New Code of Practice for Fire Protection Measures
The BSI has introduced BS 7273-1:2006 Code of practice for the operation of fire protection measures. Electrical actuation of gaseous total flooding extinguishing systems. This standard is part of the BS 7273 series and gives recommendations for electrical equipment for the actuation of gaseous total flooding fire-extinguishing systems including design, installation and commissioning. It covers the interface between fire detection and fire alarm systems (BS 5839-1) and gaseous total flooding fire- extinguishing systems (BS 5306 and BS ISO 14520). BS 7273-1:2006 is also applicable to fire protection systems for electronic equipment installations (BS 6266).
The new standard supersedes BS 7273-1:2000, which is now withdrawn. The principal changes from the former standard include:
- Recommendations relating to control and indicating equipment have been removed. Reference is now made to BS EN 12094-1 and BS EN 54.
- Reference is made to BS ISO 14520.
- Recommendations relating to detector type and number needed for coincidence have been clarified.
New British Standard on PPE
A new standard from the BSI is BS 8467:2006 Protective clothing. Personal protective ensembles for use against chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) agents. Categorisation, performance requirements and test methods.
This British Standard specifies requirements for personal protective ensembles intended to be used during rescue, evacuation, escape, hazard containment, decontamination and similar associated activities by first responders, fire, ambulance, police and associated civilian agencies and workers, for protection during CBRN events. (Use of the word "event" to describe a contingency seems to be derived from European practice.) The standard is to be used in conjunction with BS 8468:2006, Respiratory protective devices for use against chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) agents series.
Southampton Port Closed by Propane Leak
A major alert was called on 17th October 2006 when the tanker "Ennerdale", carrying 1,600 tonnes of liquid propane from the Fawley oil refinery terminal, leaked a cloud of propane gas from a faulty valve while in Southampton port.
The port was closed to all shipping overnight and ferry crossings were suspended on fears the gas could ignite. The port was reopened the following morning, although a 400- metre exclusion zone remained around the ship.
Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service sent around 50 fire-fighters to support the refinery's own fire-fighting team. As the gas cloud travelled towards the sea, fine water jets were used to disperse gas vapour. There was one minor injury; the person was treated in hospital and discharged.
The Health and Safety Executive, Environment Agency and Hampshire County Council were informed of the incident and ferries to and from the Isle of Wight also stopped overnight.
Nuclear Operator Given Additional Fine
In the Autumn 2006 Newsletter we reported on the £2 million fine imposed on British Nuclear Group (BNG) Sellafield in August 2006 by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority over a radioactive leakage at the Thorp reprocessing plant.
The HSE also prosecuted BNG Sellafield over the same incident and an additional fine of £500,000 plus costs of over £67,000 was imposed in October 2006 at Whitehaven Magistrates' Court after the company pleaded guilty to breaches of health and safety legislation. The HSE alleged that BNG Sellafield breached three conditions attached to the Sellafield site licence granted under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 (as amended):
- To make, and comply with, written instructions.
- To ensure safety systems are in good working order.
- To ensure radioactive material is contained and, if leaks occur, they are detected and reported.
HSE Safety Alert on Use of Tower Cranes
Prompted by a number of recent serious incidents involving tower cranes, particularly the double fatality in Battersea, which we discussed in the Autumn 2006 Newsletter, the HSE issued a safety alert on their use on 19th October 2006 (by chance the same day that a crane collapsed in Fetter Lane, London). The alert stresses the importance of the safe erection, operation, maintenance and dismantling of such cranes where they are used in a project. It is a site management responsibility to ensure that:
- Tower cranes are erected and dismantled by competent people who have the necessary training and experience. Companies should draw up written procedures for each type of tower crane and these procedures should be based on the manufacturer's instructions. These procedures should be available on site and those involved in the work familiar with them.
- A thorough examination of the crane is undertaken after its erection by a competent person who is sufficiently independent and impartial and is not involved in the erection process.
- Only competent people are allowed to operate the crane.
- Pre-use checks are carried out by the crane operator at the start of each shift to ensure that the crane has not suffered any damage or failure and is safe to be used.
- In-service inspections are carried out by the crane operator, generally at weekly intervals, and records kept of these inspections.
- A properly planned maintenance system is established and used. Competent people should undertake this maintenance at intervals specified by the manufacturer and records be kept of the work completed including any parts that have been replaced. In general the original manufacturer's parts should be used. Where parts are sourced from suppliers other than the original manufacturer, a competent engineer should assess that the parts selected meet the original manufacturer's specification and are fit for purpose. Any parts replaced should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
- Further thorough examinations are carried out by a competent person at specified intervals, after major alterations or repair or after the occurrence of exceptional circumstances which are liable to jeopardise the safety of the crane.
- Lifting operations are properly planned and appropriately supervised.
The relevant standards are:
Safe Use of Work Equipment - Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998, Approved Code of Practice and Guidance.
BS 7121 Code of Practice for Safe Use of Cranes Part 1: General
BS 7121 Code of Practice for Safe Use of Cranes Part 2: Inspection, testing and examination.
BS 7121 Code of Practice for Safe Use of Cranes Part 5: Tower Cranes.
CIRIA publication C654 Guide to Tower Crane Stability.
COMAH Alert Issued over Buncefield Findings
In response to findings contained in the Buncefield Major Incident Investigation Board Initial Report published in July 2006, which we covering in the Autumn 2006 Newsletter, in the article entitlted HSE Publishes Initial Report on the Buncefield Incident, a joint Industry and COMAH Competent Authority Task Group called on industry to take immediate measures to implement eight key action points at major petroleum storage facilities relating to
- Pipeline transfers.
- Tank overfill prevention.
- Operating safety margins and level alarms.
- Fire safe shut-off valves and remotely operated shut-off valves.
- Containment, bunds and other measures.
- Shift handover.
The Task Group recommends, and the Competent Authority requires, sites which have bulk tanks storing petroleum which could be overfilled leading to a significant vapour cloud, to take immediate action. The Task Group will make final recommendations to industry aimed at enhancing safety and environmental standards by July 2007.
The actions to further improve safety and environmental standards can be found in the Buncefield Standards Task Group Initial Report at www.hse.gov.uk/comah/alert.htm
Employer Fined after Employee is Crushed to Death
Hough Green Garage Ltd of Widnes, a vehicle recovery company, and its managing director were found guilty at Liverpool Crown Court of health and safety offences which led to the death of a company employee. The company was fined £96,000 and ordered to pay £20,000 in costs; its managing director was fined a total of £14,000 and ordered to pay £15,000 costs.
The charges arose from an incident in December 2003 when an employee was fatally injured while recovering a single deck Volvo B10B bus from Garston in Liverpool. The air suspension system on the bus, which had been utilised to raise it to gain access beneath, failed while the man was working underneath the unsupported vehicle, which led to him being crushed. HSE guidance states that no employee should work under an unsupported vehicle, whatever the nature of the vehicle's suspension system.
Hough Green Garage Ltd was found guilty under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 (HSWA), Section 2(1), in that they failed to ensure the health and safety of an employee; and under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 , Regulation 3, in that they failed to carry out a risk assessment in relation to the roadside recovery of vehicles.
The managing director was found guilty of two charges under HSWA , Section 37, in that he consented in the failure to comply with the Section 2(1) cases against the company.
