Injury and ill-health statistics highlight workplace dangers
- Figures recently published show that while Britain continues to be one of the safest places to work in Europe, too many workers are still being injured or made ill by work.
Injury and ill-health statistics released by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) show that an estimated 28.2 million working days were lost due to work related ill health or injury in 2013/14.
As a result, the cost to society from such injuries and new cases of ill health due to current working conditions is an estimated £14.2 billion (2012/13 figures based on 2012 prices), according to the latest annual statistics published by HSE today.
Judith Hackitt, the chair of HSE, says that behind every number is the reality of a real person being killed or suffering injuries or ill health while simply doing their job.
The statistics show that, in 2013/14, there were;
“The health numbers also demonstrate the scale of harm being done to people’s health while at work, too often leading to premature death.
“Jobsworths using ‘elf n safety as a convenient excuse for all manner of things, and those claiming health and safety is a burden, need to reflect on this. Britain has one of the best health and safety systems in the world, but that is cold comfort to those who have suffered loss or suffering that is so easily avoided with sensible and proportionate risk management.
“We all need to commit to focussing on what really matters – ensuring more people return home from work every day and enjoy long and healthy working lives.”
The industries in which workers are most likely to be injured by their jobs have not changed significantly – with construction (1900 major/specified injuries), agriculture (292 major/specified injuries), manufacturing (3159 major/specified injuries) and waste and recycling (486 major/specified injuries) among the higher risk sectors.
HSE Myth Busters
As a result, the cost to society from such injuries and new cases of ill health due to current working conditions is an estimated £14.2 billion (2012/13 figures based on 2012 prices), according to the latest annual statistics published by HSE today.
Judith Hackitt, the chair of HSE, says that behind every number is the reality of a real person being killed or suffering injuries or ill health while simply doing their job.
The statistics show that, in 2013/14, there were;
- 133 fatal injuries – a fall from 150 the previous year.
- 77,593 other injuries reported under The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 (RIDDOR). That equates to 304.6 injuries per 100,000 employees.
- An estimated two million people in 2013/14 suffering from an illness they believed was caused or made worse by current or past work.
“The health numbers also demonstrate the scale of harm being done to people’s health while at work, too often leading to premature death.
“Jobsworths using ‘elf n safety as a convenient excuse for all manner of things, and those claiming health and safety is a burden, need to reflect on this. Britain has one of the best health and safety systems in the world, but that is cold comfort to those who have suffered loss or suffering that is so easily avoided with sensible and proportionate risk management.
“We all need to commit to focussing on what really matters – ensuring more people return home from work every day and enjoy long and healthy working lives.”
The industries in which workers are most likely to be injured by their jobs have not changed significantly – with construction (1900 major/specified injuries), agriculture (292 major/specified injuries), manufacturing (3159 major/specified injuries) and waste and recycling (486 major/specified injuries) among the higher risk sectors.
HSE Myth Busters
Customer not allowed a coffee with a child’s meal deal
Issue
On a recent visit to a fast food outlet the enquirer was refused a coffee with a child’s meal deal on health and safety grounds, even though the meal was for his adult self.Panel decision
The decision to refuse a hot drink as part of a children’s meal deal package was purely commercial and had nothing to do with health and safety – especially since the customer made clear that the drink was for an adult’s consumption not a child. Yet again we see poor customer service and inflexibility hiding behind health and safety as a convenient catch all excuse.Primary school staff asked not to take any drinks onto the playground during breaks
Issue
For health and safety reasons staff at a primary school were asked not to take drinks, including cold ones, out onto the playground during breaks to safeguard the children.Panel decision
This is one of the most extreme cases the panel has dealt with in relation to disproportionate restriction of drinks around children. It relates not only to hot drinks, but includes cold drinks on highly improbable grounds including the possibility of a child suffering an allergic reaction. Occupational health and safety law does not ban teachers from having a cuppa and even less a refreshing cold drink, whilst on playground duty, and to suggest it does is just preposterous. If the head wants to impose ridiculous rules on staff, he/she should not use health and safety as a convenient cover.All office lights must have a working bulb
Issue
Enquirer has been informed that for health and safety reasons all of the lights in their open plan office must have working bulbs in them. Due to a pre-existing eye condition the enquirer has switched off a strip light above their work station for the last three years but this will not now be allowed.Panel decision
The panel has identified numerous reasons why the facilities management team in this workplace may want to have all lights on but none of them have anything to do with real health and safety risks. The complainant has valid (medical) reasons for asking for the strip light to be removed from above her workstation and simple common sense suggests that her request shouldHSE writes “open letter” to the structural timber industry
- Open letter to all parties involved in the design, specification, procurement and construction of timber frame structures
The purpose of this letter is to explain HSE’s expectations in relation to the management of fire risks prior to and during the construction of timber frame structures. The letter has been produced in cooperation with the Structural Timber Association (STA), which represents the industry’s manufacturers and suppliers. STA and HSE are working together to promote a better understanding of fire risk management throughout all parts of the supply chain, including those outside STA’s membership. The standards to be achieved are the same regardless of trade body membership or otherwise.
