Group Newsletter Issue 11 Volume 4 May 2013

1. Group Newsletter Issue 11 Volume 4 May 2013

2. Contents Group News Page 3 Exhibitions Information Page 4 Exhibitions report Page 6 SGUK News Page 7 Members Page Page 8 HSE Information Page 9 Other stories/information Page 15

3. Group Info Please remember that if you are employed by an SME or are an individual wishing to do a NEBOSH Certificate then please contact us as some sponsorship may be available if you meet the criteria. Courses are provided either by SETA in Stockport or ACT Associates Please contact the Secretary for details cathy.nixon@mohsg.org.uk

4. Exhibition Information Please add these dates to your diary and consider visiting the shows . These shows are supported by Safety Groups UK

5. Other Exhibitions etc. The following additional Exhibitions are to be supported by Safety Groups UK with Mike and Cathy manning the stand. June 25 – SHE Show North West, Hilton Hotel, Blackpool Other local events taking place, though not supported by Safety Groups UK include 18 September – North West Regional Association Conference, Barton Grange Hotel, Barton, nr. Preston Exhibition enquiries to Mike Nixon on exhibition@nwra.org.uk Conference reservation enquiries to cathy.nixon@nwra.org.uk October: South Cumbria Conference contact Martin Fishwick on mgfishwick@live.com November 26 SHE Show North East, Gosforth Marriott Hotel, Newcastle upon Tyne

6. SGUKExhibitions report Mike and Cathy recently manned the stand at the Health and Safety Show at SECC, Glasgow, on 17 and 18 April. Jointly with the team from ScoS we had almost 100 visitors over the two days. Thanks are given to Tim Else and his team for providing us with an excellent stand and any support necessary over the two days. The following week Mike and Cathy were at the SHE Show in Milton Keynes where a successful day was enjoyed. Thanks to Vicki Washington and her team for providing stand space. Our next exhibition will be Safety and Health Expo at the NEC from 14 – 16 May. Our annual visit to the Safety and Health Expo will be its last at this venue, next year it is combining with the IOSH Conference at ExCeL London, on June 17 – 19. We had approximately 130 visitors to the stand over the three days. The ‘It’s in Your Hands’ Campaign which was originally launched in 2006 has been updated by Deb and BSIF and this was relaunched on the first day of the Exhibition. Thanks to the team at UBM for providing the stand space.

7. SGUKInfo Discounts available through SGUK Please remember if you work for a small company, or Consultant, who perhaps do not receive a discount at Arco to request a Safety Groups UK card which gives 15% off in Arco shops only (not online). You must produce a card to obtain the discount. (only available to members). Members 15% Exclusive discount Safety Groups UK has negotiated corporate benefits for Group members. ACT is working with Safety Groups UK to provide an exclusive discount to all Safety Groups UK members. ACT offer an exclusive 15% discount off the list price of any product or service to all Safety Groups UK members. ACT is established as a high quality single point solutions provider of auditing, consultancy and training services. We have evolved into an integrated provider of all learning solutions including conventional, e-learning and blended learning options. Obtaining the 15% discount Call ACT on 01384 447915 E-mail – actsales@actassociates.co.uk Quote ACTSG12 For more info on our products and services go to www.actassociates.co.uk

8. Members Page Craig McAdam, Partner, Slater and Gordon Consultation On Draft Revised Approved Codes Of Practice (ACOP) Workplace, Health, Safety And Welfare (Regulations 1992) Consultation document CD253 was released by the Health and Safety Executive on the 7 May 2013 inviting views on the revised approved Code Of Practice in relation to the workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and is set to end on 30 July 2013. This is an important consultation due to the legal status of HSE guidance. Although following the guidance is not compulsory the advice from HSE is that if you do follow the guidance you will normally be doing enough to comply with the law. The ACOP provides updated guidance on maintenance of the workplace, equipment, devices and systems, ventilation, temperature on indoor workplaces, lighting, cleanliness and waste materials, floor and traffic routes, preventing falls and falling objects. Access and exit points and washing and rest and changing facilities all of which should be read and fully understood by any health and safety manager. For those wishing to comment on the proposed ACOP guidance visit www.hse.gov.uk. Please copy in Roger Bibbings at RoSPA rbibbings@rospa.com