Hackney Council Fined for Electrocution Incident
In a case heard before Southwark Crown Court, the London Borough of Hackney was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £11,286.37 costs in a prosecution brought under Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 by the HSE after an employee of the Council's works department received an electric shock while servicing a street light, which stopped him breathing and left him in a coma.
The incident took place in July 2003. Normal procedure would be to switch off the light using the isolator switch at the bottom, but neither of the two men assigned to the task had been trained in this procedure nor instructed on how to carry out a proper risk assessment. In addition, the live and neutral wires of the street light had previously been accidentally reversed.
When one worker changed the bulb, he received a severe electric shock and was thrown from the ladder, knocked unconscious and stopped breathing. His colleague, who was holding the bottom of the ladder, also received an electric shock but recovered sufficiently to give the other victim artificial respiration. The injured man was in a coma for two days, received severe burns to his right hand, fractured his spine and dislocated his shoulder.
Hackney Council had failed to provide proper training to employees working on electrical equipment and had not explained the need for a thorough risk assessment, particularly when working in public areas.
Network Rail Pleads Guilty over Ladbroke Grove Train Crash
On 31st October 2006, Network Rail, formerly Railtrack, entered a guilty plea to a single charge under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 in that between 1st January 1995 and 5th October 1999 it failed to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, that persons not in its employment who might be affected thereby were not exposed to risks to their health and safety. However, the company did not accept responsibility for the deaths and injuries caused by the incident, admitting only risk creation. The company faces the prospect of an unlimited fine.
The Ladbroke Grove crash killed 31 people and injured 400. A train belonging to First Great Western Trains collided with another owned by Thames Trains during the morning rush hour on 5th October 1999. The immediate cause of the incident was the driver of the Thames train passing a red light. The accident investigation revealed that the signal in question had been passed on eight previous occasions, including six times by Thames Trains drivers, and was listed in a Network Rail safety report in May 1999 as being one of the top 22 signals passed at danger (SPADs) on the network.
The allegation was that Network Rail failed to ensure the signal was clearly visible from a sufficient distance, failing to note that a large insulator had obscured part of the signal. The company had also failed to ensure the convening of a signal sighting committee in view of their knowledge of a succession of previous SPADs.
Two years ago Thames Trains was fined £2 million for its legislative breaches in connection with the crash.
Employers Neglecting Falls from Height Risks
According to the HSE, falls from a height are the most common cause of fatal workplace injury and the second most common cause of major injury to employees. Recent statistics show that 46 people died and nearly 3,800 suffered a serious injury as a result of such falls. The sector spread of this category of accident is extremely wide, including agriculture, construction, electrical work, haulage and freight transport, motor vehicle repair, painters, plumbers and window cleaners.
The Work at Height Regulations 2005 require duty holders to ensure that all work at height is properly planned and organised and that those involved in work at height are competent. The risks from work at height must be assessed and appropriate work equipment selected and used. Risks arising from fragile surfaces must be properly controlled and all equipment used for working at height must be properly inspected and maintained. The Regulations did away with a previous requirement to the effect that preventative measures were necessary only when working at a height above two metres from the ground.
Research made available by the Norwich Union insurance company confirms data from other sources that some of the most serious falls from a height accidents are caused by falls from a relatively low height, or activities carried out close to the ground. They cite a claim to the value of over £200,000 where an employee fell from a chair while working on a vehicle located on a low loader. In another claim to the value of £175,000, a chef fell three metres from a ladder he was using to replace light bulbs on a hotel frontage, causing ankle and wrist fractures, four months off work and the need for the hotel to find a replacement chef in the kitchen.
Norwich Union maintains that falls from a height have not decreased since the implementation of the current legislation, and employers are failing to manage such risks.
NEBOSH Gains ISO 9001
NEBOSH achieved ISO 9001:2000 registration in October 2006 following an audit by the British Standards Institution (BSI). As a BSI QA-registered organisation to BS EN ISO 9001:2000, NEBOSH may now display both BSI and UKAS logos on material relevant to its accredited activity, "The provision of accredited and recognised health, safety, environmental and risk management qualifications".
The United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) mark indicates that the BSI certification has been assessed against international standards by the sole national accreditation body recognised by the UK government.
International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) standards are key benchmarks by which organisations are measured and achievement of ISO 9001:2000 registration is intended to give NEBOSH customers and stakeholders confidence that they are dealing with an organisation committed to excellence.
Health and Safety Statistics 2005/06
The HSC report Health and Safety Statistics 2005/06 was published in
early November 2006 and is available in PDF format at http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/overall/hssh0506.pdf?ebul=stats/
nov-06&cr=01 .
The key figures given are:
Ill-health
- 2.0 million people were suffering from an illness they believed was caused or made worse by their current or past work.
- 523,000 of these were new cases in the last 12 months.
- 1,969 people died of mesothelioma (2004), and thousands more from other occupational cancers and lung diseases.
Injuries
- 212 workers were killed at work, a rate of 0.7 per 100,000 workers.
- 146,076 other injuries to employees were reported under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR), a rate of 562.4 per 100,000 employees.
- 328,000 reportable injuries occurred, according to the Labour Force Survey, a rate of 1,200 per 100,000 workers (2004/05).
Working Days Lost
- 30 million days were lost overall (1.3 days per worker), 24 million due to work-related ill-health and 6 million due to workplace injury.
The figures indicate that in 2005/06, major injuries to employees fell by 7% from 30,451 in 2004/05 to 28,605. There was a similar fall in the occurrence of most occupational illnesses.
As noted by the TUC, there has also been a fall of 23% in HSE prosecutions for legislative breaches, suggesting a less rigorous enforcement regime.
Unrecorded Asbestos Dump Discovered in Norwich
The Thorpe Park housing estate near Carrow Road, Norwich, was built in the mid-1990s on the site of a former engineering works. When soil tests were made around the flats recently to find out if groundwater beneath occupied homes was contaminated by chlorinated solvents used for degreasing, asbestos fibres were discovered. Eighteen boreholes were sunk to test for hazardous contaminants and asbestos was found unexpectedly in all of them, mostly white but also some blue and brown.
The Environment Agency was called in and dust samples were taken from communal stairwells and garden soil at the flats to establish how widespread the problem is. The Health and Safety Executive commented that, depending on what was found, Norwich City Council would have to decide whether to remove the asbestos or whether the process would be more dangerous to the public because removal would break it down into dust. Residents would have to be informed in advance, and a risk assessment would be necessary to see if the asbestos could be removed while people are still in their homes.
Corporate Manslaughter and Liability Insurance
The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill received its second reading in the Commons on 10th October and was passed through the Committee stage on 31st October 2006. It will probably come into force in July 2007. The Home Office has predicted an increase in prosecutions from around one case per year to 10 to 13 cases a year when the Bill becomes law. It is possible that the frequency and scope of fatality investigations will increase by a much greater extent, resulting in additional costs in time and expense.
This may have an impact on Employer's Liability and Public Liability insurance policies. The proposed legislation does not allow gaol sentences, but it does permit unlimited fines (against which it is not possible to insure), with associated defence legal costs in a potentially complex case. The Bill makes it easier to charge a company with corporate manslaughter than in the case of common law corporate manslaughter. Where a gross breach of a duty of care can be proven against senior management, the company or organisation will be held responsible. The Bill enables a court to consider whether attitudes, policies, systems or accepted practices within an organisation are likely to have contributed to a failure to comply with the relevant statutory provisions.
