Company fined after dust explosion
UK. The Health and Safety Executive has warned the chemical industry to maintain plant and ensure safe systems of work are in place following an explosion and fire at a factory.
   The incident, which occurred at the Warwick International Group Ltd operation in Mostyn, Flintshire, UK, caused extensive damage to the plant, although no-one was killed or injured. The company pleaded guilty at a previous hearing to a charge under section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, and was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay £22,500 costs when recently sentenced.
   An investigation by HSE showed that an initial dust explosion had occurred within a granulation plant, spreading to connected parts of the plant.The resulting fire spread rapidly throughout the building, taking firefighters several hours to bring under control. The investigation showed that risk assessments had not been updated, and measures to prevent or mitigate an explosion in the granulation plant had also not been taken, putting employees at risk.
   HSE investigating inspector Jo-Anne Michael said: “This incident was entirely foreseeable and avoidable, and it is extremely lucky that no-one was hurt as a result”. She added: “While the company took action quickly following the incident, our investigation showed that this was a continuing breach and they could, and should, have taken measures several years before to prevent this happening.”
   Dust explosions are not a new phenomena - records covering dust explosions from over 100 years ago show large loss of life and considerable and costly damage to plant. The HSE's expert guide, Safe handling of combustible dusts – precautions against explosions, offers advice on the prevention and mitigation of dust explosions and fires.
• Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 says “It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the health safety and welfare at work of all its employees.
• Safe handling of combustible dusts: Precautions against explosions HSG 103 ISBN 0-7176-2726-8 , provides practical advice, outlines relevant legislation and illustrates the effect that dust explosions can have.
• For advice and information visit www.hse.gov.uk

Threat over health and safety
UK. A move to introduce tougher penalties for health and safety offences will place greater pressure than ever on directors and senior managers, says law firm DWF.
   DWF say that with the Health and Safety (Offences) Bill, which received widespread support in the House of Commons and is now due to go before the House of Lords, directors could potentially face prison sentences over incidents for which they were not directly responsible.
   The private member’s bill, introduced by MP Keith Hill, will effectively raise the maximum fine which could be imposed in the lower courts for most health and safety offences to £20,000, and allow some offences to be tried in higher courts, which have the power to pass even stiffer penalties. It would also make prison an option for most health and safety offences – currently only an option in certain cases.
   It is the fifth time a Bill has attempted to raise penalties for health and safety offences but the first time that one looks likely to be passed.
   Stefan Groch, health, safety and regulatory partner with DWF, says that the bill has strong implications for directors and senior managers. Where the company is found to have committed an offence which can be attributed to them failing to meet their obligations, they could potentially face a jail sentence.
   “Coming so soon after the introduction of the Corporate Manslaughter Act, this places a further burden of responsibility on business leaders. They should be taking all necessary measures to protect their position, including ensuring that all the right policies and procedures are in place and that there is a clear chain of command with regard to health and safety”, said Mr Groch.
   |   08:55 20/06/2008

HSE prosecutes after incident
UK. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has warned companies to ensure that machinery is adequately guarded following injuries to a worker at Kettering firm Weetabix Ltd. The warning follows its prosecution of the company after a machinery related incident.
   The worker, who was attempting to clear a rotary valve blockage while operating machinery at the plant, was exposed to the valve’s moving parts, catching his hand in the machine and resulting in a loss of fingertips.
   Commenting on the accident, HSE Inspector Peter Snelgrove said that the incident could have been avoided. “Weetabix should have ensured that machinery was adequately guarded. There is plenty of advice and guidance available to help employers meet their legal responsibilities and keep their workers safe", he added.
   The company was fined £3,500 and ordered to pay £1,490.40 costs after pleading guilty to breaching Reg 11 (1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment for failure to prevent access to a dangerous machinery part.
• Regulation 11 (1) of Provision and Use of Work Equipment regulations 1998 (as amended) states: Every employer shall ensure that measures are taken in accordance with paragraph (2) which are effective - (a) to prevent access to any dangerous part of machinery or to any rotating stock-bar; or (b) to stop the movement of any dangerous part of machinery or rotating stock-bar before any part of a person enters a danger zone'.
• For further information on working safely with machinery please log on to www.hse.gov.uk/equipment/index.htm
   |   14:35 17/06/2008

