You may have heard that, ostensibly in an effort to reduce the paperwork impact on companies, RIDDOR (Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995) will from 6 April 2012 (subject to the expected Parliamentary approval) apply only to seven consecutive days of absence or incapacitation. RIDDOR has until now had to be made for lesser injuries to employees that cause three days off work.

However, the practical effect has just been nullified; for it has now been confirmed by HSE that employers will continue to have to keep their own records of ‘over-3-day’ at-work injuries, even after the ‘trigger point’ for reporting the less-serious injuries extends from three to seven days’ absence.

The HSE’s latest guidance on RIDDOR has confirmed that, once 7-day reporting does become law, employers will still have to make and retain an internal record of incapacitation due to any accident or injury that results in an employee being off work or unable to carry out their full gamut of normal duties for more than 3 consecutive days.

Rest Days, Holidays and Weekends Included

Note that when you work out the period concerned, you must not count the day of the accident itself: but you must include any days when the injured worker would not normally have been present at work, such as weekends, rest days or holidays, should these fall within the 3-day period. This therefore could bring within the requirement some incidents that only cause one extra day’s time off work.

What classifies as ‘incapacitation’? As defined by HSE, it means that ‘the worker is absent or is unable to do work that they would reasonably be expected to do as part of their normal work’.

According to the HSE’s new guidance, you can maintain these records of non-reportable injuries in ‘any suitable form’ – for example, on paper or computer.

In addition, if you are in a category of firm that is already legally required to keep and maintain a B1510 Accident Book according to the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations, you can also use this book to record both these non-reportable over-3-day injuries, and the newly-reportable over-7-day injuries. In either case, your records must be kept for at least 3 years after the injury or accident occurs, and they must be available to show to the Inspectors from HSE or Local Authorities upon request.

Reporting advice from Health & Safety Consultants

Remember also that the new over-7-day reporting requirement includes a deadline: you have up to 15 days after the accident to report the injuries to HSE.

HSE have undertaken to supply new guidance on this change from 16 January 2012 but at the time of writing this has yet to be posted. However, the expert safety consultants of McCormack Benson Health & Safety are always available to provide local advice and support on accident reporting, and on all other aspects of construction safety; or health and safety consultancy for all other types of organisation.

An elderly man was sent up onto a roof to help to fix a new advertising sign, and the fragile roof gave way resulting in the man’s tragic death. This was another sad example of an entirely preventable death.

Quality Exhaust Supplies and Fitting Service Ltd owns the vehicle repair garage called GB Autos, located in Longsight Industrial Estate, Manchester. On February 8^th 2009, its owner asked worker Mohammed Hashim, 76, to climb onto the roof of the building to assist with the erection of a new sign on top of it. The owner knew that the roof was unsafe and warned Mr Hashim of this. However he took no action to make the situation secure by the use of crawl boards, scaffold or mobile tower, carried out no risk assessment and failed to use proper signboard contractors who would have been trained in this type of work.

Fragile roof well known to owner

Consequently Mr Hashim, after helping to affix the sign, was crossing the sloping roof to go back to the ladder and in so doing, fell to the floor of the MOT bay through a roof skylight which broke under him. Despite medical treatment in the garage he did not subsequently regain consciousness, and later died in hospital.

Quality Exhaust Supplies and Fitting Service Ltd was prosecuted by HSE for their failure to ensure the worker’s safety. The company was heavily criticised because it was clear from the owner’s warning that the danger was apparent to him, but he nevertheless exposed Mr. Hashim to needless risk by instructing him to climb onto the roof without taking any protective measures.

The company was fined £15,000 and ordered to pay £3,000 of the prosecution’s costs for exposing someone not in their employment to risk, an offence under Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, at Manchester Crown Court on 16 February 2012.

