Risk, Health and Safety Information

What are the Principles of Prevention in relation to CDM 2015?

The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (referred to as the CDM regulations) also require duty holders to use these principles to direct their approach to identifying and implementing precautions which are necessary to control risks associated with a project.

The principles of prevention are outlined in both sets of regulations, and involve a series of best practice principles, ordered to form a best practice approach to risk management - the most effective being to avoid risk. For those risks that cannot be avoided each of the other principles of prevention should be applied where appropriate, to reduce the risk so far as is reasonably practicable to do so. The health and safety principles of prevention are as follows:

(a) Avoiding risks
Where possible you should avoid risks all together. Obviously, it is impossible to avoid all risks in the workplace, but those that can be avoided should be. This is the most important principle – the safest risk is the one you don’t take.

(b) Evaluating the risks which cannot be avoided

Risks that cannot be avoided should be evaluated through a risk assessment to determine the safest method of work.

(c) Combating the risks at source
Combating the risk at source is better than managing the risk through warnings or PPE. For example a slippery surface should be treated or replaced as opposed to putting up a warning sign.

(d) Adapting the work to the individual
Especially as regards the design of workplaces, the choice of work equipment and the choice of working and production methods, with a view, in particular, to alleviating monotonous work and work at a predetermined work-rate and to reducing their effect on health

(e) Adapting to technical progress
Technologic advancement involves solutions to existing problems. When new equipment is developed you should take advantage of any opportunities to make your working processes safer.

(f) Replacing the dangerous by the non-dangerous or the less dangerous
If you cannot remove a risk entirely, you may be able to replace it with another less dangerous method to get the work done. For example, you may be able to substitute a toxic substance for one that is less hazardous, or work from height could be carried out from fixed scaffolding rather than a ladder.

(g) Developing a coherent overall prevention policy
This policy should cover technology, organisation of work, working conditions, social relationships and the influence of factors relating to the working environment.

(h) Giving collective protective measures priority
Collective protective measures should be given priority over individual protective measures. Collective measures give the greatest benefit to protecting the whole workplace, it is important to consider how preventative measures will work together and ensure they are compatible.

(i) Giving appropriate instructions to employees
Any control measures you introduce are no use if your workforce do not comply with them, understand them or even know about them. Communication is vital to ensure the successful implementation of health and safety measures to protect everybody.

If you are a duty holder under CDM and need help please call and ask to Speak to Rob Anderson or David Hutchinson on 0333 577 0248.

 

Steel firm sentenced over worker’s death

A steel company has been sentenced after a catalogue of safety failings led to a 42-year-old worker being killed when he was knocked off his lorry and then crushed by a three-tonnes load of steel tubes. 

Father-of-three Robert Ismay, from Thirsk, was delivering two bundles of 7.5-metre-long tubes to Daver Steels Ltd’s premises when the incident happened on 6 December 2012. 

Sheffield Crown Court heard from the HSE what should have been a straightforward unloading operation was beset by errors and failings that left Mr Ismay fatal injuries. 

Mr Ismay, a visiting delivery driver, had parked his lorry on the road opposite the site. No checks were made by Daver Steels to see what was to be offloaded or how the load was positioned. 

A trained but inexperienced forklift truck driver was then told to lift the steel tubes, but the forks’ reach was too short so when they were raised, the bundles fell off and struck Mr Ismay. He was pushed off the trailer onto the pavement and was hit and fatally wounded by the bundles of steel tubes as they crashed down behind him. 

The HSE investigation found Daver Steels: 

·         Had not assessed the risks involved with loading and unloading so had no safe system of work in place

·         Had not provided instructions or sufficient training to staff

·         Failed to provide direction to workers, leaving them to develop their own practices including choosing how they offloaded, what equipment to use and where offloading took place 

The court was told an inspection by Daver Steels of what was being delivered would have shown the only safe way to unload was to use a crane, which the company had, and to put the truck in the loading bay rather than leaving it on the busy road outside. 

Instead there was no planning of the task and no communication between the site and the delivery driver. Road users were also put at risk when the forklift blocked part of the road during the failed unloading attempt, the forks had an insufficient reach, and Mr Ismay was allowed to remain on the back of the lorry. 

HSE told the court that Mr Ismay’s death could have been avoided if simple planning and suitable instructions had been in place to control the risks. 

Daver Steels Ltd, of Petre Street, Sheffield, was fined £62,000 and ordered to pay £38,000 in costs after admitting breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. 

After the sentencing, HSE inspector Chris Gallagher said: “Unfortunately, this type of incident is not unique or new. What happened to Robert Ismay was a tragedy that has had devastating consequences for his wife, children and wider family. 

“There was a series of safety failings by Daver Steels in this case. Key was its failure to put in place adequate control measures, which includes the provision of suitable instructions to employees and visiting workers so such tasks could be completed safely. 

“Daver Steels should have taken responsibility for the driver’s safety and the delivery and unloading operation. Companies that receive deliveries to their premises have a duty to ensure that any unloading operation is carried out in a safe manner.”