HSE reveals plans to withdraw management ACoP
The HSE proposes to withdraw the Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) for the Management of Health and Safety at Work (MHSW) Regulations as part of a package of proposals outlined in a consultation document launched yesterday (25 June).
The consultation, which seeks views on proposals covering 30 ACoPs, forms part of the HSE’s commitment to review all its ACoPs, as recommended by Professor Löfstedt in his recent review of health and safety legislation.
After an initial review of 32 of its 52 ACoPs, the HSE identified 15 ACoPs requiring revision, consolidation or withdrawal by the end of 2013. The consultation document also asks for views on further plans for minor revisions and updates — by 2014 — to 14 other ACoPs, and on a suggestion that no changes be made to the "Consulting workers on health and safety" ACoP (L146). The final section of the consultation deals with a proposal to limit ACoP documents to 32 pages, with a few exceptions.
ACoPs set out preferred methods to achieve legal compliance and clarify what is required. They are not law, though they do have a special legal status in that if duty holders follow the advice in the code, they can be confident they are compliant. Duty holders may use alternative methods to comply, but if they are prosecuted for a breach, and it is proved that they did not follow the code, they will be found at fault unless they can show the court they complied in some other way.
Among the 15 ACoPs listed for revision, consolidation or withdrawal are well known publications such as the “Management of health and safety at work” (L21), “The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 Approved Code of Practice and Guidance” (L5), “Legionnaires’ disease” (L8), “The management of asbestos in non-domestic premises” (L127) and “Workplace health, safety and welfare” (L24). A full list is available here.
The HSE also wants to consolidate the five ACoPs (L134-138) that provide advice on compliance with the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations into a single revised document.
Perhaps the most radical proposal is the complete withdrawal of the MHSW ACoP and its replacement with a suite of structured, specific and updated guidance documents, including “Health and Safety Made Simple”, a revision to the guidance previously branded as “Essentials”, a revised “Five Steps to Risk Assessment” and “Managing for Health and Safety” (HSG65).
The HSE says the “generic” nature of the current MHSW ACoP, which does not describe methods of compliance suitable for different sizes and types of business, leaves duty holders uncertain whether they are complying with their legal obligations. Both the Löfstedt review and Lord Young’s report Common Sense Common Safety singled out the ACoP for reform.
As well as the 30 ACoPs covered in the consultation document, the HSE has identified two other publications – “Rider-operated lift trucks: operator training” (L117) and “The compilation of safety data sheets” (L130) – for revision or withdrawal without consultation, either because changes had been consulted on before the Löfstedt review or because the associated legal provisions have been revoked.
The HSE says it has not yet reviewed the remaining 20 ACoPs because they are “associated with ongoing sector specific consolidations or other regulatory amendments”.
The consultation, which opened on 25 June will run until 14 September.
Unsafe tree work leads to fine for Lincolnshire man
A Lincolnshire landscape gardener has been fined after being spotted carrying out unsafe tree work.
John Holland and an employee were felling a tree at a house in
Foxgloves, Deeping St James, on 19 August 2011. They were both using a
chainsaw, despite not being qualified to do so and neither was wearing
protective clothing such as protective trousers and boots.
Spotted by a neighbour who was trained to assess chainsaw work.
In addition, Mr Holland was working in the crown of the tree without
any kind of safety equipment that would have prevented a fall, such as
a harness.
The two men were spotted by a neighbour who was trained to assess
chainsaw work. He reported his concerns to the Health and Safety
Executive (HSE), which brought today’s prosecution at Spalding
Magistrates’ Court.
John Michael Holland, age 53, of Little London, Spalding,
Lincolnshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 6(3) of the Work
at Height Regulations 2005, Regulations 4(1) and 4(2) of the Personal
Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 and Regulation 9(1) of
the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.
Spalding magistrates today fined him a total of £4,000 and ordered him to pay costs of £2,000.
After the hearing, HSE inspector Neil Ward said:
"The neighbour was suitably qualified to know that the way Mr
Holland and his employee were working was far from safe and Mr Holland
could have fallen from the tree at any time. Not only was it wrong of
Mr Holland to use the chainsaw without having the necessary
qualifications, but it was also wrong for him to expect his employee to
do the same. Chainsaws are dangerous pieces of machinery in untrained
hands. They can cause serious injury or even death. It is sheer good
fortune that no-one was hurt that day.
