after 11m fall from cherry picker

Bradford Council was fined after a cherry picker overturned.

Bradford Council has admitted failing to adequately plan work at height following an incident where a worker fell from the cradle of a cherrypicker.

Two council workers were pruning dead branches in Bierley Hall Woods when the incident took place on 27 July last year. They parked the cherrypicker correctly on a compacted path in the woods and placed ground mats underneath the vehicle's stabiliser feet.

One of the workers then stood in the cradle as it was extended to 35 feet above the ground, so he could begin pruning the branches. As he rotated the boom arm and cradle anti-clockwise to move from tree to tree, the weight distribution of the machine changed and the cherrypicker overturned, causing him to fall 11 metres to the ground.

The 23-year-old suffered fractures to his spine, collarbone, pelvis and right leg, and also sustained internal injuries that required surgery. He was unable to return to work for more than five months and is no longer able to carry out tree work at height.

The HSE investigated the incident and found the council had supplied the wrong type of ground mats. As a result, when the vehicle's weight shifted, one of the stabiliser feet slid off a mat and sunk into the soft ground, causing the vehicle to overbalance.

The investigation also found the work hadn't been properly planned and the council had failed to train workers to carry out tree work on soft, sloping, or uneven ground.

HSE inspector David Welsh said: "The use of a vehicle-mounted cherrypicker for work at height needs to be properly planned and organised. The council failed to assess the risks of the tree-pruning work and provided unsuitable mats for the stabiliser feet, which led to an unsafe system of work being in operation.

"A cherrypicker is specialist lifting equipment for work at height and the council did not have a lifting plan in place for its general use for tree pruning, despite the dangers of using such lifting equipment being well-known."

City of Bradford Metropolitan Council appeared at Bradford Magistrates' Court on 25 June and pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) of the HSWA 1974. It was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay £9623 in costs. - See more at: http://www.shponline.co.uk/home/in-court/full/worker-plunged-11-metres-from-overturning-cherrypicker#sthash.WORJpVJ5.dpuf

The circumstances were:

Two tree workers set up the cherry picker correctly on a compacted path in the woods on 27 July 2012.
The council had failed to properly plan and organise the safety aspects of the tree pruning work.
All the council workers who did tree work in off-road locations had never been trained to do the work in soft, sloping or uneven ground. All the training had been done in a depot yard.
The stabilsier feet were set down on mats.
No one had realised that the distance between the stabiliser feet was greater than the width of the path.
The wrong type of ground mats had been provided to the team to put underneath the machine's feet.
One of the workers was working in the extended cradle among the tree tops.
As he rotated the boom arm and cradle anti-clockwise to move from tree to tree, the weight distribution of the machine changed.
When the weight shifted, one of the vehicle's stabiliser feet had slid off a ground mat and then sunk into the soft ground at the side of the compacted path.
The unbalanced machine then toppled without warning.
The worker plunged eleven metres from the cradle of a cherry picker.
He suffered multiple injuries including fractures to his spine, collar bone, pelvis and right leg, plus internal injuries that required surgery

Bradford Council was fined £21,623 (inc. costs) on 25th June 2013.

The HSE inspector said:
"A young man has suffered life-changing injuries as a result of a number of failures by Bradford Council but we could easily have been dealing with a fatal injury considering the distance of this worker's fall. The use of a vehicle-mounted cherry picker for work at height needs to be properly planned and organised. The Council failed to assess the risks of the tree pruning work and provided unsuitable mats for the stabiliser feet, which led to an unsafe system of work being in operation. A cherry picker is specialist lifting equipment for work at height and the council did not have a lifting plan in place for its general use for tree pruning, despite the dangers of using such lifting equipment being well known. Work at height remains one of the most significant causes of death and major injuries among workers. All such work must be carefully planned and workers need the correct equipment for each task and adequate supervision."

Worker's hand drawn into unguarded rollers on laminating machine

A Wellingborough firm has been fined for safety breaches after a worker’s hand was crushed in an unguarded laminating machine.

The circumstances were:

The incident, on 20 January 2012 occurred at The Paper Pallet Company Ltd
The company uses recycled paper to make pallets
A honeycomb laminating machine was unguarded at several points, not just where the incident occurred.
The guarding over the gears and chains allowed access to dangerous moving parts.
Some of the emergency stops did not work properly.
The company had not carried out a risk assessment on the machine.
There was no safe system of work for cleaning the gluing rollers or for the operation, use and maintenance of the line.
An operator's right hand and forearm were drawn into gluing rollers of the machine.
He has had four operations and extensive physiotherapy but it is unlikely he will ever regain full movement in his hand.

Following the incident, the company introduced a light guard system, which shuts down the line if anyone breaks the beam to approach dangerous moving parts.

The Paper Pallet Company was fined £30,877 (inc. costs).

The HSE inspector said:
"This is a very serious case of a company neglecting its duty to supervise and protect its employees from potentially dangerous machinery. Basic risk assessments weren’t carried out and Mr Taylor was not given suitable instruction in how to use the machine safely. Even his supervisor had not been given appropriate health and safety training to allow him to discharge his responsibilities adequately. The Paper Pallet Company Ltd has now introduced measures that will cut the power to the machinery if anyone approaches dangerous moving parts. It’s just a shame this did not happen before their employee suffered such severe injuries."