It is likely that high risk sectors, such as construction, transport and health care, will suffer the greatest impact.
Worker Compensated after Employer Ignores Medical Advice
A man employed between 1976 and 2000 as an aircraft engineer by GE Engine Aircraft Services at their plant near Caerphilly was awarded compensation of £20,000 after suffering vibration-related carpal tunnel syndrome, caused by exposure to vibration and repetitive work refurbishing and repairing large jet engines.
He was diagnosed as having developed vibration white finger in 1992, for which he was awarded personal injury compensation in 1993. At that time occupational health specialists advised his employer that he should not be exposed to further vibration at work. However, that advice was ignored by the company and carpal tunnel syndrome symptoms developed gradually afterwards due to continued vibration exposure. It was alleged that the employer showed a lack of awareness of the potential implications of his condition and continued to employ him in areas where he was exposed to vibration and a repetitive work cycle. The man became permanently disabled and had to take early retirement.
UK Contribution to the European Focus on Health and Safety for Young People
On 3rd November 2006, the Health and Safety Executive, the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, British Safety Council Awards and ENTO announced a new workplace hazard awareness course and qualification which is aimed specifically at young people. The course and qualification is intended to provide Year 10 students with a basic understanding of health and safety in the workplace.
The Workplace Hazard Awareness Qualification at entry level 3 is based on the new national occupational standard for basic hazard awareness developed by ENTO. Teaching materials to support the qualification have been produced by IOSH and are available for teachers to download for free from http://www.wiseup2work.co.uk. The materials are accessible for students to work online.
Noise Control in Music-Generating Workplaces
In the Autumn 2005 Newsletter we commented on Explanatory Note 3 to the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005, which states that provision is made for a transitional period before the new 85 dB(A) limit comes into force for the music and entertainment sectors, and it will not become mandatory until 6th April 2008.
Musicians are totally dependent on good hearing for their livelihoods and work in very noisy environments, but were excepted for reasons not explained in official documents (daily noise exposures above 90 dB(A) are common, and percussion peaks greater than 130 dB(C) have been recorded).
The HSE has been working on guidance and recently published document HSL/2006/96, Orchestra pilot of the Industry / HSE noise guidance, available online at http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/hsl_pdf/2006/hsl0696.pdf
The document describes a study involving a professional orchestra playing in concert with pop musicians, and attempts made to reduce the noise exposure of the orchestral musicians.
The highest measured noise output came from brass players and percussion, and the project team had to rearrange the traditional seating positions of orchestral sections in order to reduce noise exposure for those not playing those instruments. This in turn required rebalancing on the electronic control of the sound balance.
The recommendation was that brass players should sit further apart and/or use hearing protection to comply with the Noise at Work Regulations 1989. Percussion instrument noise levels can only be achieved by quietening the instruments themselves.
HSE Prosecutes Fewer Cases
The Health and Safety Executive and local authorities are taking fewer offenders to court over health and safety breaches than in previous years. The number of offences prosecuted by the HSE fell by 23% to 1,012 in 2005/06, compared with 1,320 prosecutions in 2004/05. Prosecutions by local authorities fell by 19% between 2003/04 and 2004/05.
Whereas the number of enforcement notices issued by HSE inspectors fell by 25% in the same period, the number of enforcement notices issued by councils between 2000/01 and 2004/05 increased by 10% to 6,420.
The fall in enforcement activity is rumoured to be due to budget cuts and an insufficient number of safety inspectors; but the HSE stated that after an audit they had identified areas for improvement and believed that the falling trend had been reversed this year.
Work-Related Road Accident Injuries Excluded from RIDDOR
In early November 2006, the HSC decided after a review that work-related road accident injuries will not be made reportable under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR) , despite a recommendation in 2001 by the Work-Related Road Safety Task Group that such accidents should be included under the Regulations. The conclusion of the review was that it was preferable for the police to investigate road accidents and contact the HSE if there was thought to be an employer liability.
Shortly after, the Department for Transport published its annual Road Casualties Great Britain 2005 statistics, showing that an average of 150 work-related driving accidents took place every day in the UK. The total number of 'at-work' vehicle accidents exceeded 54,000, representing a quarter of all road crashes.
Double Prosecution over Power Line Death
In October 2006, two companies were convicted for health and safety breaches at Hertford Magistrates' Court, following the fatal electrocution of a visiting worker at Hollingson Meads Quarry in September 2003. The HSE later issued a warning to companies to be aware of the serious risks involved from contact with or working in close proximity to overhead power lines.
Lyons Landfill Ltd was convicted of an offence under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 , Section 3(1), and Francis Michael Lyons (trading as Frank Lyons Plant Services) was convicted of an offence under Section 3(2). Both the company and Lyons were each fined £80,000, and both ordered to pay £35,000 costs.
The prosecution arose from the death of a self-employed lorry driver who was visiting the combined quarry and landfill site. The man was electrocuted when the grab of the crane mounted on his lorry came into contact with overhead power lines. He had parked his vehicle beneath the overhead lines when waiting for a load of ballast from the quarry. The site was poorly laid out with stockpiles close to overhead lines, inadequate signage, poorly designed crossing points and inadequate measures taken to keep plant clear of the power lines in the form of barriers and defined passageways.
The plant operators had failed to take all reasonably practicable steps to prevent injury or loss of life. Mobile plant does not have to physically contact an overhead power line for injury to occur since, depending on the voltage and environmental conditions, electricity can arc across quite a large distance. HSE advice on safe procedures for working near overhead power lines is given in HSE Guidance Note GS6.
The UN Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals
The aim of the United Nations Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) is for every chemical substance to have the same label worldwide. At present, different laws in different countries regulate how the hazardous properties of chemicals are described and how this information is passed to users, which is a potential source of confusion. A substance classed as toxic in one country may not be so labelled in another.
The UN GHS, which is not a formal Treaty and therefore not legally binding, wants worldwide standards on:
- Criteria for classifying chemicals according to their health, environmental and physical hazards.
- Hazard communication requirements for labelling and safety data sheets.
The latest version of the UN GHS, referred to as the first revised edition of the 'Purple Book', was published in November 2006 and is accessible online from the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) website at www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/ghs/ghs_rev01/01files_e.html.
Refuse Worker Paralysed by Dangerous Manoeuvre
In a case heard before the High Court in Birmingham, Lichfield District Council made a partial admission of liability and agreed to the £3.75 million settlement in principle after a refuse collection worker was left paralysed when a refuse lorry overturned.
The man was an employee of Lichfield District Council when the accident happened in February 2005. The refuse lorry in which the man was travelling overturned on a bend when the driver, under instruction from the team leader, performed a load shift manoeuvre, involving the vehicle being driven at speed and then braked hard in order to move forward the accumulated rubbish being carried in the back. The victim suffered severe spinal injuries when one of the other workers also in the lorry fell on top of him. It was stated that, like many employees engaged in such work, the victim usually walked beside or behind the vehicle between pick-up points.
The team leader and driver were regarded by their employer as competent and Lichfield District Council did not condone the intrinsically dangerous practice of load shifting.
In earlier court cases the vehicle driver was convicted of dangerous driving and the supervisor convicted of aiding and abetting dangerous driving. The Council was not found to be criminally liable by the police or the HSE.
Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006
The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 , SI 2006 No. 2737, came into force on 13th November 2006 and bring together the three previous sets of Regulations covering the prohibition of asbestos, the control of asbestos at work and asbestos licensing. The Regulations prohibit the importation, supply and use of all forms of asbestos. They continue the ban introduced in 1985 for blue and brown asbestos and the white asbestos ban of 1999. They also continue the ban on the second-hand use of asbestos products, such as asbestos cement sheets and asbestos boards and tiles, including panels which have been covered with paint or textured plaster containing asbestos. If existing asbestos-containing materials are in good condition they may be left in place, and their condition monitored and managed to ensure they are not disturbed.
The new Regulations include the duty to manage asbestos in non-domestic premises. Guidance on the duty to manage asbestos is given in the Approved Code of Practice - The Management of Asbestos in Non-Domestic Premises , L27, ISBN 0 7176 6209 8.
The Regulations require mandatory training for anyone liable to be exposed to asbestos fibres at work, including maintenance workers and others who may come into contact with or who may disturb asbestos, as well as those involved in asbestos removal work.
When work with asbestos or which may disturb asbestos is being carried out, the Regulations require employers and the self-employed to prevent exposure to asbestos fibres. Where this is not reasonably practicable, they must make sure that exposure is kept as low as reasonably practicable by measures other than the use of respiratory protective equipment. The spread of asbestos must be prevented. The Regulations specify the work methods and controls that should be used to prevent exposure and spread.
Worker exposure must be below the airborne exposure limit (Control Limit). The Regulations have a single Control Limit for all types of asbestos of 0.1 fibres per cm3 . A Control Limit is a maximum concentration of asbestos fibres in the air (averaged over any continuous four-hour period) that must not be exceeded.
Short-term exposures must be strictly controlled and worker exposure should not exceed 0.6 fibres per cm3 of air averaged over any continuous ten-minute period using respiratory protective equipment, if exposure cannot be reduced sufficiently using other means.
Although respiratory protective equipment is an important part of the control regime, it must not be the sole measure used to reduce exposure and should be used only to supplement other measures. Work methods that control the release of fibres, such as those detailed in the Asbestos Essentials task sheets for non-licensed work, should be used. Respiratory protective equipment must be suitable, must fit properly and must ensure that worker exposure is reduced to as low as is reasonably practicable.
Most asbestos removal work must be undertaken by a licensed contractor, but any decision on whether particular work is licensable is based on the risk assessment.
Work is only exempt from licensing if the exposure of employees to asbestos fibres is sporadic and of low intensity (but exposure cannot be considered to be sporadic and of low intensity if the concentration of asbestos in the air is liable to exceed 0.6 fibres per cm3 measured over ten minutes); and if it is clear from the risk assessment that the exposure of any employee to asbestos will not exceed the Control Limit and the work involves:
- Short, non-continuous maintenance activities, where one person carries out work with these materials for less than one hour in a seven-day period; the total time spent by all workers on the work should not exceed a total of two hours.
- Removal of materials in which the asbestos fibres are firmly linked in a matrix, as in asbestos cement, textured decorative coatings and paints which contain asbestos, articles of bitumen, plastic, resin or rubber which contain asbestos where their thermal or acoustic properties are incidental to their main purpose (such as vinyl floor tiles, electric cables, roofing felt) and other insulation products which may be used at high temperatures but have no insulation purposes (such as gaskets, washers, ropes and seals).
- Encapsulation or sealing of asbestos-containing materials which are in good condition.
Also conditionally exempt from licensing are air monitoring and control, and the collection and analysis of samples to find out if a specific material contains asbestos.
Under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, anyone carrying out work on asbestos insulation, asbestos coating or asbestos insulating board (AIB) must have a licence issued by the HSE unless they meet one of the exemptions above. Although a licence may not be needed to carry out a particular job, it is still necessary to comply with the other requirements of the Regulations. If the work is licensable there are a number of additional duties:
- Notify the enforcing authority responsible for the worksite (such as the HSE or the local authority).
- Designate the work area (Regulation 18).
- Prepare specific asbestos emergency procedures.
- Pay for employees to undergo medical surveillance.
- Analysis of the concentration of asbestos in the air, to be measured in accordance with the 1997 World Health Organisation recommended method.
From 6th April 2007, a clearance certificate for reoccupation may only be issued by a body accredited to do so. At present such accreditation can only be provided by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS).
HSE guidance on working with asbestos is currently found in:
Approved Code of Practice - Work with Materials containing Asbestos, L143, ISBN 0 7176 6206 3
Asbestos: the Licensed Contractors Guide , HSG247, ISBN 0 7176 2874 4
Asbestos: The analysts' guide for sampling, analysis and clearance procedures, HSG 248, ISBN 0 7176 2875 2
Asbestos Essentials, HSG210, ISBN 0 71761887 0.
Farm Worker Impaled on Spike
On 13th November 2006, a lone farm worker had to be rescued after his leg became impaled on a metal spike while he was collecting a bale of hay for cattle in Four Lanes, near Redruth, Cornwall. He was thought to have slipped and fallen onto a three-foot- long metal baling spike attached to the tractor when the vehicle rolled forward. He was taken to the Royal Cornwall Hospital with part of the spike still embedded in his leg.
Accidents arising from the movement of an unbraked tractor after the driver has dismounted to perform some task associated with it are still very common. The incident is being investigated by the HSE.
Railway Companies Fined for Edinburgh Death
Network Rail was fined £130,000 for breaches of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and its subcontractor, Scotweld Employment Services, fined £33,000 at Edinburgh Sheriff Court, following the death of a worker who was acting as a lookout and who was struck by a train at the Newbridge junction near Edinburgh in April 2005.
Network Rail had failed to ensure that track inspections were planned and carried out properly and safely by ordering a site safety controller and lookouts at short notice, exposing three employees to unnecessary risks. The company failed to provide Scotweld with a safety pack which gave details of the risks and hazards of the operation. In turn, Scotweld had failed to request the safety pack and also exposed three employees to unnecessary risks. The procedures of both companies were informal and poorly documented. An inquiry into the fatal accident would be dealt with at another future court sitting.
HSE Investigates Primary School Gas Poisoning
Following a carbon monoxide poisoning incident at Crookhill Primary School in Gateshead, the HSE began an investigation into the cause, believed to have been associated with the school central heating boilers, which were shut down pending remedial work. The school was closed and a prohibition notice issued ordering that the boilers should not be used; access to the boiler room was placed under HSE control. The focus of the HSE enquiry was three gas-fired boilers underneath the classroom where pupils and staff were affected and the fluing arrangements.
A temporary heating system was installed along with carbon monoxide detectors before the school was permitted to reopen.
The Backward March of Progress
A study on the energy efficiency of buildings undertaken by IRT Surveys for British Gas has reported some anomalous findings. The survey was published in mid-November 2006 and is based on air tests carried out by placing calibrated fans in selected buildings and measuring the air leakage through all the gaps, cracks and openings in the structure.
It appears that 16th-century Tudor houses are more energy-efficient than many modern buildings. Air tests revealed that 16th-century dwellings with walls made from locally sourced wooden frames filled with wattle and daub or stones were sufficiently airtight to leak 10.11 cm3 air per hour for every square metre of wall. In contrast, houses built in the 1960s leak as much as 15.1 cm3 .