"Mr Holland should also have been aware of the need to secure
himself to the tree. Working at height carries significant risks and
all necessary precautions should be taken to prevent a fall."
West Yorkshire firm prosecuted over unacceptable working conditions
A Keighley lighting supplier has been fined for subjecting its
staff to ‘appalling’ working conditions and exposing them to risks from
defective electrics and welding fumes.
A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) inspector visited the
premises of Keylighting Ltd as a result of a number of complaints about
the working conditions at the site on Alincote Street.
A catalogue of health and safety failings was uncovered and
specialists were called in to examine the electrical systems, a range
of hygiene issues, and to assess the safety management of the welding
and powder spraying process.
Bradford Magistrates’ Court was told that during an occupational
hygiene inspection in December 2010 an expert found temperatures in
various parts of the building ranged from just four degrees centigrade
in the toilets to ten degrees in the stores and welding areas.
As a result of these findings five Improvement Notices were served on Keylighting by HSE.
Seven more Improvement Notices were served by HSE after an
electrical specialist found an eight-month-old report from a separate
company had revealed 70 defects on the electrical system, seven of them
requiring urgent attention. Not one of the faults had been acted upon.
The various investigations also found the toilets in a dire
state with blocked sinks, out of order cisterns which were still being
used, no running water for hand-washing and rubbish strewn around. They
were deemed to be a high disease risk to anyone using them.
In the welding area, there was no ventilation to remove fumes
and the protective equipment for the workers was ineffective. In one
of the spray booths, an operator was found with powder contamination
around his face, neck and hands and extensive powder dust had escaped
from the booth.
Keylighting Ltd, of North Brook Works, Alincote Street,
Keighley, was prosecuted by HSE for breaching the Health and Safety at
Work etc Act 1974 between 25 May 2010 and 25 January 2011. The company
pleaded guilty and was fined £8,000 with £20,000 to pay in costs.
After the hearing, inspector Morag Irwin, who made the first visit to the premises following the complaints, said:
"This was, without doubt, the worst workplace I have inspected in
more than ten years with HSE. The conditions the employees had to
endure at work were totally unacceptable, a threat to workers’ health,
and in breach of many health and safety regulations.
"During the coldest December in more than a century, some
employees were working in temperatures only a few degrees higher than
they were outside. A report highlighting serious electrical hazards had
been allowed to gather dust.
"There was no one at the company with the competence to manage
even the most basic levels of health and safety. If any employer
shirks their responsibility and ignores legislation, putting their
workers at risk, it is only right that HSE takes enforcement action.
Demolition firm fined for safety failings
A demolition firm and its director have been fined for endangering workers at a site in Lancing, West Sussex.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Rabbit Demolition
and Excavation Ltd and its director, Colin Bell, for not providing a
safe means for working on a roof during the demolition of the Ball Tree
Inn, on Busticle Lane, Sompting, between the 12 and 21 September last
year.
Worthing Magistrates' Court heard today (16 July) that a member of
the public sent HSE a photograph showing workers on the site, run by
Rabbit Demolition, removing roof tiles from the former pub with no edge
protection in place to prevent falls. One worker was also shown to be
standing in the bucket of an excavator being driven by Colin Bell.
HSE investigated and found working practices were unsafe and
unnecessary, and that edge protection in the form of scaffolding could
have been provided.
Alternatively, the work could have been safely carried out using a mobile elevated working platform.
After the hearing, HSE inspector Denis Bodger said:
"Falls from height account for more deaths and serious injuries in
the construction industry than anything else. This was a clear example
of unsafe working on a roof. One slip and someone could easily have been
killed or seriously injured.
"It is staggering that Colin Bell not only allowed such unsafe work practice but actually participated in it.
"Contractors carrying out construction work, including demolition,
should properly plan, manage and monitor the work to ensure that it is
carried out safely. Where work at height is undertaken, precautions
should ensure that people can not be injured from falling. If people
work on roofs to reclaim tiles, edge protection in the form of guard
rails or other equally effective measures must be provided."
