HSE promote sensible approach to PAT testing

Good to see that the HSE are now promoting the sensible approach to electrical safety testing that SSS have always advocated.  If you have situations such as offices, it is not necessary to have equipment tested annually.

Their publication "Maintaining portable electric equipment in low-risk environments" is short and readable.  You can read it at http://tinyurl.com/bizinf-2y219.

And their web page  "Portable applicance testing - frequently asked questions" is also worth looking at.

SSS provide safety support for Deburring Services

SSS have completed the first block of health and safety support for Deburring Services, of Cheltenham.

Deburring Services carry out specialist services for aerospace. medical, Formula 1 and other applications.  

The support provided by SSS included, risk assessment, CoSHH assessment and fire risk assessment.  A programme of on-going support has been agreed, comprising periodic visits.

Following the initial block of work, John Wood, Managing Director of Deburring Services said that, "I'm delighted with the standard and professionalism of this work. Finding Strategic Safety Systems was like finding the golden nugget.  It has reduced the burden of health and safety on us considerably.  We will certainly recommend them."

 Deburring Services has coming under increased pressure to become certified to ISO 14001, and will use SSS to provide the systems for this.

See more about risk assessment services from SSS.

Beware the CE mark, yet again

We have recently reviewed a machine which is the first of its kind.  This machine is being Beta tested at one of our customers and they asked us to review the safety aspects of this machine.  Though the type of machine that the new one is destined to replace is horrible, and has caused major injuries and deaths throughout industry, we found a number of shortcomings with the new machine.  These were:

• Access platform from which the machine is loaded and unloaded extended for only 33% of the full width and had no end handrails. Operators were therefore required to reach out over the edge twice for every item processed. (Risk of falls)
• Scissor lifts for raising material had no devices to protect against crush injury either during normal use or during maintenance. (Risk of crush or foot amputation)
• No guarding on feed mechanism underside. (Risk of entrapment)
• No guarding of gaps which could cause finger amputation injury. One gap is right next to handles on a part being moved. (Risk of finger amputation)
• Potential for heavy part of the machine to be dropped.  Stops to prevent this were marginal. (Risk of upper body or lower body crush injury)

Because of legal concerns, we cannot show photographs of the machine or name the manufacturer.  

All of the above risks were immediately apparent.  Suitable risk control measures are readily available and cost little when compared with the overall cost of the machine.

Remember the following:

• CE marking is a self-assessment process for most machinery.  There is no independant "CE inspector".
• The employer carries the final responsibility. See London Borough of Tower Hamlets v HSBC Bank plc.
  However, the supplier also has obligations under the Health and Safety at Work Act and the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations.

SSS provide risk assessment services for many industries and CE marking and design support for manufacturers and agents.

PIAC to close after 32 years

The Printing Industry Advisory Committee, which was chaired and driven by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), supported by stakeholders from the industry has come to an end after 32 years.

The safety committee was set up and introduced by the regulator back in July 1979, to help improve safety standards for the industry when health and safety regulations began to swamp the workplace, in particular the early nineties.

The committee was responsible for monitoring accident trends, identifying target areas for campaigning, introducing guidance documents, supporting the HSE in developing Safe Systems of Work and many more areas of support, to help raise safety standards and for employers to comply with workplace health and safety regulations.

Certain committee members were also involved in the development of the well-known Printer's Guide to Health and Safety, a publication commonly known as the ‘printer's safety bible', and its ongoing updates. But sadly the committee closed at the end of its last meeting on 28th March 2012. The driver behind this decision has been the HSE and its unpopular Manufacturing Industries Sector Strategy document, which went to consultation back in August 2011, placing the Print sector in the band D category (low risk), and therefore, not requiring an IAC status. These decisions have been made due to harsh cutbacks in Government Office.

As a past member of this committee and a contributory author to The Printer's Guide to Health and Safety, I'd like to say how sad I am that this has happened. 

October start for HSE cost-recovery confirmed

The HSE’s cost-recovery scheme, known as Fee for Intervention (FFI), will begin on 1 October, subject to Parliamentary approval, the regulator has announced.

As well as confirming the start date for the scheme, the HSE has also published initial guidance explaining how the scheme will work in practice, along with examples illustrating how it will be applied.

The scheme was originally expected to come into force in April but was postponed following the HSE’s decision to take more time to discuss certain “technical details” and carry out a test run. Announcing the date of the scheme’s launch (29 June), HSE programme director Gordon MacDonald stressed that law-abiding businesses will not pay a penny and that the Executive will only recover costs from duty-holders that are found to be in material breach of health and safety law. “We have worked with industry representatives in shaping the final form of the scheme, and the published guidance explains how the scheme will work and what businesses can do to comply with the law and avoid incurring a fee,” he explained.
 
“It is right that those who break the law should pay their fair share of the costs to put things right, and not the public purse. Firms who manage workplace risks properly will not pay.”   

Detailed advice on the scheme’s operation is now available in a newly published guidance document on the HSE’s website. The guidance includes a number of examples of material breaches but does not cover every scenario where FFI might apply. It also explains how the scheme will operate in accordance with the HSE’s existing Enforcement Management Model (EMM) and the Enforcement Policy Statement (EPS).
The process for handling queries and disputed invoices is also covered, although full guidance on these procedures will be published on the HSE website in advance of the Health and Safety (Fees) Regulations 2012 – under which FFI is being introduced – coming into effect.