HSE’s approach to off site fire risks during the construction phase of timber frame structures
Fire precautions during the construction of timber frame structures fall within HSE’s remit. For any project, regardless of the construction method, duty holders have legal responsibilities to ensure the safety and health of workers and those who might be affected by their work activities, including those arising from fire risks. Serious incidents have arisen where fires involving timber frame structures under construction have affected neighbouring buildings. Consequently, HSE has worked with the STA to produce guidance on reducing the risk of harm to people in buildings adjacent to the construction site.
Summary
All those making design and procurement decisions that significantly affect fire risk should consider and reduce the risk and consequences of fire during the construction phase through DESIGN. Failure so to do may constitute a material breach1 for which HSE will apply its Fee for Intervention scheme those duty holders who have contributed to the breach.
Detailed Explanation
Regulation 11 of The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (CDM)requires risks to be considered and eliminated/reduced so far as is reasonably practicable through the design process. This duty is imposed on anyone who makes decisions affecting the design, including, for example, architects, structural engineers, clients, suppliers, principal and other contractors and even those involved in the planning approval process where they specify particular construction methods or products.
The primary legal responsibility for assessing off-site fire risk rests with those making design and procurement decisions before work starts on site. Designers and manufacturers of timber frame structures duties under CDM Regulation 11 cannot be passed on to the Principal Contractor. Risk should be designed out as far as is reasonably practicable and information about residual risk passed to the Principal Contractor. The Principal Contractor is obliged to consider and manage risks arising from the activities under their control at the site stage.
The STA’s publication ”Design guide to separating distances during construction”http://www.structuraltimber.co.uk/information-centre/information-centre/technical-library/site-safe/ has been produced with HSE’s input and provides guidance on assessing the off site fire risk from timber frame structures under construction. Although the title of the document “Design Guide to Separating Distances During Construction” might imply that the guidance is for use during construction, it is intended to be used at the design and procurement stages of a project.
HSE commends the STA for the substantial work carried out to produce this guidance, promote its use and make it freely available to all rather than being restricted to STA members. Although following the guidance is not compulsory, it does provide a practical means of complying with legal requirements. If an alternative approach to the guidance is used, a competent person with fire engineering qualifications and experience will need to determine the risks and to identify appropriate controls. The persons involved should justify their decisions and recommendations in terms of risk, rather than cost.
Evidence from recent HSE inspections indicates that the risk of harm to occupants of neighbouring buildings from fire during the construction phase is not always effectively managed through either of the options above, and that not all duty holders understand what is required of them.
For a proposed structure, the STA guidance enables minimum separation distances to be determined. Where space does not provide the separation distances required for a Category A structure, it provides guidance on selecting alternative timber frame structures to provide an adequate level of fire protection to neighbours during the construction phase. If a Category B or C structure or alternative fire engineered solution is needed, then it should be specified when the timber frame is being procured. Everyone in the supply chain has a responsibility to work towards this end. Anyone in the supply chain who makes a decision, which significantly affects fire safety during construction, should be prepared to justify that decision. If fire safety considerations are left to a late stage in the design development of the project, there is an increased potential that the solutions will be inconsistent in approach and less effective if there is a fire, and more time consuming and expensive to implement.
Appropriate mitigation methods should always be developed before construction work starts on site.
In practical terms HSE expects:
Simon Longbottom
Head of Construction Sector and Policy
HSE’s approach to off site fire risks during the construction phase of timber frame structures
Fire precautions during the construction of timber frame structures fall within HSE’s remit. For any project, regardless of the construction method, duty holders have legal responsibilities to ensure the safety and health of workers and those who might be affected by their work activities, including those arising from fire risks. Serious incidents have arisen where fires involving timber frame structures under construction have affected neighbouring buildings. Consequently, HSE has worked with the STA to produce guidance on reducing the risk of harm to people in buildings adjacent to the construction site.
Summary
All those making design and procurement decisions that significantly affect fire risk should consider and reduce the risk and consequences of fire during the construction phase through DESIGN. Failure so to do may constitute a material breach1 for which HSE will apply its Fee for Intervention scheme those duty holders who have contributed to the breach.