Victorian buildings were also found to be more efficient than newer homes, perhaps because wet plastering performs better than modern techniques. Houses built in the 1970s leak 11.7 cm3 per hour and those built in the 1980s leak between 12 and 40.1 cm3. Houses built in the 1990s leak between 12 and 23.6 cm3 per hour.
The explanation for declining energy efficiency is not negative trends in technology and materials, but commercial corner-cutting by house builders, such as not installing insulation in walls and roofs or sealing gaps in the cladding system, all of which lead to air leakage and energy loss. The latest Building Regulations should begin to change this as all new buildings must be air tested to ensure they are properly insulated. British Gas claims that wasted energy from each household in the UK is equivalent to around six tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.
Shell Prosecuted for Groundwater Pollution
On 16th November 2006, the oil company Shell pleaded guilty to polluting a groundwater supply at St Albans Crown Court in a prosecution brought by the Environment Agency. Shell admitted it was unable to account for an estimated 3,500 litres of unleaded petrol which had leaked from an underground storage tank at their Oaklands Park petrol station in Hertfordshire and polluted a major aquifer considered to be a potential source of drinking water. The company was fined £30,000 and ordered to pay £5,608 in costs.
The Environment Agency (EA) said that at present there was minimal risk to existing drinking water supplies, but Shell had put a valuable underground resource at risk of severe contamination. The leakage came to light following a series of tests on the tank, reported by Shell to the local Fire Authority and the EA because stock records for January 2004 to January 2005 showed a variance in the tank levels of 3,498 litres. Samples taken from boreholes at the scene by EA officers confirmed that groundwater at the site had become contaminated. The samples included an additive usually found in unleaded petrol and levels of benzene thousands of times above the UK standard for safe drinking water.
Acoustic Shock Exposure in Call Centres
According to a report released by the Acoustic Safety Programme (ASP), two thirds of UK call centre organisations place their employees' health at risk by failing to protect workers against acoustic shock hearing damage. Acoustic shock exposure may be caused to the user of a telecommunications earphone by a sudden sharp rise in the acoustic pressure produced by it, leading to such symptoms as tinnitus and hypersensitivity to loud sounds. Additional symptoms may include anxiety, tiredness or depression.
Although there is a legal requirement under the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 to protect employees from noise at work, the Regulations do not specifically refer to acoustic shock other than the maximum noise level exposure of 118 dB(A). Acoustic shock response may occur at noise levels significantly below those given in the current legislation; the key factor is that it is unexpected by the victim.
HSE advice to call centre employers is that they should implement a traceable reporting system for headset users who may have been exposed to acoustic shock incidents. Operators should be trained to recognise such incidents and how to report them. There is a legal duty under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 to report to the relevant enforcing authority listed types of work-related injuries, including those which result in a person being unable to carry out their normal work for more than three consecutive days, and those which result in admittance to hospital for more than 24 hours.
Employers should take the following measures:
- Reduce the risk in terms of exposure or the risk from acoustic shock.
- Assess the risk of exposure or the risk from acoustic shock.
- Make audiometric hearing checks available to staff.
- Provide information, instruction and training.
- Implement a programme of suitable control measures.
- Implement acoustic shock health and safety policies and practices.
The ASP is a partnership developed between the DTI, trade unions, solution providers and employers, with the purpose of sharing information and to develop common practices and standards on recognition, evaluation and control of acoustic shock.
Company Owner Fined for Compulsory Insurance Breach
In mid-November 2006, the owner of Southern Gas Conversions Limited of Sutton was found guilty of not having Employer's Liability Compulsory Insurance on a series of sample dates in July 2005. The City of London Magistrates' Court ordered him to pay £11,500 in fines, costs and compensation. Charges against his company were dismissed as the court felt that it was the owner who was responsible for the breaches.
The case arose out of an accident which took place in July 2005 on one of the days without insurance cover. A 17-year-old who had been working as a mechanic was injured by a Jeep Cherokee, which caused leg injuries and permanent scarring. The company owner claimed in court that his two teenage mechanic students, whom he paid £3 an hour, were not workers and were just attending his business to watch. However, the accident victim said that she had carried out a range of mechanical tasks, including paint stripping and brake changing.
Evidence was produced to show that a questionnaire signed by the owner demonstrated that he had falsely claimed to Carshalton College, from where the students came, that he did have insurance cover. The injured party could not make any claim from an insurance policy and had also been unable to obtain any compensation from her employer. The court ordered him to pay her £1,000 in compensation.
The HSE commented that having Employer's Liability Compulsory Insurance is a legal requirement for anyone employing people to carry out work, including workers who might incorrectly be thought to be non-employees, and only trainees or on work experience. An exception is where you employ a person in your home, such as a cleaner or a plumber.
Acetylene Cylinders Trigger Mass Evacuations
When fire broke out at a Radcliffe garage in the Bury area of Manchester, police had to evacuate 500 families from adjacent homes when fire crews found an acetylene welding cylinder in close proximity to the blaze. Eighty-nine people were housed in Radcliffe Civic Hall for the night. A local school was also closed for a 24-hour period after the fire was extinguished.
Six hours earlier, homes and business premises in Stockport also had to be evacuated following a similar incident.
Although both incidents were quickly brought under control, the volatile and explosive nature of acetylene meant that the cylinders had to be cooled down over a 24-hour period by continuous dowsing with water.
Large Penalties Imposed for Lancashire Farm Death
In a trial held at Preston Crown Court in late November 2006, Ruttle Contracting Ltd of Chorley, Lancashire (principal contractor) was found guilty of a charge under Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 (HSWA) in that it failed to ensure the safety of someone not in its employment. The company was fined £100,000 and ordered to pay £75,000 costs. Chargot Ltd, trading as Contract Services of the same address, and the employer of a man who died in a workplace accident, was found guilty of a charge under Section 2(1) of HSWA in that it failed to ensure the safety of an employee. The company was fined £75,000 and ordered to pay £37,500 costs. The director of Ruttle Contracting Ltd was found guilty under Section 37(1) of HSWA in that he caused the company to commit an offence under Section 3(1) of the same Act. He was fined £75,000 and ordered to pay £103,500 costs. He was described by the judge as being "greedy and ruthless, with no moral scruples".
The charges were brought by the HSE following the death of an articulated dumper truck driver at Heskin Hall Farm in Lancashire in January 2001. The truck was fitted with seat belts and rollover protection, but the man driving it was not wearing his belt and was neither trained nor supervised on the work he was undertaking. The truck overturned during drainage work while he was carrying two and a half tonnes of soil, which buried him. He died the following day from multiple injuries. He might have survived if he had been wearing the seat belt and trained in sensible precautions for the type of work. (There is a free HSE Construction Information Sheet, Safe Use of Site Dumpers.)
Review of Road Transport Working Time Regulations
The Transport Minister announced terms of reference for a review of the UK regulations implementing the European Road Transport Working Time Directive, which restricts the amount of working time that can be performed by mobile workers (drivers, crew, and other travelling staff) operating on vehicles subject to the separate European driving hours rules. The Directive was implemented through the Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005 .
The main provisions of the Directive are a 48-hour average working week; a 60-hour maximum for any single week; and a 10-hour maximum in any 24-hour period, if working at night.