Sawmill fined £57,000 after accident on poorly guarded conveyor belt.

Pontrilas Sawmills Ltd., of Herefordshire, has been fined after an employee suffered severe crush injuries when his arm was dragged into the rollers of a poorly-guarded conveyor belt.

The circumstances were:

On 25 January 2012, a saw operator was attempting to remove a piece of wood from the idling end roller of the conveyor as it was interfering with the operation of the machine.
The conveyor was affected by a fault which the company had been aware of for at least three weeks.
The fault allowed an increasing amount of wood debris to accumulate at the idle roller end of the conveyor belt making it more likely that the machine would trip out.
Pontrilas Sawmills Ltd failed to carry out a proper assessment of the risks associated with the conveyor belt. As a result there were no suitable controls in place, such as fixed or interlocked guards.
The conveyor did have a cover which was principally to reduce noise but also acted as a guard. However, the cover was not interlocked.
The company did not have a written safe system of work, which would have identified the need to isolate the conveyor before attempting to clear debris, thus eliminating the risk.
As the operator went to take hold of the piece of wood, his hand and then his arm got drawn in and trapped between the conveyor belt and the roller.
His co-workers rushed to help and one pressed an emergency stop button.
The conveyor belt then had to be cut to release his arm.
He suffered crush injuries to his upper right arm and nerve damage that has weakened his arm and hand.

Pontrilas Sawmills Ltd, was fined £57,756 (inc.costs) on 24th June 2013.

The HSE inspector said:
"This incident could have had fatal consequences yet was easily preventable had Pontrilas Sawmills carried out an adequate risk assessment of their equipment and properly supervised their employees. Conveyors of this type are recognised in the industry as being high risk, which is why they are so heavily guarded. Devices are installed on machinery with dangerous moving parts to protect those who work with them. Companies have a legal duty of care to ensure they are fitted and working effectively at all times. Failure to protect employees and put in place safe systems of work puts workers at unnecessary risk and is simply not acceptable. HSE will not hesitate to take enforcement action in cases such as this."

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".

Monday, 24 June 2013

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

Friday, 21 June 2013

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."

Tuesday, 18 June 2013

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."

Sunday, 16 June 2013

Company fined £64,000 because most machines were unsafe

Sartex Quilts and Textiles Ltd., of Rochdale were fined £64,614 (inc. costs) after a health and safety inspection found the majority of its machines were unsafe to use.

The HSE:

Issued 3 prohibition notices
Issued 12 improvement notices
Prosecuted Sartex

An HSE Inspector said:
"This was one of the worst cases of missing or inadequate guards I or my colleagues have ever seen. Every corner we turned, we found another issue. The company put production before health and safety and put the lives of its employees in danger as a result. Common sense should have meant they didn't use cardboard to cover dangerous moving parts, but that's exactly what we found on one machine. Hundreds of injuries are reported every year across Great Britain caused by poor or missing guards, and it's only luck that no one has been seriously injured or even killed at Sartex Quilts' factory in Rochdale."

Benefits of ISO 9001 certification beyond the badge

Some people seek certification to ISO 9001 to give them a marketing advantage. Whilst it generally does this, wise people will also make use of the benefits that having a formalised quality management system brings. Here are three examples from companies with whom we have worked.

Company A
Company A had a proliferation of spreadsheets carrying information about quotations and orders. Essentially, everyone did their own thing, with the best of intentions. However, there are two problems with this situation:

There is the cost incurred in everyone entering data into their own spreadsheets, and
There is a good chance that there will be disparities. These occur because of either keying-in errors or timing differences. Say an order is received but it is slightly different to that which was quoted; if all the spreadsheets aren't updated at the same time, then which ones contain the correct data?

Company A decided on a 2-step approach. Initially, they reduced the number of spreadsheets, and as a longer term solution, are considering a relational database system.

Company B
Company B are an engineering company. They used the systems set up in their quality management system, used with the SSS INTACT system, to track the incidence and costs of both internal problems and customer complaints. They were able, for litte cost, to analyse the cause and costs of these and determine actions to prevent recurrence. They achieved both cost savings and improved customer relations because of the reduction in issues which could be the cause of a customer complaint.

Company C
Company C are another engineering company. Without a formal calibration system, they ran the risk that the measuring equipment they were using might be incorrect. This was a high-risk situation, with the potential for incorrect products being shipped to clients resulting in high costs of replacement and gaining a poor reputation.

Company C decided to buy appropriate calibrated slip gauges (they did not need a full set) and set up a simple calibration programme, with records for each measuring device. Apart from the initial cost for the slip gauges, the on-going cost is low and so the cost of calibration is little when compared with the risk of using uncalibrated measuring devices.