Detailed Explanation
Regulation 11 of The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (CDM)requires risks to be considered and eliminated/reduced so far as is reasonably practicable through the design process. This duty is imposed on anyone who makes decisions affecting the design, including, for example, architects, structural engineers, clients, suppliers, principal and other contractors and even those involved in the planning approval process where they specify particular construction methods or products.
The primary legal responsibility for assessing off-site fire risk rests with those making design and procurement decisions before work starts on site. Designers and manufacturers of timber frame structures duties under CDM Regulation 11 cannot be passed on to the Principal Contractor. Risk should be designed out as far as is reasonably practicable and information about residual risk passed to the Principal Contractor. The Principal Contractor is obliged to consider and manage risks arising from the activities under their control at the site stage.
The STA’s publication ”Design guide to separating distances during construction”http://www.structuraltimber.co.uk/information-centre/information-centre/technical-library/site-safe/ has been produced with HSE’s input and provides guidance on assessing the off site fire risk from timber frame structures under construction. Although the title of the document “Design Guide to Separating Distances During Construction” might imply that the guidance is for use during construction, it is intended to be used at the design and procurement stages of a project.
HSE commends the STA for the substantial work carried out to produce this guidance, promote its use and make it freely available to all rather than being restricted to STA members. Although following the guidance is not compulsory, it does provide a practical means of complying with legal requirements. If an alternative approach to the guidance is used, a competent person with fire engineering qualifications and experience will need to determine the risks and to identify appropriate controls. The persons involved should justify their decisions and recommendations in terms of risk, rather than cost.
Evidence from recent HSE inspections indicates that the risk of harm to occupants of neighbouring buildings from fire during the construction phase is not always effectively managed through either of the options above, and that not all duty holders understand what is required of them.
For a proposed structure, the STA guidance enables minimum separation distances to be determined. Where space does not provide the separation distances required for a Category A structure, it provides guidance on selecting alternative timber frame structures to provide an adequate level of fire protection to neighbours during the construction phase. If a Category B or C structure or alternative fire engineered solution is needed, then it should be specified when the timber frame is being procured. Everyone in the supply chain has a responsibility to work towards this end. Anyone in the supply chain who makes a decision, which significantly affects fire safety during construction, should be prepared to justify that decision. If fire safety considerations are left to a late stage in the design development of the project, there is an increased potential that the solutions will be inconsistent in approach and less effective if there is a fire, and more time consuming and expensive to implement.
Appropriate mitigation methods should always be developed before construction work starts on site.
In practical terms HSE expects:
- An assessment of the particular site and its constraints when the method of construction is being considered.
- For timber framed structures, assessment can be undertaken using STA’s ‘Design guide to separating distances during construction’.
- The assessment should identify that where there is insufficient separation distance to allow a Category A structure, the appropriate level of Category B or C to match the site constraints (unless an alternative fire engineered solution is developed by a competent person) should be recommended.
- The appropriate category frame should be specified to the manufacturers.
- Timber frame manufacturers, including non-STA members have a significant role to play in ensuring appropriate specification and procurement of frames. Manufacturers should be advising their customers of the guidance and requirements. Use of the STA audit checklist may assist manufacturers in compiling records to demonstrate the steps they have taken to discharge their obligations under CDM Regulation 11 and record who has made specific decisions.
- Any specific information and instructions that must be followed to guarantee the specified category or approved solution to be achieved on site must be passed to the Principal Contractor.
- The Principal Contractor must adhere to the conditions required to achieve the specified category of structure.
- The Principal Contractor must devise and apply appropriate fire precautions during the build, including control of hot works, provision of fire warning and extinguishing systems, provision of means of escape etc.
Simon Longbottom
Head of Construction Sector and Policy
Dangerous roof work caught on camera
- A builder has been fined after two of his workers were photographed on a house roof in Burnley without safety measures in place.
Mohammed Yasin, who trades as Southfield Property Maintenance, was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) following the incident at a semi-detached house on Matlock Grove on 10 April 2014.
Burnley Magistrates’ Court heard a passing HSE inspector spotted the men
installing a dormer window for a loft conversion at the property. Mr Yasin, 39
was inside the house and his two workers were close to the chimney on the outside, without any scaffolding or other safety measures to prevent them from being injured in a fall.
Mohammed Yasin, of Larch Street, Nelson, was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay £400 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to a breach of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Jacqueline Western, said:
“It’s astonishing that Mr Yasin was prepared to carry out a construction project that involved major roof work, without putting safety measures in place to protect the people he employed.
“While he worked safely inside the house, the lives of two men were being put at risk as they clambered about on the roof. The work simply shouldn’t have been allowed to go ahead without the use of scaffolding or other safety equipment.