HSE challenges industry leaders
UK. Under a new initiative, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has brought over 200 industry leaders together to share their experiences on process safety in the major hazards industry. The idea is to create a common platform to share good practice and learn from incidents at Texas City, Buncefield and Thorp plant in Sellafield.
   Discussions at the Leading from the top - avoiding major incidents conference served as a stark reminder to senior managers that absence of conventional safety accidents and injuries in the past few years cannot be taken as a positive assurance of an overall improvement in process safety. A number of key themes emerged during the meeting.
   The gist of it is that process safety cannot be managed from the boardroom and senior managers need to ‘walk the talk’ and listen to frontline staff. No assumptions can be made that everyone understands what process safety is and why it is so important to the management. There is a strong appetite for creating a forum for CEOs where good practice and knowledge transfer can be shared in the spirit of business competition. Strong support also exists for a robust, real but practicable peer review process and key performance indicators are a vital tool in helping industry manage process safety.
   Discussions showed that common challenges are faced by all sectors with issues such as increasingly ageing facilities, some well beyond originally expected operating life, skills shortages in key trades and professions, cost and production pressures, balancing varied and often conflicting priorities, and massive change of ownership common across major hazard industries. Creating a long term sustainable safety culture in the industry is a significant challenge for leaders. Calling on the industry to take a lead, HSE Chair Judith Hackitt said that there is much to be gained by further collaborative action across the sectors, but, she said, “If nothing changes as a result of the discussions today ... it could well be a tragedy.”
11:53 06/05/2008

Fined for incident at recycling plant
UK. Businesses have been warned by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to make sure that workers and contractors are properly trained to carry out risk assessments and operate safe systems of work following an incident at a recycling plant in Greenwich, UK where a worker lost fingertips. The two companies involved have been fined £30,000 plus costs.
   RCP Macpress (UK) Ltd was fined £15,000 with costs of £2,496, after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) Health & Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 while SCA Recycling UK Ltd was also fined £15,000 with costs of £3,042 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health & Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Loraine Charles, the investigating HSE Inspector, said that risk assessments and permit-to-work systems are worthless unless companies make sure that employees are aware of what the hazards actually are and carry out their work accordingly.
   On the day of the incident, James Adams and another engineer from RCP Macpress engineers, were at SCA Recycling UK Ltd’s premises in Greenwich to repair a large waste paper recycling machine which had been damaged when the fork of a lift truck was inadvertently loaded into it, hidden within a load of waste paper. Although the engineers filled in their company’s risk assessment form before starting the job, they had apparently only been instructed on how to fill in the form, and not how to actually make an assessment of the risks.
   When the panel of the shredder that allowed access to the damaged area failed to open as easily as the engineers had expected, they attempted to push the panel open using an hydraulic capable of lifting 25t – the estimated weight of the panel being approximately 100kg. The panel suddenly opened, but immediately shut again, trapping some of Mr Adams’ fingers.
   Loraine Charles said that a properly implemented permit-to-work system would have ensured that there was a detailed methodology for the work to be undertaken on the shredder, including how access was to be gained to the damaged area.
  RCP Macpress (UK) Ltd, should have told the engineers that the permit remained valid only as long as the work proceeded according to this methodology. Had this happened, as soon as the access panel failed to open as expected, the engineers would have been compelled to return to the permit issuer, and both companies would have had the opportunity to evaluate what steps were needed to be taken to ensure that the work could be done safely.
   Investigation revealed that SCA Ltd had a number of types of permit-to-work documents and a permit was issued to the RCP Macpress engineers. But SCA had failed to ensure that employees who issued permits had been properly trained and did not have a clear understanding of how the permit-to-work system should have been operated.
22:27 06/04/2008