Scaffold collapse leads to fines
Two Stoke-on-Trent companies have been fined for their part in a major scaffold collapse.
Seventy metres of sheeted scaffold peeled away from a row of houses in Wellington Road, Hanley, on 30 April 2011.
Fortunately workers were on a break so no-one was on or near the
scaffolding at the time of the collapse. No members of the public were
walking past and no vehicles were driving by, although a row of parked
cars received minor damage and a street lamp was destroyed.
Seventy metres of sheeted scaffold peeled away from a row of houses in Wellington Road, Hanley.
Potteries Demolition Company Limited was the principal contractor on
the Stoke City Council scheme to demolish 15 terraced houses and the
former Highland Laddie pub on one side of Wellington Road. The firm
appointed Jacko’s Scaffolding Limited to provide scaffolding.
A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found the scaffold
had not been built to an appropriate bespoke design and was not
sufficiently secured to the houses. In addition it was a particularly
windy day with the Met Office recording gusts of up to 46mph in the
area, which put extra pressure on the sheeted scaffold.
Stafford magistrates were told that the original scaffold provided
by Jacko’s was a basic scaffold provided for roof tile removal and as
such it did not require a bespoke design. However the next stage in the
demolition sequence required the scaffold to be altered and sheeting
added, as it was to be used as a work platform to facilitate hand
demolition of the front upper walls of the buildings. This meant that
the scaffold needed to be a bespoke design as it could become
vulnerable to collapse as the buildings it was tied to were demolished.
After today’s hearing, HSE inspector Andrew Bowker said:
"It was sheer good luck that no-one was hurt when the scaffold
collapsed. If anyone had been on it or nearby, it would have been a
very different story.
"This incident was caused by a catalogue of serious failings by both companies.
The failure to construct the scaffold to a suitable design for the
work meant that the scaffold ultimately could not withstand the effects
of wind loading as the buildings upper walls were demolished and first
floor anchor ties were removed.
"Potteries Demolition the Principal Contractor failed to effectively
co-ordinate, plan and manage the demolition sequence in order to
ensure that the scaffold safety was not compromised. They failed to
ensure that the sheeted scaffold was constructed to a suitable bespoke
design despite knowing that this was necessary. They failed to inspect
the scaffold and removed anchor ties during the demolition sequence
ignoring written instructions on the scaffold handover certificate not
to do so"
Jacko’s scaffolding failed to construct the scaffold to a suitable
design despite knowing that this was necessary. They failed to inform
Potteries Demolition that the sheeted scaffold they handed over was not
adequately tied for the façade demolition to start.
Both companies failed to ensure that the anchor ties that were fitted were suitably tested.
Jacko’s Scaffolding Limited, of Winghouse Lane, Tittensor,
Stoke-on-Trent, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health
and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. Today, Stafford Magistrates’ Court
fined the firm £5,000 and ordered it to pay costs of £2,992
Demolition
What you need to do
The law
says that all demolition, dismantling and structural alteration should
be carefully planned and carried out by competent practitioners. Key
issues are:
A systematic approach to demolition projects is a team effort between many people, who all have responsibilities:
- Clients must appoint dutyholders who are competent and adequately resourced.
- Structural engineers survey the site and assess the stability of
nearby structures the risks of uncontrolled collapse,and the risks from
hazardous materials. This should be done before work beginsa nd not be
left for the principal contractor to organise.
- CDM Co-ordinators plan effective site management that keeps people
(site workers and the public) as far as possible from the risks. They
should give principal contractors as much information as possible.
- Principal contractors co-ordinate and manage health and safety issues during the demolition project.
- Site managers supervise workers and ensure they are following safe working practice.
- Sub-contractors and site workers must understand and follow the precautions and ensure that their colleagues do too.
Health surveillance
Health surveillance means regularly looking for early signs of
work related ill health and putting procedures in place to achieve this.
The purpose of health surveillance is to monitor and protect the health of individual employees.
Collecting simple information may lead to early detection of
ill health caused by work and identify the need for improved control
measures.
All employees exposed or likely to be exposed to an asthmagen should receive suitable health surveillance.
The specific requirements are set out in COSHH and might involve examinations by a doctor or trained nurse.