9. HSE Info Bradford man may lose lower leg after work injury A Bradford man may need to have his foot and lower leg amputated as a result of a crush injury caused by the safety failures of his employers more than a year ago. The city’s magistrates were told today (1 May) that 51-year-old David Wain, from Holmewood, suffered serious injuries when a 1.5 tonne pallet of tin plates fell onto his right lower leg and foot when he was employed by Emballator UK Ltd at their factory in Tyersal, Bradford. The incident, on 6 February 2012, was investigated by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which prosecuted the company after identifying a number of safety failings. Bradford Magistrates’ Court heard that Mr Wain, a coating assistant at the plant, which manufactures tin cans, had been told to use an older machine to turn the bulk tin plate as a fault had developed on the usual, more modern, pallet turner. He had no experience of using the older machine and a colleague gave him a demonstration of how to use it and how to load the pallets for turning. Mr Wain used a forklift truck to pick up a pallet of plates, loaded the machine the way he had been told - wedging the load using empty pallets - and switched it on. Moments later, after the machine turned 180 degrees, he saw the plates and pallets moving. He tried to get out of the way but the full load of metal plates spilled out of the machine in a weighty waterfall, trapping his foot against the floor. Part of Mr Wain’s big toe was severed and the sole of his foot was split. Surgeons managed to reattach the next two toes and he needed plates put into his ankle and screws into his lower leg. He was in hospital for 11 days. Mr Wain has been housebound since the incident and unable to walk without crutches. He was informed earlier this year by the hospital that his foot and lower leg may need to be amputated. HSE found Emballator UK Ltd had failed to provide both safe equipment and a safe system of work. There was no clamping mechanism to retain the pallet of metal plates within the rotating machine, and no guarding to keep operators from the machine during turning.

10. Story continues In addition, the firm had not identified the risks involved with using the older machine, and in particular the risk of the plates falling out. Mr Wain was not supervised whilst he used the machine for the first time. No checks were made that he understood the risks and the precautions to take. Emballator UK Ltd, of City Link Industrial Park, Phoenix way, Tyersal, Bradford, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The firm was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay £3,769 in full costs. After the hearing, HSE Inspector Andrea Jones said: "Everyone has the right to come home from work safe and well. But David Wain suffered life-changing injuries in an incident that was preventable. "Emballator UK Ltd failed in their duties to provide a suitable machine for turning pallets and a safe method of operation that Mr Wain could use. Manually securing the load in an open box by means of wedges or empty pallets is not a sufficiently reliable method of securing the load. "A proper examination of the risks would have shown that there was a danger of the load shifting and falling from the machine, during or after turning. A simple clamping mechanism would have secured it, and was indeed applied to the newer machine. "It is also essential that checks are made by managers to ensure operators are trained and competent to use the machines they provide, understand the risks and associated precautions to take.“ The latest statistics from HSE for 2011/12 show that there were 31 deaths, more than 3,400 major injuries and some 14,000 minor injuries recorded within the manufacturing industries. For advice and information go to www.hse.gov.uk/manufacturing.

11. Roofing company in court for ignoring safety risks A roofing company has been fined for exposing workers to serious risk of injury at a site in Deeside, Flintshire. Mold Magistrates’ Court heard today (10 May) that Merseyside firm Aston Roofing North West Ltd had been contracted to replace the roofs of light industrial units at Connah’s Quay, Deeside. The work involved replacing fragile asbestos cement roof sheets with metal roof cladding. On 1 November 2012 an off-duty inspector from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) spotted two men employed by the contractors on the roof of one of the units. He could see that no safeguards had been put in place to prevent a fall from height while this hazardous work was being carried out. He immediately took steps to ensure a prohibition notice was served on the company to ensure all work on the roofs was stopped. The court heard that HSE found numerous ‘fall from height’ risks at the site including access onto the roof via an untied ladder, no safeguards to prevent a fall through the fragile roofing material and nothing to prevent a fall from the edges of the roof. The workers were some four to five metres from the ground. Aston Roofing North West Ltd, Kenilworth Drive, Pensby, Wirral, Merseyside pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. The company was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay costs of £100. Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Chris Wilcox said: "The dangers of working at height are well known in the roofing industry yet poor safety standards and lack of safeguards still exist among some contractors. "These employees were working on fragile roofs and yet Aston Roofing North West had neglected to implement even the most basic safety measures to minimise the risks of falls. It is very fortunate that nobody was injured. "The prosecution should serve as a reminder to all building contractors to ensure working at height is properly planned and robust safety precautions taken. Employers have a legal duty to manage safety and failing to do so too often ends in tragedy." Further information about working safely at height can be found on the HSE website at www.hse.gov.uk/falls