Intellectual property wrangle
USA. FLSmidth's US subsidiaries, FLSmidth-Excel LLC and Excel Foundry & Machine Inc, acquired in 2005 - 2006, have been accused of patent infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets by competitor Metso Minerals Inc, US subsidiary of Metso Corp.
   The lawsuit, filed in the Federal Court in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, involves specific components of Excel's cone crusher line. The defendants have admitted unintended patent infringement and announce that they are committed to providing Metso with compensation for the infringement. Excel Foundry & Machine Inc has ceased selling one of the components involved in the dispute and the patent covering the other component has since expired.
   In a statement, the defendants say that the patent infringement component of the court action will have no impact upon their operations and, despite an offer of compensation for the infringement, Metso is now seeking to enlarge the case, accusing Excel of misappropriation of alleged trade secrets. Excel is currently analysing the new claims and preparing to defend itself against the charges. The defendants are also investigating potential counter-claims against Metso for possible anti-competitive behaviour.
16:49 21/03/2008

Dangers of unguarded machinery
UK. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is warning employers about the dangers of unguarded machinery, following prosecution of a Manchester, UK tile company after a maintenance engineer lost a fingertip.
   Pilkington Tiles Ltd has been fined £18,000, with costs of £7,500, after pleading guilty of breaching Regulation 11 (1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. Maintenance engineer Brian Wallis caught his fingertip in the running machinery of a conveyor belt he was adjusting when it suddenly started up.
   HSE inspector Sandra Tomlinson said that this was an avoidable incident had the company followed correct procedures, and reminded employers of their duty to ensure that safety risks within the workplace are adequately assessed and that correct control measures are implemented to avoid injury.
   The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, Reg 11 (1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 states: “Every employer shall ensure that measures are taken in accordance with paragraph (2) which are effective to prevent access to any dangerous part of machinery or to any rotating stock-bar; or to stop the movement of any dangerous part of machinery or rotating stock-bar before any part of a person enters a danger zone.” The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 Section 2(1) states: “It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees."
www.hse.gov.uk
16:23 12/02/2008

Beware of legal duties
UK. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is reminding companies of their legal duties regarding manual handling. This follows an injury to an employee sustained when a 50-kg sack of basmati rice fell on his neck.
   East End Foods plc pleaded guilty for failing to take reasonable care for the health and safety of employees under Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, resulting in a fine of £25,000 and £28,000 costs.
   During investigations it was revealed that large consignments of sacks were routinely manually offloaded from containers without the use of any mechanical aids. Access to containers and retrieval of initial sacks was carried out by employees raised and lowered on a pallet placed on the forks of a lift truck. The HSE determined that the company had not carried out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment for this activity, nor taken appropriate steps to reduce the risk to the lowest level that was reasonably practicable.
   HSE issued an Improvement Notice on the company in December 2002. In a typical six-month period, from January 2006 to June 2006, 1,700 t of rice had been delivered that required manually offloading, an indication that this was not an isolated incident. The HSE said that the company failed to heed advice from them in 2002 and from their own health and safety consultant in 2005.
   HSE inspector Judith Lloyd said that in the food and drink industry, 30 per cent of all acute injuries result from bad practice in manual handling. “Stacking and de-stacking sacks, boxes and crates are amongst the top five causes of manual handling injuries ... Studies have shown that three quarters of these injuries are preventable.”
11:40 31/01/2008

Emissions scheme disappointment
UK. The Chemical Industries Association has called for greater certainty and understanding for energy intensive businesses following the publishing of proposals for the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, just announced by president Jose Manuel Barosso. The sector has also urged the UK Government to support harmonised EU rates for auctioning emissions allowances.
   Nick Sturgeon, Head of Climate Change and Energy expressed disappointment that the proposals postpone decisions on the treatment of industry until 2011 if the UN process is unsuccessful in delivering a post-Kyoto emissions agreement. He said that energy intensive sectors like chemicals, that are exposed to international competition, need reassurance that they will be shielded from the full cost of a unilateral EU move to auctioning. He added that decisions on investment in new plant and innovation require long term predictability with clear assurances that there will be a sustainable business environment under the revised EU ETS.
   There is also concern at Environment Secretary of State, Hilary Benn’s call for individual member states to be given the flexibility to set independent levels of auctioning. This, said Mr Sturgeon, flies in the face of the Commission’s proposals to harmonise the implementation of the EU ETS across member states. After 2012, there are likely to be an increased number of UK chemical sites within the scheme, making it essential to have a level playing field within the EU. The UK already has additional conflicting climate change instruments and must not be at further competitive disadvantage, added Mr Sturgeon.
20:59 27/01/2008

