Bushell and Meadows gain ISO 13486

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

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

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

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

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:

1. Demand to see a copy of the asbestos survey report and/or
2. 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

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

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