How safety consultants can avert danger

The case emphasises the point that it is not only employees of a firm itself that are their responsibility. Contractors working for the company are also under their duty of care and they will be held responsible for any danger to which they may become exposed. In this case, a qualified advertising sign erectors would have had the right equipment to carry out the work safely and the company should have assessed the risk and employed the right people for the job. A garage like this has plenty of attendant risks in its range of activities and would benefit from using a hands-on firm of health and safety consultants like McCormack Benson Health & Safety. They will carry out risk assessments and write a health and safety policy as well as being available to visit whenever a one-off event like this occurs, to advise on the best way of handling a project without risking tragic results.

Every workplace has its share of risk. This case may be at the top end of the scale and it relates to activities that took place many years ago: but it has lessons that should be heeded by every employer in terms of managing the health and safety of a workforce.

The case concerns 300 former workers at Phurnacite, a former smokeless-fuel plant in south Wales, who allege that they contracted cancer and respiratory diseases that are a direct result of their working conditions there.
British Coal and National Smokeless Fuels were responsible for the plant, which closed in 1991.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has since taken over their responsibility and is contesting the claim.

Details of the claim

Solicitors acting for former Phurnacite workers and their families say that the unit was once called “the dirtiest factory in Europe”. It turned waste steam coal into fuel briquettes by crushing the waste and mixing in pitch then removing most of the smoke element through heating the mix.

In 2003 the local Health Authority carried out a health impact assessment of land recovery options for the site. This reported that the briquette production process had generated large quantities of gas, tar, ammonia, and other polycyclic hydrocarbons. The report stated: “The process was self-perpetuating, as the gas was used for heating tar tanks and for firing carbonisation ovens, which would generate more gas. Such processes are associated with a higher-than-expected incidence of cancer, particularly respiratory cancer, among workers.”

Over 100,000 tonnes of contaminated waste was removed from the site in a major land regeneration scheme, 14 years after the plant’s closure.

The claimants allege that working at the plant directly caused them to suffer lung, skin and bladder cancer, as well as respiratory disease. It is said that British Coal failed to provide necessary protection for the workers from exposure to, and the inhalation of, dust and fumes. Protection was provided, but the claim is that it was supplied too late and was inadequate.

A judgment of the case is expected in 2012.

Implications for other operations

If you are responsible for a production plant or for construction safety, you are likely to have to deal with potentially damaging exposures to toxic chemicals, asbestos, contaminated air, boiler fumes, dust and other hazards.

Legislation has toughened up since the above plant was in operation and there is a much greater focus on workplace safety: this puts the onus on employers to protect against all foreseeable risks.

When sensitive plants are being built it is incumbent on the operator to build in protection of the workforce and of the environment in every aspect of the planned operation.

Rather than go it alone in what can be a minefield of legislation, you would be well advised to seek the support of a dedicated firm of health and safety consultants.

This support should include the ability to actively cooperate with your team and help you by writing your risk assessments, as well as supplying training on all key risk areas and helping you to mange the all-important follow-through into practical application of the action points from your assessments.

All firms involved in construction and building maintenance must be on the lookout during February and March 2012 when HSE are mounting what they call ‘an intensive inspection initiative’ in this sector.

As the number of new builds has shrunk due to the economic downturn, most builders are keeping busy where they can with refurbishment work: many owners who cannot move are choosing to renovate their houses or industrial buildings. This is why the Inspectors are focusing on the risks associated with refurbishing.

The on-site health and safety risks can be even greater than those involved with new constructions (and the trade is already one of Britain’s most hazardous) – working at height safely can be difficult on existing roofs that may be in a bad state, and this is always the most hazardous activity in building (5 accidents of this kind occur daily). There is not the luxury of a clean fresh site. And above all, there is commonly a need to safely remove asbestos.

Consequently, more workers die (54% of the construction total) when doing repairs, maintaining and refurbishing than when building on a green field site.

Areas under Inspection

Notice has been given that Inspectors will be looking out for failure to maintain ‘Good Order’ – the keeping clean of sites, the removal of waste and the management of materials and walkways to avoid trips and falls.

They will be expecting to see the use of tower scaffolds and mobile platforms (properly used and maintained by qualified contractors) rather than ladders wherever possible, to reduce working at height dangers. Pre-planned systems of work must have been worked out and communicated to all involved. (Note that HSE is also targeting mobile elevating work platforms for special attention, so ensure that these are maintained up to their specified schedules and that all operatives have current certificates).