Document has repercussions
UK. New guidance designed to help directors understand their health and safety obligations could potentially be used as evidence against them in inspections or prosecutions, warns law firm DWF.
   The aim of the guidance, published by the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) and the Institute of Directors (IoD), is to help prevent avoidable deaths. Steffan Groch, health and safety partner at DWF, warns that although the guidance is ‘voluntary’, it will be viewed as a legal document by Health & Safety Executive (HSE) inspectors, therefore directors who fail to follow it could face prosecution.
   The document makes it clear that there must be strong and active commitment to health and safety from the top. Organisations are expected to fully engage the workforce in promoting safer working conditions and also ensure that risks are identified, managed and reviewed on a regular basis.
   Groch says: “Directors should make sure that they read and follow the guidance. They should now review the organisation’s safety management systems and revisit their contracts of employment. If necessary, they should seek external advice and undertake sufficient training to be able to discharge their responsibilities effectively.”
   Groch says that, in cases where responsibilities are delegated, there must be proper reporting and those responsible should be held to account. The board should receive regular information about health and safety and conduct a full review at least once a year. There is also a need for directors to look at key suppliers and others whose performance could adversely affect the company.
   In the run-up to the introduction of the new Corporate Manslaughter Act in April 2008, Groch warns that senior management’s conduct is a key element of the new offence and directors' guidance may be considered relevant by a court in assessing evidence. “It has been made clear that the guidance will be regarded as a legal document by HSE inspectors in inspection and enforcement activities”, says Groch. Although the guidance is not a new law in itself, it is felt that a breach of it could be used as evidence in criminal proceedings under existing legislation.
   Groch felt that it was ironic that something produced for the benefit of directors could potentially be used against them in a prosecution. The concern now is that this could be used as a template as to how directors are interviewed under caution for an offence under the new Corporate Manslaughter Act.
19:19 30/10/2007

Major chemical legislation comes into force
EU. The long awaited REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) legislation came into force on 1 June 2007, putting into place what is considered by the chemical industry to be the most complex piece of legislation ever created by the EU.
   It requires the comprehensive review and approval of chemicals in everything from pens to computers and affects anyone producing, importing or using products in the EU, a move to ensure that human health and the environment is safeguarded, while at the same time enhancing innovation and industrial competitiveness.
   Within 18 months, companies must be sure that all relevant chemical products are identified and recorded with a central European Chemicals Agency in Helsinki.
   Chemical Industries Association Chief Executive Steve Elliott said that chemical businesses had been preparing for REACH for some time and that the industry continued to look in detail at how the legislation will work in practice. “REACH presents significant challenges for makers, importers and users of chemicals – a fact I see every day by the nature and number of the enquiries and related support offered by CIA’s REACHReady business”, he said.
  Mr Elliott explained that REACH’s success would ultimately be determined by the approach of EU member state governments and regulators and that there was a need to implement the legislation in a pragmatic and consistent manner, with fair and rigorous enforcement right across the EU.
21:30 05/06/2007

HSC and HSE merger?
UK. The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) has published a public consultation document seeking views on merging the HSC and Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into a single health and safety authority. Up until now, the HSC has had overall responsibility for occupational health and safety regulations in Great Britain with the HSE and Local Authorities acting as the enforcing authorities in support of the Commission.
   The view is that the merger will modernise corporate governance and provide a stronger voice for health and safety. Part of the consultation discusses how the HSC would become the governing body of the new authority, retaining its current independence and links with stakeholders, while strengthening its capacity to challenge and support delivery.
   The stated aims of the merger are to provide: a more accountable structure; better decision making and a clearer public and regulatory presence; continued independence of the safety regulator; a balanced structure at arm’s length from Ministers; and membership for representatives from employer and employee backgrounds, with a seat for local government and a member designated to maintain links with devolved authorities.
   Commenting on the consultation, Bill Callaghan, HSC Chairman, said that the existing structure had served the organisation well in the past, but the shape of the labour market, the nature of workplace risks and stakeholder expectations were now very different to those which formed the backdrop to the Health and Safety at Work Act thirty years ago.
• The consultation can be downloaded from www.hse.gov.uk/consult/live.htm
20:45 15/12/2006