“The risks from working at height are well known in the construction industry. It is therefore only luck that no one was injured on this occasion.”
Burnley Magistrates’ Court heard a passing HSE inspector spotted the men
installing a dormer window for a loft conversion at the property. Mr Yasin, 39
was inside the house and his two workers were close to the chimney on the outside, without any scaffolding or other safety measures to prevent them from being injured in a fall.
Mohammed Yasin, of Larch Street, Nelson, was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay £400 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to a breach of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Jacqueline Western, said:
“It’s astonishing that Mr Yasin was prepared to carry out a construction project that involved major roof work, without putting safety measures in place to protect the people he employed.
“While he worked safely inside the house, the lives of two men were being put at risk as they clambered about on the roof. The work simply shouldn’t have been allowed to go ahead without the use of scaffolding or other safety equipment.
“The risks from working at height are well known in the construction industry. It is therefore only luck that no one was injured on this occasion.”
Firm fined over worker’s severe burns
- A County Durham firm has been sentenced after a worker suffered serious burns to his face, hand and arm when he was struck by a jet of hot molten plastic.
John Calcutt was helping clear solidified plastic from a large plastic injection moulding machine at Ebac Ltd, in Newton Aycliffe, when the incident happened on 9 September 2013.
The 47-year-old, from Spennymoor, was struck across the left side of his face and his left hand and arm by the hot liquid plastic as it was ejected from the machine causing serious burns.
He was airlifted to hospital and kept in for three days. He is still receiving treatment and physiotherapy but has returned to work at Ebac Ltd.
The HSE prosecuted Ebac Ltd at Darlington Magistrates’ Court for serious safety failings after an investigation into the incident.
The court heard that at the start of the day’s shift a blockage was identified at the machine’s injection unit, where the raw material is fed into the machine, melted and mixed before being pumped into the mould cavity.
Mr Calcutt and two colleagues attempted to clear the blockage. Their focus was on clearing the blockage to get the machine working.
Mr Calcutt had not received any training in relation to clearing blockages on the machine and none of those involved in the task were wearing any form of eye or face protection.
HSE found that Ebac Ltd had not carried out an assessment of the risks to employees while clearing blockages on the feed / injection system and did not ensure workers were using personal protective equipment as required.
Ebac Ltd, of Ketton Way, AycliffeIndustrial Park, Newton Aycliffe, was fined £7,500 and ordered to pay £770.10 in costs and £750 Victim Surcharge after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
After the hearing, HSE Inspector Victoria Wise, said:
“This incident could have been easily prevented if Ebac Ltd had a safe system of work in place for dealing with blockages.
“The potential for ejection of hot molten plastic is highlighted in the industry’s own guidance and this was a foreseeable risk that should have been part of the risk assessment process for clearing blockages.
“The company should have also had monitoring in place to ensure that its employees were using the appropriate personal protective equipment that had been provided.
“Instead, the firm’s failures mean a worker has suffered serious injuries.”
The 47-year-old, from Spennymoor, was struck across the left side of his face and his left hand and arm by the hot liquid plastic as it was ejected from the machine causing serious burns.
He was airlifted to hospital and kept in for three days. He is still receiving treatment and physiotherapy but has returned to work at Ebac Ltd.
The HSE prosecuted Ebac Ltd at Darlington Magistrates’ Court for serious safety failings after an investigation into the incident.
The court heard that at the start of the day’s shift a blockage was identified at the machine’s injection unit, where the raw material is fed into the machine, melted and mixed before being pumped into the mould cavity.
Mr Calcutt and two colleagues attempted to clear the blockage. Their focus was on clearing the blockage to get the machine working.
Mr Calcutt had not received any training in relation to clearing blockages on the machine and none of those involved in the task were wearing any form of eye or face protection.
HSE found that Ebac Ltd had not carried out an assessment of the risks to employees while clearing blockages on the feed / injection system and did not ensure workers were using personal protective equipment as required.
Ebac Ltd, of Ketton Way, AycliffeIndustrial Park, Newton Aycliffe, was fined £7,500 and ordered to pay £770.10 in costs and £750 Victim Surcharge after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
After the hearing, HSE Inspector Victoria Wise, said:
“This incident could have been easily prevented if Ebac Ltd had a safe system of work in place for dealing with blockages.
“The potential for ejection of hot molten plastic is highlighted in the industry’s own guidance and this was a foreseeable risk that should have been part of the risk assessment process for clearing blockages.
“The company should have also had monitoring in place to ensure that its employees were using the appropriate personal protective equipment that had been provided.
“Instead, the firm’s failures mean a worker has suffered serious injuries.”
No comments:
Post a Comment