And as regards asbestos, this most dangerous material must be surveyed where found, and the removal of high-risk forms of asbestos must be carried out by licensed contractors. Lower risk types require personal protective clothing to be worn and steps taken to minimise the spread of debris to protect both workers and the public. Special waste disposal regulations apply, and must be adhered to.

All of this makes it understandable that the regulators should be following through on their threats to target the industry this year. They make it clear that action will be taken against non-conforming sites. Do not forget also that from April, this action will also be chargeable to the company that is responsible for the alleged breach of the regulations. This all undeniably adds to the burden faced by the managers of cash-squeezed firms who cannot afford to employ dedicated safety personnel.

For such companies, the ability to call upon flexible, pro-active support from McCormack Benson Health & Safety will be a great relief, knowing that the necessary risk assessments will be carried out by their experienced health and safety consultants and updated correctly; and that the necessary actions will be monitored and followed up.

The construction industry can be a dangerous place in which to work. But the enormous London 2012 Olympic Park construction project has taken the lead in its approach to health and safety in a way that should be emulated in other schemes.

The Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA), in co-operation with the HSE, took an inclusive risk management approach with ‘no scapegoats’ that could be adapted to any project – irrespective of its size or budget. In order to help spread this and other best practices, HSE has published the first of seven research reports (conducted by the Institute for Employment Studies) which will form part of the London 2012 Learning Legacy.

Secrets of Success

Right from the start of the design process the ODA established their top level commitment to health and safety; and this meant that thousands of workers enjoyed a safer working environment.

Project leaders worked with the whole supply chain to develop a collaborative, learning and challenging culture. Every contractor was accountable for health and safety not just in their own part of the work, but for the whole Olympic Park site. The report highlights the following key success factors:

• multiple two-way dialogue opportunities
• training of supervisors
• behavioural safety initiatives
• reward and recognition for positive health & safety behaviour
• a ‘fair blame’ culture

Workers felt comfortable in this environment to raise any health and safety concerns and they were involved in the problem-solving process.

The London 2012 Games construction project is being delivered on time and within budget but it is showing that achieving these goals does not mean compromising on worker health & safety.

Over a huge 66 million work hours, only 114 injuries and eight dangerous RIDDOR occurrences have been reported, up to October 2011.

Contractors please copy

In order to emulate this success, the first essential is to have powerful leadership from the top of the chain. Then there needs to be worker empowerment, in an environment where there are no worries about reprisals if they speak out.

In between, the contracting firms must buy into this process: and bearing in mind that most will not be able to afford full-time safety staff, they should strongly consider the use of professional health and safety consultants to help them play their part correctly.

Not all projects will be run by firms that have CDM expertise, and again, they would be wise to employ external CDM Coordinators to ensure that legal requirements are met, but also as a key part of the process of bringing all parties together and building safety into the project design.

For truly proactive support as your CDM Coordinator, or as Health and Safety Consultant, contact McCormack Benson Health & Safety.

A reminder to all that even the largest and most prestigious firms can fall foul of the law came recently when Marks and Spencer were given a massive fine (£1 million plus £600,000 costs) for endangering customers, their workforce and the workers of their contractors, by potentially exposing them to asbestos in two stores in Reading and Bournemouth that were undergoing refurbishments.

The HSE reminds us that asbestos is the UK’s single greatest cause of deaths related to work. It is estimated that some 4,000 people die from this cause every year, despite the phasing out of asbestos as a building material.

Other companies that were implicated and received fines included Styles & Wood Ltd (£100,000 plus costs of £40,000) and Willmott Dixon Construction Ltd (£50,000 with costs of £75,000). It should be noted that the latter is seeking permission to appeal against its conviction.

Unsafe Working Practices

Winchester Crown Court was told that asbestos-containing materials in the ceiling tiles and other locations were taken away by contractors.