See more about ISO 9001 systems support from SSS
See more about INTACT

Wednesday, 12 June 2013

Failure to organise non-standard work results in 6m fall

Dollcast of Tonypandy were fined £19,671 (inc. costs) after a contractor fell 6m during a lighting maintenance operation.

The circumstances were:

The contractor was using a scissor lift to replace high level lights in a fabrication shop.
There was no system of work in place for the contractor to carry out his task safely.
No attempt was made to isolate an overhead gantry crane which was used in that area.
Another worker was using the gantry crane to move steel around the shop when it struck the scissor lift.
The contractor fell to the factory floor below and suffered five broken ribs, lacerations to his elbow and injuries to his hips.

The HSE Inspector said:
"This was a serious incident and, in a fall of six metres, this worker was lucky not to have lost his life. It was also needless and avoidable. The incident could have easily been prevented if a simple, suitable system of work had been used by Dollcast, including the secure isolation of the overhead crane from its power supply. This would have been a straightforward process of establishing a break in the power supply, normally by using a lockable isolator switch, and then securing the switch in the 'off' position using a padlock to prevent it being switched back on until the maintenance work had finished. Working at height is a significant risk activity across all industries. Last year more than 6,300 employees suffered major injuries following a fall. Working at height must always be properly planned."

Sunday, 9 June 2013

The SSS 5-Principle approach

All of the work that Strategic Safety Systems does, whether it is for safety, environment, quality of business improvment, follows the 5 principles shown below:

No weighty documentation; implementation focussed
We avoid big, thick manuals which nobody can use. Our prime concern is with making sure everything we provide can be readily implemented.
We do the work
We don't provide you with masses of forms and paperwork. We do the work for you, involving key people if you want.
Get in close
We avoid the "guy in the suit with a clipboard" scenario. We get in close, communicate with operators and other personnel and understand whatt they do.
No long-term tie-in
Some service providers expect you t o sign up for 2 or 3 years. We don't do that. You pay for what has been delivered and if you don't like it, you can terminate the agreement at any time. (Nobody does that, however.)
Competence
Whilst SSS cover many areas, if your requirement is outside our level of competence, we tell you there and then. And if we can, we will recommend a suitable alternative provider.

Friday, 7 June 2013

Finger lost due to lack of guarding

An employee of Ardagh Metal Packaging lost his finger on an unguarded part of machinery.
The circumstances were:

The machine had been supplied by Crabtree without adequate guarding
Ardagh failed to identify the risks to workers from the unguarded conveyor
The employee, Brain Allen, was feeding the metal sheets into the conveyor of a coating machine when his wedding ring got caught and his finger was severed.

Ardagh Metal Packaging (UK) Ltd, was fined £21,754 (inc costs) after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.
Crabtree of Gateshead Ltd, was fined £17,570 (inc. costs) after pleading guilty breaching of Regulation 11(1) of the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992.

The HSE Inspector said:
"Brian Allen sustained a painful injury as a result of an incident that was entirely avoidable. Risk assessments by Crabtree identified that the conveyor could cause injury and a warning was included in the operating manual, but they nonetheless supplied the machine without adequate guarding. Ardagh, meanwhile, failed to identify the risk despite the practice of hand feeding sheets into the conveyor being well known to operators. This case demonstrates the need for employers to carry out their own assessment of the risks posed by machinery, based on the circumstances in which the equipment will be used. It is not sufficient to assume that is safe as soon as it is purchased. Involving workers in the risk assessment process is crucial. Had the employees been consulted by either company it would have been apparent that hand feeding of sheets onto the conveyor took place. This would have alerted Ardagh and Crabtree to the need for adequate guarding, which has now been installed."

Monday, 3 June 2013

Companies fined after fall from height when accessing machine

AAA Linen and Laundryquip LLP have both been fined for safety breaches after a worker fell from a ladder while trying to clear a blockage in an industrial-sized laundry machine.
The circumstances were:

Laundryquip LLP had provided the reconditioned machine and installed it without suitable access steps that had been ordered by AAA Linen Services.
Instead, AAA provided workers with a standard office chair to climb on when they needed to access the machine.
On 20 December 2010 a team leader at AAA Linen Services decided to use a ladder to reach and clear a machine blockage after having nearly fallen on a previous occasion while using the chair.
The unsecured ladder slipped sending her falling to the factory floor.
She shattered her left ankle after she fell when the ladder slipped.

Laundryquip was fined £21,500 (inc costs).
AAA Linen Services Ltd was fined £9,500 inc costs).

The HSE Inspector said:
"AAA Linen failed to ensure their employees' safety when they needed to work at height to clear blockages on this large laundry machine. A chair was clearly the wrong choice of equipment and exposed workers to unnecessary risk. Their action led to an avoidable incident in which a woman was caused a great deal of pain and suffering. All work at height must be properly planned, organised and carried out by competent persons. Measures need to be put in place to avoid, prevent or reduce the risks of falls. Laundryquip LLP, as the supplier of the machine, had a duty to ensure that the machine was safe when put to use and, in this instance, they fell well below the acceptable standard of care.
Falls from height remain the single biggest cause of workplace deaths and one of the main causes of injury."