The review would be undertaken by a working group involving the Department for Transport, trade associations and unions, and will focus on the use and interpretation of the term "periods of availability", the exemption for occasional mobile workers, treatment of leave, compliance with and enforcement of the Regulations, and the administrative burden placed on business by the Regulations.
Japanese Company Fined for Selling Dangerous Work Equipment
Kubota UK Ltd of Thame, Oxfordshire, an affiliated company of the Kubota Tractor Corporation of Japan, was fined £175,000 with £22,000 costs by Oxford Crown Court after being found guilty on three charges under Section 6 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 (HSWA) of breaching general duties when supplying equipment to be used at work. The company was prosecuted by the HSE for supplying two grass collector machines that caused injury and a further 88 similar dangerous pieces of machinery between 1999 and 2004.
After a man was injured by a model GCD360 motorised bladed grass collector in 1999, Kubota UK Ltd was warned but disregarded advice from the HSE that it was selling grass collectors which posed a safety risk and which did not comply with the European Machinery Directive . Despite being given a written instruction to implement additional safety measures on their grass collector equipment, the company continued to supply the product unaltered until it was forced to stop in May 2004.
As a result of the company's lack of action, there were subsequent incidents in which two workers employed by two different Kubota customers had their hands amputated after being caught in the rotating turbine of the machine. A number of other employees across the country were also put at risk.
Section 6(1) of HSWA states that "it shall be the duty of any person who designs, manufactures, imports or supplies any article for use at work ... to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the article is so designed and constructed that it will be safe and without risks to health at all times when it is being set, used, cleaned or maintained by a person at work".
Sussex Fireworks Factory Explosion
Festival Fireworks (UK) is one of the largest firework importers and has a factory and warehouse at Marley Farm, Shortgate, near Lewes in East Sussex. On 3rd December 2006, a fire broke out in a storage depot at the site, believed to be a concrete complex with steel doors. Fire-fighters from East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service were present at the scene when an explosion took place that was heard by people living 12 miles away. Severe explosion risk had not been predicted by the fire service risk assessment. Two fire-fighters were killed and nine fire service workers were injured, along with two members of the public and a police officer. The owner of the depot lived next door to the site and his house was destroyed by fire.
Fireworks continued to explode over the area for some hours and a 200-metre exclusion cordon was put in place because of fears that up to 20 acetylene gas cylinders on the site could explode without warning. An Army bomb disposal unit was called in with remote-controlled vehicles in order to access the seat of the fire. The cause of the fire was unknown and investigators were unable to enter due to the dangerous gas cylinders.
An investigation by the HSE, police, and fire and rescue service was anticipated to take many weeks and would focus on whether licensing conditions were followed by the factory and if so, whether they need to be tightened.
It was reported later that under its previous name of Sussex Fireworks and Displays, the owners of Festival Fireworks (UK) were fined £1,000 plus court costs in 1999 for contravening the Explosives Act by storing explosives without a licence.
Festival Fireworks was granted its licence from the HSE in 1993, which covers three storage buildings at Marley Farm Industrial Estate; the main building on the site is licensed to store 20 tonnes of category four fireworks, a second building can hold 600 kg of category three and four fireworks, and a third can hold 100 kg of explosives for packaging and finishing. The last inspection was carried out on 11th October 2006. The site is now subject to the Manufacture and Storage of Explosives Regulations 2005.
Revision of Electrical and Electronic Equipment Marking Standard
The BSI has published BS EN 50419:2006 Marking of electrical and electronic equipment in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 2002/96/EC (WEEE) . Following a review by the European Commission, some significant changes have been introduced which means that BS EN 50419:2005 has been replaced by BS EN 50419:2006. The marking serves to identify clearly the producer of the equipment and that the equipment has been put on the market after 13th August 2005.
For anyone working in this area it is important to have the most up-to-date version for full compliance with the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive, which came into force on 1st January 2006.
Man Arrested Over Inflatable Structure Deaths
Following an investigation into the deaths in July 2006 of two people and the injuring of 13 when the Dreamspace installation, a giant inflatable sculpture, blew free from its moorings at Riverside Park, Chester-le-Street, County Durham, the creator of the structure was arrested by Durham Police on suspicion of manslaughter. See the HSE Investigates Flying Artwork Deaths article in our Autumn 2006 Newsletter for the original details.
According to Chester-le-Street District Council the installation had undergone safety checks before visitors were allowed inside and had been discussed at a meeting of the Council's safety advisory group. The structure was installed on the day of the incident and extra ropes were used to tether the inflatable because of the heat of the day. It was suggested in some reports that the ambient heat may have turned the large inflatable into a hot air balloon, causing it to lift from the ground. The structure is still being examined by an HSE laboratory and it is unlikely that a file would be put before the Crown Prosecution Service for another six months.
Although there are no strict controls on many sporting or other organised events, it is still necessary for consultation to take place with the local authority or emergency services, where safety expertise can be obtained. An event organiser is responsible for the health, safety and welfare of people attending the event, as well as that of the employees, contractors and subcontractors who may be working there. The event organiser should carry out an event-specific risk assessment and open a health and safety file. A person should be appointed who is responsible for safety. If the event is large then a dedicated safety officer with a support team may be required. Adequate insurance to cover the event should also be taken out.
After the Dreamscape incident the Home Office produced a Good Practice Safety
Guide at small events and sporting events on the highway, on roads and in
public places to help ensure safety at public events, which is
available online (1MB PDF file) at: http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-publications/publication/
operational-policing/event-safety-guide.pdf?view=Binary.
Implementation of Public Smoking Ban Announced
In December 2006, the Department of Health announced that the date for implementation of the ban on smoking under the Health Act 2006, applicable to all enclosed public places and workplaces, would be in Wales from April 2007 and in England from July 2007. The law will no longer permit indoor smoking rooms, which are still common in workplaces. Anyone wishing to smoke will have to go outside.
Employers who choose not to enforce the ban will face fines of up to £2,500. Government advice is that employers should consider how to introduce a smoking ban before the date of legal implementation.
Smoking was banned in nearly all enclosed public places in Scotland in March 2006.
Lightwater Valley Ride Death Prosecutions
Charges were laid by the HSE after an incident in June 2001 at Lightwater Valley theme park in North Yorkshire in which one person died and three others were injured when the two cars in which they were riding collided on the 'Treetop Twister' roller coaster, an amusement ride where cars are pulled up to a height and then run back down on an undulating and twisting track under gravity. When a car failed to clear a 'hill', it was held near the top and the ride automatically stopped the following cars. The maintenance electrician in control of the ride used the maintenance hand controls to return cars to the station but his actions, combined with the effect of a ride wiring fault, resulted in two cars colliding.
Lightwater Valley Attractions Ltd was charged with breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 (HSWA). The maintenance electrician was charged under Section 7(a) of HSWA, and charges against the manufacturer of the ride, Société Reverchon Industries of France, were under Sections 6(1A)(a) and 6(1A)(c) of HSWA .
Lightwater Valley Attractions Ltd and the electrician pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing. In early December 2006, the company was fined £35,000 plus costs of £40,000 in a hearing at Leeds Crown Court. The maintenance electrician was fined £2,500 plus costs of £500. The French manufacturer was found guilty, but had put itself into liquidation; it was fined a total of £120,000 plus £55,000 costs.