Ready steady REACH
Europe. The recent European Parliament vote on REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of CHemicals) is a decisive step towards the implementation of what is reckoned to be the biggest and most complex piece of European environmental legislation ever devised.
   Commenting on the political agreement, Steve Elliott, Chemical Industries Association (CIA) chief executive, emphasised that REACH had been a legislative marathon with the liklihood that it will come into force in June 2007. One of the key tasks for those concerned has been the need to achieve workable legislation to replace the existing regulatory framework.
   The package in its present form is considered to be the best chance to deliver on its original objective: development of a single new system of registration and evaluation of substances that ensures improvements in human health and the environment whilst still fostering innovation and competitiveness.
   To help companies comply, the CIA has set up REACHReady – a subsidiary company established just for this purpose. Tens of thousands of UK firms – both big and small - are likely to be affected and the CIA is urging these firms to consider the implications for their business as a matter of urgency.
20:43 15/12/2006

Patent court threatened
Europe. Backing has been urged for the new European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA), which, if implemented, could bring about a better, cheaper and more reliable patent system.
   In a recent speech to the European Parliament, Irish EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevy, who is pushing for a single European Patent Court, said, “... although business has a one-stop shop where it can acquire a patent - the European Patent Office (EPO) - it may find itself defending the patent on several fronts at once. This is because the patents granted by the EPO are in fact a bundle of national patents and can only be enforced by national courts... I think we need to tackle this issue as a matter of urgency; the current “patchwork” may prevent patent holders from being able to enforce their rights...”
   However, UK patent attorneys say that the idea could be sunk straight away by anti-patent MEPs who have already tabled a motion to scrap the idea, because they consider it too expensive and undemocratic. Speaking on behalf of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, leading UK Patent Attorney, Vicki Salmon hit back saying that this represented a situation where MEPs, lacking a clear understanding of the patent system, were rushing to stop what could be a sensible step forward.
   If the EPLA comes into force, a single European Patent Court would be created, so patent holders could sue infringers in one place. At the moment it is necessary to bring multiple actions in all the separate countries of Europe.
• This latest row emerged from the failure of a proposal to set up a Community Patent (covering the whole of the EU as a single territory), because agreement couldn’t be reached on the finer details of implementing it. At present it is possible to obtain patent rights, one for each country, across Europe through the EPO, a body entirely separate from the EU, but there is no single place where the rights granted can be enforced.
Tue Oct 03 10:23:52 2006

Reversing vehicles - be warned
UK. Site owners and managers are warned of the danger of moving vehicles after two companies were fined last week following a prosecution by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
   Aggregate Industries UK Ltd (Bardon Contracting division) and Tripod Crest Planing Ltd were each fined £25,000 after pleading guilty to breaches of Sections 2(1) and 3(1) respectively of The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
   The incident occurred when an employee, with his back turned, did not see a lorry reversing towards him. The lorry ran over the length of his leg.
   HSE Inspector Alec Ferguson said that most of the men on site had worked together before. “However, despite both Bardon and Tripod having recognised the risk of injury from reversing vehicles, and taking account of this in their method statements, the visiting lorry driver received no site induction about safe reversing from either company on site.”
Tue Oct 03 10:50:11 2006

