HSE
HSE51: Regulation of health and safety at work
This new document provides guidance on the health and safety regulation of organisations by the HSE and local authorities. HSE51 provides information on the operation of these regulators, including how they engage with organisations and when interventions will be made.
INDG254: Chemical reaction hazards and the risk of thermal runaway
This revised guidance document concerns the control of chemical reactions and measures to prevent thermal runaway.
Waste08: Managing user and public safety
Advice is provided on the control of risks associated with the operation of compactors in the waste industry.
EUROPEAN CHEMICALS AGENCY (ECHA)
New eGuide on safety data sheets and exposure scenarios
ECHA has published interactive guidance on the interpretation of safety data sheets and exposure scenarios.
HOME OFFICE
The Home Office has published a series of guidance documents supporting the Control of Explosives Precursors Regulations 2014, which come into force on 2 September 2014:
Guidance on labelling requirements for regulated explosives precursors;
Supplying explosives precursors
Check list for applicants for an explosives precursors licence
Licensing for home users of explosives precursors
Due diligence checks
Refusing a sale
Advice to the public on the Control of Explosives Precursors Regulations 2014
Notifying your intention to hold pathogens and toxins
MARITIME AND COASTGUARD AGENCY
Technical Safety Alert 53: Life Saving Appliances Free-Fall Lifeboat – Unintentional release
Technical Safety Alert 54: Life Saving Appliances Fast Rescue Craft (FRC) – Launching and Recovery Operation
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY & CLIMATE CHANGE (DECC)
Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation application register
This register provides details of applications received and decisions made on practices involving ionising radiation.
Abattoir company fined for the death of an employee
A Galashiels-based abattoir firm has been fined £100,000 following the death of a member of staff.
The employee had been loosening fixings attaching the support frame of a partition door in a container unit. The employee became trapped and was suffocated when the support frame of the door being dismantled collapsed.
An investigation by the HSE identified that the employer had failed to provide proper instruction, training or supervision to the employee, the task was not subject to a safe system of work and a suitable and sufficient risk assessment was not in please. The HSE concluded that the fataility could have been avoided had reasonable precautions been taken.
The employer was found guilty of breaching Section 2(1), Section 33(1)(a) and Section 33(1)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and Regulation 3(1)(a) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.
Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 requires that employers ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all employees.
Section 33(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 makes it an offence to discharge any duty under Sections 2 through 7 of the Act.
Section 33(1)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 makes it an offence to contravene any health and safety regulations, including any requirement or prohibition a person is subject to.
Regulation 3(1)(a) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 requires that all employers undertake suitable and sufficient assessments of risks to the health and safety of their employees, to which they are exposed whilst at work.
Director of building firm charged for workplace welfare failings
A director of a building company from Cheshire has been fined after placing the health of workers at risk for more than three months.
The director was overseeing a project to refurbish a row of houses in Manchester during September 2013. This had involved stripping the houses, plastering them and installing new kitchens and bathrooms.
An inspection of the construction site by the HSE identified that one of the empty houses was being used as a site office and welfare facilities. The inspector identified that there was no hot or warm water supply in this building however.
The director was charged for breaching Section 33(1)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, fined £2,000 and ordered to pay £3,102 in prosecution costs. The court was told that bricklayers and plasterers were placed at risk of skin burns as there was no hot water available to clean themselves. Although a hot water supply was not available for more than three months, the requirement for hot water had been identified in the construction plan.
Two companies in court for safety failings
Two Kent-based construction companies have been charged for safety fallings after a worker was injured in a fall.
The worker had been working on a fragile roof at an industrial site when he lost his balance and landed on a roof nearly two metres below. The worker suffered a broken rib and fractured left wrist in the fall.
The court heard that WW Martin had been contracted by a food packing firm to address a number of roof leaks. WW Martin had hired a specialist roofing firm, Brandclad, to undertake the repairs.
WW Martin received a risk assessment and planned method of work prior to the commencement of the project. This identified dangers associated with the fragile roof, requiring that platforms with handrails be used alongside harnesses for workers.
Despite the controls specified, the HSE identified that platforms provided for the workers were open and unprotected, even following the injury of the worker. The HSE identified that promised safety measures were never delivered. Although WW Martin was responsible for monitoring the work, the company failed to take any action.
The court found that Brandclad was 60 percent culpable and was fined £7,000 with £3,588 in court. WW Martin was fined £10,000 due to its stronger financial position and the same amount in costs.
Regulation 9(2) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 requires that where it is not possible to eliminate work across, near or on a fragile surface this work is subject to suitable and sufficient controls, including measures to minimise the distances and consequences of falls where a fall risk remains.