The new guidance confirms that the fee payable by duty-holders found to be in material breach of the law is £124 per hour, except where work is contracted to the Health and Safety Laboratory, or a specialist third party, in which instances the actual cost to the HSE of the service will be recovered from the duty-holder. The fee includes all work that is needed to identify a material breach and all work to ensure that the breach is remedied.

FFI will apply when an inspector:

• identifies a contravention of health and safety law;
• is of the opinion that the contravention is serious enough to require written notification (i.e. it is a material breach); and
• notifies the person contravening the law of their opinion, in writing, by a notification of contravention, Improvement or Prohibition Notice, or prosecution.

Invoices will generally be sent to duty-holders every two months, and payment is due to the HSE within 30 days of the date of the invoice.

With disputes, all initial inquiries will be treated as a query for which no fee is payable. However, if duty-holders are not satisfied with the response to their query, they can formally dispute the invoice by writing to the HSE and setting out the specific reasons why they do not believe the charge is valid. A fee is payable for handling disputes.

Existing arrangements for making an appeal against an Improvement or Prohibition Notice remain unchanged.

Steffan Groch, a partner at DWF solicitors, said FFI is of particular concern for smaller businesses. “Depending on experience and style, some inspectors may take longer than others to complete the investigation, which will undoubtedly lead to discrepancies across the board, meaning some businesses could pay much more than others,” he explained. “Apart from knowing that the hourly rate will be £124, businesses will have no way of knowing what the final bill will come to until the very end of the case. What’s more, there appears to be no room for discussion or negotiations until this stage either, as the first time that a business can raise an objection is when they receive the invoice for the investigation. Ultimately, it is smaller businesses that are going to suffer as a result of the FFI regulation.”

The initial ‘Guidance on the application of Fee for Intervention’ is available at www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/hse47.htm but a final version will be published prior to the start date of the scheme.

Fall from platform at boat-buidling firm

A worker suffered a broken arm after falling off the unprotected edge of a wooden staging, which was positioned around a boat while it was being refurbished.

The employee, who wishes to remain anonymous, was working for boat builders Clare Lallow Ltd when the incident took place at the firm’s yard in Cowes. The company has an international reputation and built a number of yachts for former prime minister Edward Heath, including the Morning Cloud.

On 4 August 2011, the worker was attempting to pick up a specialist sanding and polishing machine, known as a linisher, from the wooden staging, when he fell over the edge and landed on the ground 1.4 metres below. He received treatment for a broken arm and was unable to return to work for more than five months owing to his injuries.

The HSE visited the yard and found that the company had added rope guardrails around the staging, but these were not sufficient to prevent further falls. The company was issued with a Prohibition Notice on 23 August 2011, which required the work to stop until suitable measures were put in place to prevent falls from height.

HSE inspector Craig Varian explained that the incident could have been avoided if suitable edge protection had been installed. He said: “The company's failings left an individual injured for a significant period of time. Yet the incident was avoidable. Clare Lallow Ltd should have recognised the risks and installed simple, low-cost solutions to prevent the employees falling from this staging around the boat. You don't have to fall from a great height to lose your life. It's wrong that workers like the one in this case suffer preventable injuries because simple steps have not been taken to manage obvious workplace risks. It is vital all work is properly planned, assessed and then implemented.”

Clare Lallow appeared at Isle of Wight Magistrates’ Court on 7 June and pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) of the HSWA 1974. It was fined £1000 and ordered to pay the same amount in costs. In mitigation, the company said it had no previous convictions and it complied with the Prohibition Notice by constructing a scaffold and guardrail system around the boat. The firm also said it deeply regretted the incident and the injuries suffered by its employee, who had worked for the company for more than 16 years.

Source: SHP

Recycling firm fined £200,000 for loader fatality

A decision to allow an unsupervised, inexperienced 21-year-old worker to operate a poorly-maintained loader had fatal consequences, a court has heard.

Mark Bate, of Tipton, West Midlands, was killed instantly when the arm of a JCB skid-steer loader crushed his head on 12 June 2008. He had been driving the vehicle at SITA UK Ltd’s premises on the Coneygre Industrial Estate for three months without being properly trained.

On the day of the incident, he was working on his own to load scrap paper on to a conveyor. Once he had finished, he brought the load to a halt and raised the safety bar from across his lap to isolate the machine. But the vehicle failed to isolate and, as he leant out of the front of the vehicle, the loader’s arm fell and crushed his head against the machine, killing him immediately.

The HSE investigation found that Mr Bate had never received formal training or assessment in the use of the vehicle, and a self-employed maintenance engineer had also used it over several months with no training. In addition, the court heard the loader had not been maintained in the eight months before the incident. It should have been serviced at least twice during this period.

Appearing at Wolverhampton Crown Court on 1 June, SITA UK was fined £200,000 and ordered to pay full costs of £77,402, after pleading guilty to breaching s2(1) and s3(1) of the HSWA 1974. The company was also instructed to reimburse Mr Bate’s mother, Catherine Jones, £4450 in funeral costs. 

Following the case, HSE inspector David Evans said: “Mark Bate was a young man who should have had a long life ahead of him. Instead, he was killed in an entirely avoidable tragedy. Despite knowing his lack of experience, SITA left him unsupervised to operate the loader. Furthermore, the vehicle was dangerous because it had not been properly maintained. The company’s risk assessment should have identified these issues but did not cover the use of this machine.”

Source: SHP