Asbestos - still risky
Maintenance workers have been warned not to gamble with their lives when dealing with asbestos. The message from Steve Coldrick, Director of the Health and Safety Executive’s Disease Reduction Programme, is aimed at the 1.8 m maintenance workers in GB.
   Apparently, more than a quarter of the 3,5000 asbestos-related cancer deaths occurring each year relate to this kind of work where personnel unknowingly drill or cut into material that could contain asbestos and breathe in the deadly fibres. While current deaths are due to asbestos exposure that happened many years ago, people still need to be aware of the potential risk.
   The HSE recommendations are simple. Workers should ask if asbestos is present before starting work and check that the work does not require a licence. When working with the material, wear a mask, vacuum up any dust and do not drill or cut with power tools.
   Those responsible for the maintenance and repair of buildings must be aware that under Regulation 4 of The Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations, they must manage the risk, make and keep a record of location and condition and tell people who may work on the building that asbestos is present, especially maintenance workers.
www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/
Wed Sep 20 22:10:21 2006

Initial feedback from Buncefield
UK. Initial feedback from the safety alert issued by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in February 2006 to operators of fuel storage depots, indicate a generally good level of compliance with current standards at facilities similar to Buncefield, although the Environment Agency has started to identify some deficiencies in bunding and environmental awareness through its separate inspection activity.
   In five instances, compliance levels were not to the appropriate standard, and direct action has been taken by industry and the COMAH* Competent Authority (CA) to address this. The review also recognised aspects of current industry and HSE guidance that could be strengthened. As a result, HSE is reviewing guidance with representatives across industry, with a view to providing further clarity as soon as possible and revising published guidance by mid-2007.
   HSE will consider the Safety Alert findings and the contents of the Buncefield Investigation’s initial report, expected in July, and will use information to determine what future measures need to be taken to further improve safety. This is being done in consultation with a Task Group that has been established with relevant industry representatives at HSE’s request.
   Buncefield will also have implications for the advice HSE provides to planning authorities and the HSE should be in a position to issue revised Land Use Planning policy later this year.
* COMAH - The Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 are enforced by a joint Competent Authority: HSE and Environment Agency in England and Wales, and HSE and Scottish Environment Protection Agency in Scotland.
Mon Jun 19 14:33:09 2006

Noise regulations come into force
UK. It is reckoned that over 1m employees in Great Britain are exposed to noise levels at work which could potentially damage their hearing. Noise induced hearing loss, often cumulative and not immediately obvious, is seldom recognised or taken seriously.
   The Health and Safety Executive is currently reminding employers that the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 came into force this month, replacing the existing Noise at Work Regulations 1989 for all industries in Great Britain, sadly excluding music and entertainment. Businesses have until April 2008 to comply.
   The hope is that full compliance with the regulations will eliminate all new cases of work-related hearing damage by 2030 with the emphasis on identifying measures to eliminate or reduce exposure rather than simply relying on hearing protection, although this may also be needed in the short term.
   Workplaces, which fell within the scope of the 1989 Regulations, should already have measures in place and the main effect is likely to be the need to review risk assessments and prioritise noise control measures. Employees whose use of hearing protection under the 1989 Regulations was advisory will now have to wear the protection supplied.
www.hse.gov.uk/noise
Wed Apr 19 11:40:06 2006

DSEAR comes into force
UK. Incidents at Grangemouth in 1987, Milford Haven in 1994 and the recent Buncefield fire and explosion in 2005 have marred the process industries in recent years. In July 2006, the industry will have to further take on board the provisions of the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations (DSEAR) 2002 which will come into force for workplaces that have been in use prior to July 2003.
   To coincide with this, BSI Business Information is publishing new guidance which discusses the European and UK legislation designed to minimise fire and explosion risks. PD 6686:2006 Guidance on directives, regulations and standards related to prevention of fire and explosion in the chemical and allied industries, is a comprehensive guide to the standards, draft standards and other documents that ensure compliance with EU Directives and UK regulations, including DSEAR.
   Hazards covered in PD 6686 arise from use of dangerous substances, as defined in DSEAR, and combustible substances that do not fall under the DSEAR definition of dangerous substances but which are capable of burning and thus participating in a fire. The legislation discussed in PD 6686 specifies a risk assessment approach and the procedures adopted in performing such an assessment, guiding the user to the information required to prepare the assessment.
   PD 6686 is designed to complement the planned revision to BS 5908:1990 Code of practice for fire precautions in the chemical and allied industries due in 2007.
www.bsi-global.com/PD6686
Tue Apr 11 22:06:32 2006

