Guidance HEALTH & SAFETY NEWS. Issue 1 Date: 23/09/13 Page: 1 of 5

Transcription

1 Page: 1 of 5 Guidance Employers legal duties The Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981 require employers to provide adequate and appropriate equipment, facilities and personnel to ensure their employees receive immediate attention if they are injured or taken ill at work. These Regulations apply to all workplaces including those with less than five employees and to the self-employed. Detailed information can be found in First aid at work. The Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations Approved Code of Practice and guidance. What is adequate and appropriate will depend on the circumstances in the workplace. This includes whether trained first-aiders are needed, what should be included in a first-aid box and if a first-aid room is required. Employers should carry out an assessment of first-aid needs to determine what to provide. The Regulations do not place a legal duty on employers to make first-aid provision for non-employees such as the public or children in schools. However, HSE strongly recommends that non-employees are included in an assessment of first-aid needs and that provision is made for them. Assessment of first-aid needs Employers are required to carry out an assessment of first-aid needs. This involves consideration of workplace hazards and risks, the size of the organisation and other relevant factors, to determine what first-aid equipment, facilities and personnel should be provided. First aid at work: your questions answered A free HSE leaflet, which contains a useful checklist covering the points employers should consider when carrying out the assessment. Application of the Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981 to self-employed workers If you are self employed you are required to ensure you have such equipment, as may be adequate and appropriate in the circumstances, to provide first aid to yourself while at work. You should make an assessment of the hazards and risks in your workplace and establish an appropriate level of first-aid provision. If you carry out activities involving low hazards (e.g. clerical work) in your own home, you would not be expected to provide first-aid equipment beyond your normal domestic needs. If your work involves driving long distances or you are continuously on the road, the assessment may identify the need to keep a personal firstaid kit in your vehicle. Many self-employed people work on mixed premises with other self-employed or employed workers. Although you are legally responsible for your own first-aid provision, it is sensible to make joint arrangements with the other occupiers and self-employed workers on the premises. This would generally mean that one employer would take responsibility for first aid for all workers on the premises. HSE strongly recommends there is a written agreement for any such arrangement. Special requirements for diving Under the Diving at Work Regulations 1997, a diving contractor is required to provide medical and first-aid equipment during a diving project. In the event of a diving medical incident, the diving supervisor remains in control of any action to be taken.

2 Page: 2 of 5 News Runcorn boat manufacturer in court after employee crushed A Runcorn-based boat manufacturer has been fined after an employee's head was crushed against the top of a lorry container. Pyranha Mouldings Ltd was (on 20 September) prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) following the incident at its factory on the Whitehouse Industrial Estate, which left the worker with a torn ear, three chipped teeth, nerve pain and several stitches. Chester Crown Court heard that the 49-year-old man from Northwich, who has asked not to be named, had been lying on top of a stack of kayaks to pull the last ones into a container on 2 March As he tried to climb from the container into a cage to be lifted down to the ground by a forklift truck, the forks were raised and he was crushed against the top of the container. The court was told the company had used this method of loading kayaks for several years, despite employees requesting a ramp to be built to make it easier to load the boats into containers. An HSE investigation found Pyranha had used an unsafe system to load the kayaks and had failed to carry out a risk assessment or provide employees with suitable training. The work was also not properly planned and there was poor communication between the forklift driver and the man in the container. Pyranha Mouldings Ltd, of Aston Lane South in Runcorn, was fined 50,000 and ordered to pay 6,562 in costs after pleading guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Adam McMahon said: "The company should never have used a cage to lift workers down from containers, but it allowed this practice to happen over several years. The employee could easily have been killed when he was crushed against the top of the container. "Employees had raised concerns about this method and suggested using a ramp instead, but it was only after this incident that Pyranha Mouldings took any action to improve safety. "If a ramp had been available at the time of the incident then the employee's injuries could have been avoided. This case shows how important it is that companies listen to their workers and implement safe systems of work."

3 Page: 3 of 5 Builder pays price for unsafe work The owner of a Leeds building firm has appeared in court after two workers were injured, one seriously, when they fell from a mezzanine floor they were dismantling. One worker, then 61 and from Seacroft, broke two vertebrae and was in hospital for five days following the incident on 15 July He has been unable to continue working in the construction industry because of impaired lifting and carrying abilities. The second man, then 18 and from Halton, suffered concussion, but has since made a full recovery. The mezzanine, in a Cross Green warehouse that was being vacated, was being purchased by George Simms, a partner in Simco Services, who brought in the two men to dismantle it. Leeds Magistrates heard (on 18 Sept) that Mr Simms gave inadequate thought to planning the work, and existing handrails, intended to prevent falls from the mezzanine, were removed. As the work went on, it is thought one of the boards broke and the two men fell to the concrete floor below. The incident was investigated by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which prosecuted George Simms for a breach of the Work at Height Regulations. HSE told the court that Mr Simms had not considered how the work should be undertaken and this led to the two men working at height with no safeguards in place to prevent them falling. The men were repeatedly required to work close to the open edges, often while carrying materials and tools, making a fall more likely. The investigation was unable to identify exactly how the two workers fell together but a probability was that a board broke, causing it to slip. However, HSE said it was the ad-hoc nature of the work which ultimately led to the serious risks faced by the men. George Simms, of Ramshead Drive, Seacroft, Leeds, was fined 2,000 and ordered to pay 3,210 in costs after admitting a breach of Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations After the hearing, Inspector Martin Hutton said: "The two men who fell from height could easily have been killed. While one has been lucky enough to make a good recovery, the other suffered lasting spinal injuries which meant he had to give up work. "As far as Mr Simms goes, his only method of work was an unsafe, poorly-planned one, presenting abundant risks to workers of falling off or through the mezzanine. "Work at height is the single biggest cause of fatal incidents in the workplace and proper planning is vital to ensure it can be carried out safely. That includes choosing the most suitable equipment and making sure work is properly supervised."