12. Safety lesson for paper mill in court A Swanley firm has been prosecuted after a worker at its warehouse was injured after being crushed between a forklift truck and a pallet of paper goods. The Swan Mill Paper Company Ltd appeared at Sevenoaks Magistrates’ Court (7 May) and admitted safety failings that led to its employee, a local man, suffering several fractures to his leg and foot. The incident, on 12 October 2011, was investigated by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which prosecuted the company after finding that it could have been avoided if simple safety precautions had been taken. The court was told that the man, who does not wish to be named, was in an aisle in the warehouse taking tickets off pallets that were filled with paper goods. The pallets were then to be put on racks at either side of the aisle. A colleague using a forklift truck to stack the pallets on the right hand side of the same aisle, reversed and backed into the worker, crushing him between the truck and the pallet. The man suffered three breaks in his right ankle as well as two fractures to his left leg. He has since returned to work at the firm on light duties. Swan Mill Paper Company, registered in Bloomsbury Street, London, was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay £3,069 in costs after admitting a breach of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 at the Old Warehouse, Goldsel Road, Swanley. After the hearing, HSE Inspector Guy Widdowson said: "The incident was entirely preventable. Swan Mill Paper Company failed to make sure that there was a safe vehicle and pedestrian system of work in place within their warehouse. Such a measure would have prevented vehicles being able to access areas where workers on foot were moving around. Such a system was entirely possible without any detriment to the work being done.

13. Story continues "Due to the clear dangers of pedestrians and vehicles interacting in the same areas, companies need to ensure, as much as they can, that workers on foot and forklift trucks on the move are properly separated. "The incident at Swan Mill Paper Company was in a fairly narrow aisle with restricted visibility. The risk of a collision between a moving forklift and a warehouse operative while both are working in the same location is significant and should have been obvious to the company.“ Information and advice about safe use of forklift trucks is available from HSE’s website at www.hse.gov.uk/workplacetransport

14. Derbyshire food company prosecuted after worker severs fingertip An Ilkeston food company has been fined after an employee severed the tip of his finger in a mincing machine. The man, who has asked not to be named, injured his left index finger as he tried to remove meat from a blade on the machine at Loscoe Chilled Foods Limited’s Grange Farm factory in Loscoe on 7 November 2011. Southern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court was told today (8 May) the machine had been stopped and was slowing down when the employee went to collect a tub of mince from the end of the production line. He noticed some had got stuck in the outfeed so he removed the guard and reached in to remove the mince. However, his hand came into contact with the still-moving blade. He required emergency surgery at hospital and was off work for three weeks before later retiring. An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that while the guard was not required to be fixed, it was only supposed to be removed by a trained operative with a specific method followed. The employee had not been trained to perform that task, so did not follow the correct procedure. The court heard the company had failed to implement a proper training system for the machine, despite a similar incident having occurred in the past and specific advice having been given by HSE. Loscoe Chilled Foods Limited, of Wharncliffe Road, Ilkeston, Derbyshire, was fined a total of £16,000 and ordered to pay £16,192 in costs after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. After the hearing HSE inspector Emma Madeley said: "Loscoe Chilled Foods Limited had a duty to ensure its employees were protected from the dangerous moving parts of the mincing machine. "The fact that a specific procedure had to be carried out to remove the guard shows the firm recognised the risk, yet it failed to ensure its employees were adequately trained and supervised. There was a lack of control which resulted in a man suffering a painful injury."