HSC consults on new WEL
UK. The fact that around 2m employees are exposed to crystalline silica every year has led the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) to publish a consultative document seeking comments on a proposal for a new Workplace Exposure Limit (WEL) for respirable crystalline silica.
   The material is a naturally occurring mineral found in almost all types of rock, sands, clays etc, and in building materials made from these materials such as bricks, tiles and concrete. HSE estimates that at least 100,000 workers are exposed to dust containing respirable crystalline silica on a regular basis in a diverse range of industries including mining, quarrying, brick/tile and ceramic manufacture, construction and foundries.
   Long-term exposure to these dusts can lead to the development of silicosis lung disease. Heavy and prolonged exposures under conditions that are sufficient to cause silicosis can also lead to an increased risk of lung cancer, say the HSC. Evidence suggests that a WEL of 0.1 mg per sq m would considerably reduce the risk.
• The consultation document can be found on HSE’s website at: www.hse.gov.uk/consult/live.htm. Comments should be sent (by 13 March 2006) by e-mail to Silica.consultation@hse.gsi.gov.uk or to Pauline Dillon, Health and Safety Executive, Policy Group, Room 101 Daniel House, Stanley Precinct, Bootle, Liverpool, L20 3TW.
• HSC recommends a reduction from the current WEL of 0.3 mg per sq to 0.1 mg.per sq m (measured as an 8-hour time weighted average). If agreed, the new WEL would come into force in 2006
Fri Dec 09 10:15:39 2005

Not so good vibrations
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has published further guidance on Whole Body Vibration (WBV). Entitled Whole Body Vibration: The Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005, it gives advice on reducing and controlling the risks under the Control of Vibration Work Act 2005 which came into being earlier this year.
   It will be helpful to those who operate off-road machinery and construction vehicles as well as industries where drivers can be exposed to shocks and jolts while travelling over rough ground, such as mining and quarrying. Guidance to the regulations is provided, with chapters that give practical advice on aspects such as risk assessment, estimating vibration exposure and arranging health surveillance.
   Mike Shepherd, head of HSE’s Noise and Vibration Programme, explained that the HSE had been working closely with industry over the past 4 years to carry out research to help identify what the levels of whole-body vibration are in agriculture, mining and construction and to identify the most effective ways of reducing exposure to it.
   The HSE has also been running a series of roadshows around the UK in collaboration with the EEF – the Manufacturers’ Organisation, to explain the new Regulations and inform employers what needs to be done. The last roadshow will be held in the EEF’s London headquarters on 9 December.
• Copies of Whole-body Vibration ISBN 0-7176-6126-1, price £10.95, are available from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 2WA Tel: 01787 881165 Fax: 01787 313995
www.hsebooks.co.uk/Books/
Mon Dec 05 09:37:32 2005

HSE publishes new guidance on hand-arm vibration
The HSE has published guidance on Hand-arm vibration (HAV). Entitled Hand-arm vibration: Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005, it provides advice on reducing and controlling HAV risks under the Control of Vibration Work Act 2005. The launch coincides with a series of 15 noise and vibration roadshows throughout the country targeted at employers, health and safety advisors, specialists and occupational health professionals.
   Exposure to HAV can occur in situations where power tool usage is high, like the construction, mining and manufacturing industries. Practical guidance is given on a number of issues such as how to do risk assessments, estimating vibration exposure and arranging health surveillance. Additional chapters provide technical and medical guidance for vibration technicians and medical and nursing staff.
The guide costs £13.95 and is available from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury Suffolk, CO10 2WA Tel: 01787 881165 Fax: 01787 313995