The problem was that M&S failed to give enough space or time to remove the dangerous materials. Despite the company having produced in-house guidance on asbestos removal, this was not followed properly by its contractors in these major projects.

Contractors operated overnight in enclosed shop areas, trying to remove small sections of asbestos before store opening hours each day.

It was held that these practices failed to meet the appropriate legal and best practice standards. The Reading store sub-contractor did not minimise the spread of asbestos to the shop floor. Areas that had been cleaned became re-contaminated due to air movements from the ceiling void above, and also due to a low work standard.

The principal Reading contractor admitted it should not have permitted a system that did not allow for adequate void sealing, which put on-site workers at risk.

At Bournemouth the principal contractor did not properly plan, manage or monitor the asbestos removal work. Areas of the store that had not been surveyed extensively presented the possibility that asbestos would be disturbed by operatives.

Conclusion

The lesson is clear: anyone involved in the extremely hazardous business of asbestos removal must be allowed sufficient time, have the right training, and be generally supplied with the correct resources to avoid any risk to life or health.

This message applies to clients, no matter how large and possessing in-house health and safety professionals; to principal contractors; and to smaller sub-contractors. In this case a sub-contractor went into administration soon after the events in question. The fall-out from cases like this can be fatal to a small business.

Health and Safety Consultants

McCormack Benson Health & Safety present the ideal solution for companies that cannot afford the luxury of having their own specialist staff. When carrying out construction works, MBHS can act as CDM Co-ordinators, pulling together the designers and all other parties and fulfilling the requirements of health & safety legislation through the project.

For asbestos, they provide specialist training and health & safety consultancy.

As the new-build construction sector continues to suffer, many contractors rely upon refurbishment work. Individuals and firms are tending to stay put and upgrade or extend their buildings. Unfortunately the smaller value of these works may sometimes lead to working practices that have not been scrutinised as keenly as is required in the Construction and Design Management (CDM) regulations.

A case in point occurred in London when a sub-contractor severed a 3-phase electrical cable and suffered severe burns. He was working on a construction site at Leonard Street, Islington, and he had to remove the cable. The explosion happened when a main electrical supply cable to the site was cut during its removal.

Renovation Accident

This was a large renovation project involving the conversion of three units at Leonard Street as apartments and commercial properties. Pineview Interiors Ltd were the main contractors.

The site was using a 3-phase 415 volt temporary supply. Before the accident, the building worker told his supervisor that in order that he could fit plasterboard, the electrical cable had to be removed.

City of London Magistrates heard that Pineview Interiors Ltd made only very limited enquiries as to whether this cable was still live. A wrong assumption was made by the company that this was a redundant old cable from the pre-refurbishment circuit.

The man then proceeded to work using a step ladder, and with a hammer and chisel he tried to remove the cable. The resulting short circuit caused an explosion which rendered him unconscious and another man had to extinguish flames from the top half of his body. The worker suffered burns to 30-35% of his body. He required a skin graft from his legs to his body and arms, and his skin may take 2 years to recover.

Pineview Interiors Limited was fined £10,000 plus £4,183 costs.

The HSE Inspector commented:

“Refurbishment works continue to contribute a high proportion of the serious and fatal injuries reported within the construction industry. The defendant company were aware that their works … would require the removal of an electrical head. They were, or should have been, aware that this well labelled system remained live at the time that they instructed their employees to commence work in this location.”

This is a case where workers with no electrical training were sufficiently aware to ask the contractor about the safety of what they were doing. Yet the company made only a very limited effort to establish whether the system was live or dead, and made the wrong assessment. This was a failure to meet their obligations.

A proactive CDM Co-ordinator who was independent from the contracting company and designers would have probably been able to scope out the works clearly so that electrical and civil works were demarcated properly. No-one can legislate totally against short-sighted overseeing at the point of work, but measures can be taken to minimise risk.

Leading safety consultants McCormack Benson Health & Safety have the capabilities and construction industry experience to carry out these CDM co-ordinator duties as well as all forms of risk assessment and electrical safety testing.