15. Generalinfo CLP Pictogram Quiz Go to http://echa.europa.eu/clp-quiz The classification and labelling of chemicals is changing! New pictograms with a white background are replacing the orange ones in the EU. Products containing these labels may cause harm if not handled correctly. Make sure you learn what the labels mean and read the instructions to ensure safe use.  Take this quiz. Check how well you know the symbols. Read the labels. Stay safe!

16. The following Stories courtesy of SHP Witness saw worker running around in flames An employee sustained severe burns when he was engulfed by a fireball at a chemical plant in Wirral.Bromborough-based SAFC Hitech Ltd was fined £120,000 over the incident, which occurred on 28 February last year and resulted in the 45-year-old worker, who has asked not to be named, receiving burns to his face, right arm and upper body.The worker was taken to a specialist burns unit and induced into a coma for seven weeks. He was kept in hospital for almost three months, and still has extensive scars and difficulty moving. He is yet to return to work on account of his injuries.Liverpool Crown Court heard on 29 April that the company had been manufacturing a chemical called trimethylindium, or TMI, which is used during the production of LEDs and in the semi-conductor industry. Waste from the purification process had been left on a bench to deactivate in an unsealed glass bottle, despite it being explosive if it is exposed to air, or water.Soon after starting his shift, the worker entered the waste deactivation area and when waste in the bottle exploded, sending shards of glass across the yard. He has no memory of the incident but one of his colleagues reported seeing him running around in a ball of flames. The HSE also identified inadequacies in the company’s procedure for dealing with waste produced from the TMI purification process, while staff were neither supervised sufficiently nor monitored.

17. Story continues SAFC Hitech Ltd pleaded guilty to a breach of reg.5(1) of the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002, in relation to its failure to undertake a suitable and sufficient risk assessment for dealing with the waste produced by the TMI purification process. It also admitted to a contravention of s2(1) of the HSWA 1974 for failing to ensure the safety of employees. In addition to its fine, it was ordered to pay £13,328 towards the cost of the prosecution. Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Semra Zack-Williams said: “One of SAFC’s employees has suffered burns that will affect him for the rest of his life, and has so far been unable to return to work owing to the extent of his injuries.”Added the inspector: “The chemical industry has the potential to be extremely dangerous, which is why it’s vital the highest standards of health and safety are followed. SAFC fell well below those standards in this case.”

18. Welder hit by 1.4-tonne steel beam An unsupported steel beam weighing 1.4 tonnes fell off a trolley and crushed a 64-year-old worker, causing him life-changing injuries.Portsmouth magistrates heard on 23 April that the welder was airlifted to Southampton Hospital after the incident, which occurred on 10 June 2011 at the Hillsea factory of Portsmouth steel manufacturer Conder Allslade.The court was told that the man, who does not wish to be named, was working on a steel beam that was resting unsecured on a metal trolley. As he manoeuvred an overhead crane, the hook of the crane struck the beam, which plummeted from the trolley and struck him, causing him to sustain a fractured skull, two crushed back discs, a broken knee and ankle, and a blood clot on his lung. He remained in hospital for a month and still has to undergo surgery and treatment. An HSE inspector who visited the site served a Prohibition Notice on Conder Allslade on the day of the incident to prevent any further work on steel beams while unsupported on the trolleys.An investigation found the company had not carried out a proper assessment of the risks involved in the particular work process. Simple safety measures would have prevented beams from being knocked and becoming dangerously unstable, but it had failed to put such systems in place.
Conder Allslade was fined £8000 on each of two charges after pleading guilty to a breach of s3(1) of the MHSWR 1999 by not conducting a sufficient assessment of risks to safety and to a breach of reg.12(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 by not preventing exposure to risk. The firm was also ordered to pay £5074 in full costs.The company said in mitigation it had put supports on the side of the trolleys and used clamps to prevent steel beams falling off after the incident. It also pointed out that it had originally assessed other risks to do with the movement of steel, but not the specific risk of the steel falling off the trolley.