4 Page: 4 of 5 Prosecutions Pharmaceutical company fined 100,000 after man sprayed by toxic chemical A North East pharmaceutical company has been fined for a serious safety breach which left a worker fighting for his life in hospital. The employee, from Tyne and Wear, was sprayed with seven litres of bromine as he removed cables from a valve connected to pipework at Aesica Pharmaceuticals on the Windmill Industrial Estate, Cramlington, Northumberland. He spent 48 hours in a life-threatening condition after inhaling the corrosive substance and also suffered severe skin burns and damage to one eye. The incident, on 7 February 2012, was investigated by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which prosecuted the company for safety failings. Newcastle Crown Court heard (on 20 September) that in 2007 a bromine bulk storage tank had been taken out of service and prepared for an insurance inspection which included removing short sections of connecting pipework. The removal left the rest of the pipework, including some valves, suspended from a set of flexible bellows which allowed movement in the pipework, but were not designed to be weight-bearing. The tank failed its insurance inspection and its planned replacement was postponed until Over the next five years while pipework at one end was disconnected, the other end was still connected to pipework for filling an adjacent tank with bromine, which left it contaminated. When the worker subsequently removed the cables, the bellows failed releasing the bromine over him. Bromine is classified as potentially fatal if inhaled and can cause severe skin burns. The employee was in hospital for four weeks and continues to receive treatment for his injuries. He has not yet returned to work. HSE found that the bolts on the bellows were badly corroded increasing the likelihood that they would rupture under any stress. It also identified that a further section of bromine pipework, which could also have become contaminated with bromine, was also inadequately supported. Aesica Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Q5, Quorum Business Park, Newcastle, was fined 100,000 and ordered to pay 7,803 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act After the case, HSE Inspector Graham Watson said: "This was a serious incident with potentially fatal consequences which was readily preventable. "All employers and particularly those handling dangerous chemicals must not assume a lack of previous incidents means risks are adequately controlled. Measures must be in place to ensure, through robust audit and review that this is due to effective management and not just good fortune. "Maintaining the mechanical integrity of process plant and pipework is essential to preventing the loss of hazardous chemicals. Any changes to plant must be carefully assessed to ensure it does not increase the risk of failure. Measures must be in place through an on-going programme of maintenance and inspection to ensure the continued integrity of the plant according to risk."

5 Page: 5 of 5 Fines imposed for asbestos exposure at former factory in Poole A company in Poole has been fined for safety breaches after exposing workers to potentially fatal asbestos at a disused tile factory in the town. Poole Investments Plc allowed a series of people and workers on to the site in Blandford Road, Poole, despite being aware of the presence of asbestos materials from a survey it commissioned itself. The Health and Safety Executive, which was alerted, investigated and prosecuted the company at Bournemouth Magistrates' Court (on 17 Sept) for safety failings. The court heard that the company had agreed to sell redundant plant at the factory site to a local trader. Between October 2010 and the following April the trader unwittingly released asbestos dust and fibres when he demolished part of a disused pottery kiln while removing kiln carts from the site. In May 2011, Poole Investments commissioned a firm to carry out an asbestos survey but allowed work to take place on site and next to the damaged kiln before the survey was completed in August of that year. Even after the company received the survey report, which clearly stated asbestos debris was present and that the area should be made out-of-bounds, they allowed workers to continue activities at the premises. Poole Investments Plc, of Anglo Office Park, White Lion Road, Amersham, Buckinghamshire, was fined 60,000 and ordered to pay a further 20,000 in costs after pleading guilty to three breaches of the Control of Asbestos Regulations Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector, James Powell said: "Poole Investments Plc committed safety failings that led to workers being needlessly exposed to dangerous asbestos dust and fibres. "They failed to identify that asbestos containing material was present on the site before the work started, resulting in failure to properly manage the work or provide appropriate protection for workers. Worse still, they allowed this work to continue even after they were in possession of a report showing asbestos was present and advising that the area should be made out of bounds. "Asbestos-related diseases kill more people than any other single work-related cause. All types of asbestos can be dangerous if disturbed. The danger arises when asbestos fibres become airborne. They form a very fine dust. Breathing asbestos dust can cause serious damage to the lungs and cause cancer."