As 2011 closed, the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) published annual statistics for deaths and major accidents caused at work in the UK. These figures relate to the period from April 2010 to March 2011 and are provisional because some reports take a long time to come in or be verified, but they provide a pretty reliable year-on-year basis for assessing safety at work on historical, sector-by-sector, and international comparison bases.

For those in the Construction sector, there is a particular significance because it is (unenviably) top of the list in terms of deaths at work.

As can be seen, these three sectors represent more than 50% of all deaths. Waste and recycling can also be involved with construction work, and as is often pointed out in health and safety blogs, many agricultural incidents are caused by what are essentially construction activities being carried out (often inappropriately) by farm workers. So one way or another, building, demolition and associated activities are very much in the regulators’ sights.

To put things into perspective, in this last recorded 12 month period there were 6 deaths per million workers in the UK. When compared with our nearest and most comparable neighbours, i.e. the other 4 main industrial nations in the EU (Germany, France, Italy and Spain) Britain has the lowest death rate per worker of any, and one of the lowest even when compared with smaller European nations.

However that is not to say that complacency should set in. One death is too many and it is important to point out the regrettable increase in deaths from 147 to 171 year-on-year; and given that industrial activity has hardly been on an upward curve it is unlikely that there are any mitigating circumstances.

Injuries are of course far more common, and there were 24,700 that were classified as major injuries in the year.

The HSE has issued a challenge to business owners for 2012 to make safety their top priority: and has emphasised that they each have a legal responsibility not to put workers’ lives at risk.

It is of course often the case that the media lampoon the health and safety regulators for enforcing stupid and trivial rules. It is therefore refreshing to read the HSE stating that businesspeople should focus on tackling ‘real dangers’ and not trivial risks or carrying out pointless paperwork. Many people will include in their New Year wishes the hope that this sentiment will be carried through in deed as well as word by the regulators.

It is clear that Construction in its many forms will loom large in the activities of the legislators in 2012 and the challenge for contractors and subcontractors will be to play their part in lessening risk and satisfying the authorities. For their part, McCormack Benson Health & Safety, consultants who specialise in construction health and safety matters, are ready to assist firms with practical hands-on support and guidance through the year ahead.

Most business owners and managers know that to persistently ignore the advice and warnings given to them by HSE Inspectors is foolhardy. Yet surprisingly, cases still occur where people deliberately avoid taking the action that has been prescribed. This recent example comes from a manufacturing concern.

Despite the decline in the sector, more than 3.2 million people are employed in manufacturing in Great Britain. Last year, 25 workers lost their lives and there were over 4,000 major injuries. This highlights the need for stringent safeguards and also points up the value of properly-qualified safety consultants.

Blatant Transgressions

The owners of First Packaging Ltd, a Bolton-based packaging manufacturer, have been sentenced for deliberately ignoring formal safety warnings in three different sites, over a period of three years. They have as a result been prosecuted by HSE for failing to install guards on machines that produce fast food packaging.

The machines remove paper from the ends of giant rolls that have previously been used when printing newspapers. However, there were no guards that might prevent workers’ hands being pulled in by the machinery.

HSE issued an Improvement Notice in January 2008 ordering guards to be installed on the machines. The company was given a six-month extension on the deadline to comply, but when the site was revisited that August, there were still no guards. First Packaging told the inspectors that the plant was to be closed, so they took no action.

It was discovered in early 2010 that in fact, First Packaging had moved to new premises in Westhoughton, still using the same unguarded machines. Inspectors then issued two Prohibition Notices to stop work immediately, together with another four Improvement Notices.

Phoenix Company

Later in 2010 First Packaging Ltd stopped trading but its Director Anthony Smith set up First Packaging North West Ltd, at Pilot Works, Bolton. Yet again, he still did not have guards fitted to the same old machines: so in February 2011 no fewer than five Improvement Notices were served.

The result was that Anthony Smith and Yvonne Barrett both pleaded guilty at Trafford Magistrates’ Court to breaching the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 by not preventing workers being put at risk at the Westhoughton site, and failing to comply with the Improvement Notice issued at the original Wadsworth site.