19. Story continues Craig Varian, the HSE inspector who prosecuted the case in court, said the company could have done more. “The painful and debilitating consequences of these dreadful injuries will be with this man for the rest of his life,” he said.“The term ‘risk assessment’ is often lambasted as a technicality, or part of a tick-box exercise. However, the true meaning of the term and its importance are very starkly demonstrated in this case. Had Conder Allslade undertaken a risk assessment and then taken the action necessary to mitigate the risks, the incident could have been avoided.”

20. Story courtesy of RoSPA Hotel chain fined for asbestos exposure risk during refurbishment A large hotel chain has been ordered to pay more than £200,000 in fines and costs after construction workers and guests were put at risk of asbestos exposure at a hotel in Kent.Britannia Hotels Ltd carried out refurbishment work at The Grand Burstin Hotel in Folkestone, between February and July 2010, without conducting a full asbestos survey.Up to 22 workers were potentially exposed to asbestos during the works. Guests could also have been exposed if any fibres had spread into areas still open to them.Canterbury Crown Court was told that an asbestos surveyor, called to the site after work began, discovered widespread asbestos in the eaves of the building. The surveyor also found asbestos on the second floor, which was probably linked to the removal of walls and ceilings during the refurbishment. A licensed asbestos contractor had to be called in to remove the material and seal off the contaminated area to prevent fibres spreading. HSE was also notified.Britannia Hotels Ltd, of Cheshire, pleaded guilty to two separate breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £160,000 and ordered to pay £40,051 in costs.

21. Story courtesy of HSM magazine BOHS welcomes RIDDOR reversal The BOHS (British Occupational Hygiene Society) has welcomed the HSE's (Health & Safety Executive) decision to retain the need for employers and duty holders to continue to report occupational cancers, diseases attributable to biological agents and six short-latency diseases in the workplace. The HSE had initially proposed to remove this requirement but after a public consultation exercise has decided to change its decision. Reform of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrence Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR) initially arose from the HSE’s 'fundamental review' of the regulations, which was recommended by the Young Review in 2010 and endorsed by the Lofstedt Review in 2011. A formal public consultation took place between August and November 2012. In response to the public consultation, BOHS as The Chartered Society for Worker Health Protection, set out three main areas why reporting occupational diseases such as occupational cancer should remain a key part of RIDDOR. The three main areas of concern were: 1. Lack of surveillance data for epidemiological purposes If employers and duty holders did not have to report incidents of occupational disease there would have been no data available and therefore no real understanding of the number of people exposed to dangerous working environments. Existing data reveals that 500,000 new work-related illnesses occur each year which ultimately costs the economy £8.2bn annually. Even with its limitations, without RIDDOR disease data, fighting for healthier working environments, which all workers deserve, is harder. 2. Lack of intelligence for HSE inspection Removing the requirement to report occupational diseases would have left the HSE without valuable information for HSE inspections. As industry changes, so does the incidence of disease and HSE would have had no data to see this happening. Most disease has a long latency which slows down the intervention and control process. Removing the requirement to report disease would have slowed the process even more. Not all occupational disease has a long latency e.g. dermatitis, and even when it does have a long latency, the reporting of a single case in a workplace indicates that other workers are probably being exposed. Interventions at this stage can still prevent future cases.

22. Story continues 3. Sending a message to Industry about priorities The removal of the requirement to report diseases would have sent an incorrect message to industry about how HSE perceives its importance. There could have been a perception in some industries that if they were not required to report then the risks do not require controlling. If occupational diseases were no longer required to be reported then industry would have been even less inclined to undertake health surveillance. Commenting on the HSEs announcement, Steve Perkins, BOHS chief executive, said: ÒBOHS welcomes HSEÕs decision to retain the requirement to report occupational cancers, diseases attributable to biological agents and six short-latency diseases (hand-arm vibration syndrome, dermatitis, carpal tunnel syndrome, severe cramp of the arm, tendonitis and occupational asthma). These account for 90% of all ill-health RIDDOR reports to the HSE. It is therefore important these are retained under RIDDOR reporting requirements