Construction Company and Director Fined for Building Collapse
In early December 2006, Rosekey Limited (trading as Atwal Builders) of Bexleyheath, Kent, and their director were fined after both pleaded guilty to breaches of Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 at Croydon Crown Court. The prosecution arose following an incident in December 2004 in Tower Bridge Road, London, when a bookshop and the two flats above it partially collapsed in the middle of the night. Rosekey Limited had been contracted to build a new shop and flats next door, and over the previous few days, excavations had taken place on the site to form the foundations of the new building. A trench was dug alongside the bookshop wall at a depth that undermined its foundations. There was no suitable support provided for the excavation or the shop. During the evening the adjacent building collapsed and although the residents managed to escape, they were rendered homeless and lost all their moveable property.
Rosekey Limited was fined £90,000 and its director was also fined £90,000. They were ordered to pay HSE costs of £14,444, as well as an interim award of compensation of £3,000 to each of the three displaced residents of the flats. The judge described the company director as "incompetent and ignorant" and noted that at other previous sites he had "failed to heed warnings from the Health and Safety Executive, and endeavoured to evade the consequences with feeble excuse after excuse". The HSE said that the director failed to ensure that construction work was carried out safely, due to his neglect. He caused untold hardship, misery and distress to those affected by his ill-managed enterprise.
The maximum penalty at Crown Court for this offence is an unlimited fine.
Consultation on "Polluter Pays" Principle
In early December 2006, the UK Government issued a consultation document on options for implementing the Environmental Liability Directive in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, which came into force on 30th April 2004 and must be implemented by EU member states by 30th April 2007. It is intended to give effect to the "polluter pays" principle for environmental damage that has a significant adverse effect on EU-protected biodiversity and water, and land contamination which creates a significant risk to human health.
From 30th April 2007, the operators of certain activities which threaten or give rise to environmental damage will be held strictly liable for remediation of the damage at their own expense. Remediation entails returning the resource of service to its condition immediately before the event giving rise to the damage. In addition, operators of all other activities will be subject to fault-based liability where, as a result of fault or negligence, their activities cause damage.
Government sources estimate that fewer than 1% of the approximately 30,000 cases of environmental damage reported to enforcement authorities in the UK each year will fall within the scope of the Directive.
The present consultation period is from December 2006 to February 2007. The ConDoc is available online at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/env-liability/index.htm.
Companies Fined under Carbon Trading Scheme
In early December 2006, the Environment Agency penalised four companies for failing to account for their carbon emissions during the first year of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), which targets the most carbon-intensive industrial operators and provides financial incentives for industry to become more efficient and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
With effect from January 2005, large industrial operators were requested to monitor, verify and report their greenhouse gas emissions. Each company in the scheme was given a permitted allowance which, if exceeded, must be balanced by purchasing additional allowances. If they emitted less than the permitted quantity, they could sell their allowances to other operators.
Operators were given until 30th April 2006 to surrender all 2005 allowances to the Environment Agency. Under the EU ETS Directive , member states must impose civil penalties on installations of ?40 for each tonne of carbon dioxide emitted if they fail to surrender allowances equal to their emissions by the due date.
Four companies out of 535 in England and Wales failed to surrender sufficient carbon dioxide allowances by the due date to cover their emissions and incurred automatic civil penalties. They were Alphasteel, a steel recycling company of Newport in south Wales; Daniel Platt, a ceramic tile company of Stoke-on-Trent; Mars (UK), a well-known food processor of Peterborough; and Scandstick, an adhesive products company in Cambridgeshire.
The Government intends to extend the Emissions Trading Scheme to a wider range of UK companies, perhaps encompassing as many as 5,000 businesses.
Corus Fined £1.3 Million for Swansea Blast Furnace Deaths
In November 2001, three workers died in a blast furnace explosion at the Port Talbot site of Corus UK. Twelve workers received serious burns in a rain of molten metal, and five others were injured. Charges were brought by the HSE and in mid-December 2006 Corus was fined £1.333 million and ordered to pay £1.74 million costs at Swansea Crown Court after the company pleaded guilty to a charge of breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 , in that the company did not ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, the safety of its employees, in connection with the operation of Blast Furnace Number 5; and breaching Section 3(1) of the Act, in that the company did not conduct its undertaking, namely the operation of Blast Furnace Number 5, in such a way as to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, that persons not in its employment, namely contractors, were not exposed to risks to their safety.
The HSE said that there was systematic corporate management failure at the Port Talbot works. Proper management attention might have broken the chain of events which led to the explosion, which was caused by water in the furnace coming into sudden contact with hot material. As water turned into steam it expanded rapidly, creating pressure, which blew a confined vessel apart.
The proper design, maintenance and operation of the water cooling system is vital to the safe operation of the furnace and the ability to detect, and stop, water leaking into the furnace in quantity is very important. Corus failed to do this in relation to Blast Furnace Number 5. Those failings were spread over many years, with many different people involved. The HSE will publish a full report into the incident in 2007.
Falling from a Height in Your Own Time
Although the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 specifically applies to people at work, they still manage to injure themselves by ignoring safe working practices while not at work. In December 2006, the Information Centre for Health and Social Care released statistics for hospital admissions after accidental injuries in 2005-06.
One of the largest categories was the 15,000 people admitted to hospital after falling out of bed. Some 4,000 people were injured by hand tools, such as hammers and screwdrivers; and 1,428 fell from trees, of whom 60 admissions were over the age of 60. Another 53 over-60s were injured falling from playground equipment. There were two cases suffering from the ill-effects of a prolonged period of exposure to a weightless environment; one case of a person bitten by a crocodile and one other by an alligator.
The total number of accidental injury hospital admissions increased over the previous year by more than 40,000 to 593,000.
British Statute Law Online
The UK Government has made available online for free access the entire body of British law statutes. The Statute Law website went live on 20th December 2006 at http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/ and contains the official revised edition of UK primary legislation, i.e. Acts passed by Parliament; it includes details of how laws have been amended and changed over time, and how existing laws will be amended by future legislation not yet in force. The database contains secondary legislation that has come into effect since 1991. In addition to national law, the database also contains Acts of the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Morecambe Bay Helicopter Crash
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (National) reported that on 27th December 2006, a CHC-owned Eurocopter Dauphin AS365N helicopter, built in the Netherlands, with two crew and carrying five passengers employed by Hydrocarbon Resources Ltd, a subsidiary of Centrica plc, had crashed into the sea over the Morecambe Bay gas field around 25 miles west of Fleetwood, Lancashire. Everyone onboard was killed. The helicopter had picked up passengers from two platforms and was heading for a third when it veered to the left and crashed. An air-sea search was controlled by Liverpool Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centre, involving two RAF helicopters, three rig supply vessels and their fast rescue boats, along with Fleetwood and Barrow RNLI lifeboats.
The cause of the crash was unknown; possibilities might include control failure, gearbox problems or a fractured rotor blade (the last was the probable cause of a North Sea helicopter crash that killed 11 people in 2002). The incident will be investigated by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) Air Accident Investigation Branch based in Farnborough. The HSE and the CAA are responsible for regulating UK offshore health and safety and aviation safety respectively. Helicopter transport is primarily the CAA area of regulatory responsibility, whereas installations are the responsibility of the HSE.