Mr Smith also admitted failing to ensure the safety of workers at the new Pilot Works site. He was fined £705 plus £2,500 in prosecution costs on 9 September 2011. Mrs Barrett was fined £360 plus costs of £1,500. Bear in mind they would also have had their own legal costs.

HSE Inspector Alex Farnhill commented:

“The two directors deliberately set out to avoid complying with the legal warnings we issued, allowing their employees to continue to operate dangerous machinery. The risk of workers’ hands being pulled into unguarded moving machine parts and belt drives is well known in the manufacturing industry. It’s only luck that none of Mr Smith and Mrs Barrett’s employees were injured in this case. It beggars belief that they chose to put workers at risk of serious injury after enforcement notices had been served, deciding to put profit over the safety of their employees.

We had no choice but to prosecute when they continued to deliberately and fragrantly ignore the formal warnings.”

Assessment plus Follow-Up

One can only echo the words of the Inspector: there is no justification for a failure to guard a machine in the 21^st Century. It should be abundantly clear from risk assessments that such machines are not fit for purpose. But that is not enough. Too many people consider their job done when they have written the assessment documents. The real task lies in the implementation.

For genuine, industry-trained health and safety consultants that never forget they work for you, but also know the rules and when they must be applied, call McCormack Benson Health and Safety. They will help ensure that you take action when needed and that you stay the right side of the law as well as maintaining a safe working environment.

Asbestos, even today when the product is banned from general use and we know the risks of the appalling disease asbestosis, is still the biggest cause of work-related deaths in the UK. There is plenty of information available about the risks and how to deal with them, yet incidents still occur such as this latest case.

Both the building contractor and the local authority were found culpable for allowing the spreading of asbestos due to the renovation of a bathroom in a council-owned flat.

Spread of Contamination

Belton Developments was converting a bathroom into a wet room, and doing so their workers disturbed asbestos in the property which is owned by South Kesteven District Council,

In breach of all the regulations, the contractors removed asbestos insulation board from the bath surround then carried it through the flat and communal areas in an open wheelbarrow and loaded it into an open-topped van.

An asbestos surveyor working on behalf of the council in the flat above witnessed this hazard. Knowing that flats in the building contained asbestos, he stopped the work.

A properly-licensed asbestos contractor then decontaminated the area and carried out air clearance tests.

Council and Contractors both liable

The Council reported the incident to HSE and as a result the partners who own Belton Developments were jointly prosecuted together with the Council due to the infringement of the law.

Grantham Magistrates’ Court heard that the Council, despite knowing about the presence of asbestos, did not supply adequate information to the contractors about the asbestos in the property before work began. The Council also failed to ensure that Belton Developments were competent to carry out asbestos work.

For their part, Belton Developments did not properly ensure that their workers were trained to deal with the specific risks. It also emerged in Court that the partners of Belton Developments had been served a Prohibition Notice preventing refurbishment work at another property owned by the same Council only 12 days before,

The Notice was served because an asbestos refurbishment and demolition survey had not been undertaken. This demonstrates the need for appropriate and thoroughgoing risk assessment in works of this kind.

South Kesteven District Council were fined a total of £16,600 plus costs of £3,486 after pleaded guilty to breaching regulations 4(1)(a) and 10(1)(b) of the Construction Design and Management (CDM) Regulations 2007.

The three partners of the contracting firm pleaded guilty to breaching regulations 10(1)(a) and 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and were fined a total of £3,003 plus costs of £900.

A case for professional help

Whether you are responsible for a public or private project, CDM is now a legal requirement for all except the smallest building works. Unless you can afford the luxury of having your own in-house experts on asbestos and other risks, it is wise to call in trained CDM Consultants to identify these issues, build them in to the planning process, and ensue that contractors are aware of their obligations.

For contractors, proper risk assessments are vital, including where necessary an asbestos survey, to protect your workers and to remain within the law.

Involving McCormack Benson Health & Safety at the outset of a project will mean that expert CDM & Health and Safety consultants are deployed to work with the project teams and help ensure that the work is carried out safely and within the law.