23. Story courtesy of Safety Management UK Roofer Fined £21 Million A South Wales roofing firm is negotiating with claimants after being ordered to pay more than £21 million in damages for its part in a fire that devastated a West Midlands factory. The High Court in London heard on 25 February that Bridgend roofer Central Roofing (South Wales) had been contracted to refurbish the roof of a factory near Wolverhampton operated by copper tube manufacturer Mueller Europe. The contractor had erected a suspended "birdcage" scaffold to work on the roof, which was boarded and sheeted with combustible materials and enclosed two suspended gas-powered radiant heaters, used to heat the factory. When the heaters were turned on in the early morning of 9 November 2008, they set the flammable scaffold alight, sparking a huge fire that caused part of the roof to collapse and triggered massive damage to the fabric and contents of the factory. BBC News reported that the judge, Mr Justice Stuart-Smith, said the heaters were an "obvious fire hazard" that should have been picked up. He said that although Mueller should have made sure the enclosed heaters were switched off, Central Roofing bore the primary responsibility to carry out the work safely and to point out the obvious hazard. He noted that there had been three previous incidents when heaters were switched on when they should not have been. The judge said: "Central continued to take no steps to carry out the works safely when they knew that Mueller was not routinely isolating [the heaters] and the failure to isolate had already caused near misses". He ruled Central liable to pay Mueller a total of £21,357,889 in compensation for the damage to the factory, its contents, machinery, and equipment and for the interruption of its business. Source: IFSEC

24. Fears that scrapping head protection regulations will endanger construction workers Construction workers could be left without hard hats on sites, following the scrapping of 'life-saving laws', Construction union UCATT has warned. The Construction (Head Protection) Regulations, which required construction workers to wear hard hats, were revoked on Saturday 6th April as the Government moves to cut red tape and act upon the Lofstedt Review which recommended their deletion.UCATT's argued that construction was a non-compliant industry and that extra measures were needed to ensure that the scrapping of the regulations would not result in construction workers being placed in danger.UCATT states that the previous law had seen the average number of construction workers dying as a result of a head injury fall from 48 to 14 in a year.'Construction workers are being placed in danger by the scrapping of these regulations," UCATT general secretary Steve Murphy said.'Many construction companies will use the scrapping of the regulations as an excuse not to provide life-saving protective equipment.'The Health and Safety Executive Board insists that the change will not jeopardise site safety standards as contractors will still need to comply with the Personal Protective Equipment Regulations 1992, which have been amended so that they cover the provision and use of head protection on construction sites.The HSE commented: 'These changes do not compromise essential health and safety protections. The aim is to make the legislative framework simpler and clearer. HSE is taking action to raise awareness of the changes.'It added: 'This includes working with the construction industry (particularly small contractors) to ensure that it understands the continuing need for employers to provide hard hats and ensure they are worn on construction sites.'Hard hats remain vital in protecting construction workers from head injuries.'

25. Courtesy of BBC News Irlam gas blast: Gas fitter admits breaking safety regulations A gas fitter has admitted breaching safety laws after an explosion which destroyed three homes, damaged 200 more and critically injured a woman. Sixteen people were hurt in the blast in Merlin Road in Salford in November 2010, including Marie Burns, 73, who remained in hospital for months. At Manchester Crown Court Minshull Street, Paul Kay, 31, of Slater Street, Warrington, admitted a charge under the Gas Safety Act. He will be sentenced later. Kay had been carrying out renovation work on 1 November, the day before the blast, as part of a project to install new kitchens in several houses on the estate. Saw a flash Mrs Burns, who lived at the house in Irlam where the explosion happened, suffered 30% burns and remained in hospital for several months afterwards. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) said Mrs Burns went downstairs to make her breakfast at about 07:15 BST on the day of the explosion and turned her gas oven on. The next thing she remembered was seeing a flash to the left of the cooker as her house exploded around her. Her home has since been rebuilt. No company or any other individual faces action in connection with the blast.