Gas was discovered in the Morecambe Bay area in 1974 and production began 11 years later. More than 400 staff and contractors work for the Morecambe Bay operation, with around 143 working offshore at any one time on a two-week rotation. They are supplemented by contractors.
In a separate incident two days earlier, a full-scale emergency was launched at Aberdeen Airport after the pilot of a Super Puma helicopter, also operated by CHC, reported engine problems. That aircraft landed safely.
Harley Davidson Fined for Recycling Failures
After a case heard in December 2006 before Oxford magistrates, the European arm of Harley Davidson, with headquarters in Wisconsin, was ordered to pay more than £23,000 for failing to take responsibility for its packaging waste.
Harley Davidson Europe Ltd of Oxford Business Park pleaded guilty to five offences of failing to register with the Environment Agency as a producer of packaging and failing to meet its requirements to recover and recycle packaging waste between 2003 and 2005. A further 12 similar offences committed between 1997 and 2003 were taken into consideration during sentencing. The company was fined £15,000 and ordered to pay £1,378 in costs. The court also ordered it to pay £7,586 in compensation to the Environment Agency for lost registration fees over nine years.
The company was prosecuted under the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 , which require businesses with an annual turnover in excess of £2 million and which produce more than 50 tonnes of packaging per year to be registered with the Environment Agency or a compliance scheme. Companies must also provide evidence of payment for the recovery and recycling of a specified proportion of packaging waste each year.
Harley Davidson Europe Ltd should have paid for the recovery and recycling of approximately 67.7 tonnes of packaging waste handled every year, but instead relied on their distributors to ensure compliance with legislation, ignoring the ultimate responsibility which lies with the company itself and cannot be delegated to a third party.
Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004
The ICE Regulations are fairly complex and guidance may be found via the DTI website. From 6th April 2005, the Regulations applied to undertakings with more than 150 employees, but from 6th April 2007, their scope will cover organisations with more than 100 employees. From 6th April 2008, the staff size limit is reduced to more than 50 employees. The Regulations do not apply to undertakings with fewer than 50 employees.
Chemical Leak Injures 37
Thirty-seven people were injured, one seriously, when a leak of the corrosive chemical substance hexamethylene diamine (C6H16N2 also known as HMD) took place at the BASF Seal Sands nylon intermediates plant near Billingham on Teesside. The incident occurred on 4th January 2007. The exposed workers were decontaminated on site and treated for burns, skin irritations and breathing difficulties. Seventeen casualties were hospitalised with one suffering serious burns. The HSE announced that it would investigate the incident.
The main uses of the substance are as a raw material in the production of nylon compounds and of hexamethylene di-isocyanate (HDI) as monomer feedstock in polyurethane production. BASF on Teesside experienced a massive fire in 1995; and in 1999 an employee died after being overcome by fumes.
Chemical Storage Plan Causes Concern
In September 2006, Shoreham Port in West Sussex submitted a plan to Adur District Council for approval of an increase in their warehouse storage capacity of agricultural grade ammonium nitrate from 1,000 tonnes to 2,800 tonnes. The company, which claims its security systems exceed the legal national requirements, wants to store the ammonium nitrate brought in by sea in a shed before it is distributed to farmers by road.
Local residents were alarmed by the potential increased risk of fire and explosion and the Health and Safety Executive recommended refusal. West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service did not object, but said that if a fire did occur it would be treated as a potential explosive situation. Crews would not operate within a 400-metre cordon and there would probably be a gas cloud release which would require the evacuation of a large residential area.
In January 2007, Adur District Council approved the plan on the grounds that the fertiliser grade of the substance presents a lower risk than the explosive grade.
Sales of ammonium nitrate fertiliser are tightly restricted in the EU. As numerous terrorist incidents have demonstrated, it is possible to mix the fertiliser grade with fuel oil to produce an explosive, but it requires a detonator and is dangerous and difficult to handle.
Company Fined after Unprotected Stairwell Fall
In early January 2007, Clearair Property Developments Ltd of Bishop Auckland were fined £1,500 plus £1,559 costs after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 at North Cumbria Magistrates' Court in Carlisle.
The company was the principal contractor on a barn conversion site where a joiner fell two and a half metres through an unprotected stairwell, sustaining multiple injuries, including a spinal fracture and a punctured lung. Clearair were accused of failing to take suitable measures to prevent the man from falling a distance likely to cause personal injury.
The HSE said that the incident could easily have been prevented by adequate handrails or coverings in place at the stairwell. The risks are well known and the precautions are basic and straightforward. In 2005/06, 24 people lost their lives as a result of falls in the construction industry and many more were badly injured.
Sellafield THORP Restarts
The HSE announced on 10th January 2007 that it had granted consent for the restart of the Sellafield Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP), which reprocesses nuclear fuel from overseas and UK second-generation commercial reactors. The plant had been shut down since April 2005 when a leak of radioactive liquid inside a shielded facility was discovered. Following an investigation by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII), the HSE brought a prosecution against the operator, British Nuclear Group Sellafield Ltd (BNGSL). Last year, BNGSL pleaded guilty to breaching three conditions attached to the Sellafield site licence granted under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 (as amended) and was fined £500,000 plus costs of over £67,000 at Carlisle Crown Court.
The NII said that it was satisfied that the licensee had done all the work necessary to ensure that THORP can be restarted and operated safely. The HSE proposes to publish a report on its investigation into the leak at THORP in the near future.
REACH to be Enforced from June 2007
The new European regime for regulating chemicals, EC 1907/2006, the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals Regulation (REACH), will come into force on 1st June 2007. Since it is an EU Regulation and not a Directive, REACH will not require member states to set up national transposing legislation. It will have direct effect from its implementation date.
All EU member states must set up a REACH competent authority, which in the UK will be the Health and Safety Executive. Its job will be to monitor compliance, evaluate substances of concern, and take regulatory action as appropriate and co-ordinate enforcement of the regulations. The HSE will work with DEFRA, the Environment Agency, the devolved administrations and the new European Chemicals Agency which will be set up in Helsinki.
REACH will replace more than 40 pieces of existing EU chemicals legislation and provide a single system for all chemical substances. It requires both registration and evaluation of specified chemicals which pose a risk to the environment or to human health, authorisation of chemicals of very high concern, and restrictions on the use of certain chemicals where appropriate.
REACH will affect manufacturers, importers and downstream users of chemicals. The burden of proof for demonstrating the safe use of chemicals will be transferred from EU member states to industry. Manufacturers and importers of chemicals in volumes greater than one tonne per year will be required to register each chemical substance in a central database. Unregistered chemicals cannot be manufactured in or imported into the EU market.
The provisions of REACH will be phased in over ten years. The proposed timeframe is:
- June 2008: European Chemicals Agency becomes operational, followed by pre-registration of phase-in substances.
- December 2010: Registration deadline for substances in quantities of over 1,000 tonnes and certain carcinogens, mutagens and chemicals toxic to reproduction.
- June 2013: Registration deadline for substances in quantities of over 100 tonnes.
- June 2018: Registration deadline for substances in quantities of over 1 tonne.
The HSE already has a helpdesk to advise and support UK business on dealing with the requirements of REACH, and further guidance and tools to support registrants and users of chemicals will become available later this year.
Please e-mail us with news and views about health and safety which you think would be of interest and would like to share with other newsletter subscribers.
Click here to be removed from our mailing list.