Hazardous waste aware
Less than a third of small and medium sized businesses are aware of new rules on handling hazardous waste according to new figures revealed by the Environment Agency. The findings from a survey of more than 1000 small and medium sized businesses in England and Wales found that only 28 per cent of businesses interviewed knew about new hazardous waste regulations which take effect from 16 July 2005.
   This comes at a time when the EA is setting out its priorities for enforcing the new rules. Under its enforcement policy, anyone found to be illegally dumping or deliberately trying to pass off hazardous waste as non-hazardous could face prosecution.  
The new regulations mean that most businesses that create waste falling into one of a range of categories designated as 'hazardous' need to register with the EA. Failure to do so could have serious consequences. Waste carriers will not collect waste from an unregistered producer and failing to register could result in a prosecutable offence. Producers also need to consign their waste to properly authorised sites - which means knowing what's in the waste.
Thu Jul 14 11:45:54 2005

Revised guidance published on RPE
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has published revised and updated guidance covering the correct and safe use of respiratory protective equipment (RPE), which is designed to protect against inhalation of potentially hazardous substances in air.
   Respiratory Protective Equipment at Work: A Practical Guide provides those who use or supply RPE with advice on ensuring it is selected and used correctly, as required by law.
   A new ‘RPE Selector’ tool is featured, a questionnaire to help determine when it is most appropriate to use RPE and to select the correct level of protection, such as filter types, required for a given hazardous substance. There are illustrated examples to ensure the most comfortable design for each individual wearer and the environment in which they are worn. Examples of significant misuse of RPE are presented and how this can be prevented, and there is advice on maintaining RPE.
   Dr Bob Rajan, HSE Chemical Risk Assessment and Control Group, commented: ‘Every year, UK industry spends around £250m on RPE, but a sizeable portion of this money is wasted because the equipment selected is not right for the job or used wrongly. This can result in RPE wearers being exposed to avoidable hazards to their health or even life. Chronic ill health, respiratory sensitisation, and – particularly in confined spaces – deaths have all occurred because employers have failed to provide RPE matched to the risks, the work environment and the user.’
   The original version of the guidance published in 1998 followed a conventional RPE selection approach, which relied on knowledge of occupational exposure levels (OELs) and the protection levels assigned to different types of RPE. However, research findings suggest that industry’s perception, knowledge and understanding of occupational exposure limits is limited and plays little part in workplace risk management. The same research found that the use of personal protective equipment featured highly as a control measure.  
The new approach extends the ‘risk-banding’ approach which has already been introduced in the UK for helping to control exposure to chemical agents at source (see COSHH Essentials at: www.coshh-essentials.org.uk). This approach uses Hazard Risk Phrases (R-phrases), combined with potential for exposure based on the amount of substance used, and its volatility. The R-phrase is already well established in Europe for classification and labelling of hazardous substances.
• Respiratory Protective Equipment at Work: A Practical Guide ISBN 0-7176-2904-X , priced £10.95, is available from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 2WA, Tel: 01787 881165 or Fax: 01787 313995. Publications are also available from booksellers.

Prepared for chromium (VI) Directive?
UK. New European legislation controlling chromium (VI) levels in cement and cement-containing preparations came into effect in the UK today (17 January 2005). One of the most important consequences for the Portland cement industry and its customers is the introduction of a limited storage period for treated cements.
   This will mean that delivery documents and cement bags will, where necessary, carry a despatch/packaging date and shelf life as required by the legislation. Other information that should be marked on the label, in addition to the normal health and safety warnings, include the recommended storage conditions relevant to the declared storage period and the consequences of using the cement after the declared storage period or when improperly stored.
   Many cements and cement-based products naturally contain soluble chromium (VI) trace metal as ‘chromate’ and the new Directive is designed to minimise chromate related allergic dermatitis arising from unprotected use of cement. Chromium (VI) is only active in wet cement.
   Under the new Directive, member companies of the British Cement Association (BCA) will ensure that their cements have levels of soluble chromium (VI) when water is added that are no more than two parts per million by mass of the dry cement. Small amounts of reducing agents will be added where necessary to control the quantity of soluble chromium (VI). As these agents are only active for a limited period, it will be necessary to declare a shelf life of 61 days for treated cement during which the very low level of chromium (VI) is maintained.
   Mike Gilbert, Chief Executive of the BCA said that its members have voluntarily been displaying a health warning on bags for years, stating that cement contains chromium (VI) and have advocated that people always wear protective boots, gloves and eye protection when working with wet cement or concrete.
   According to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), only 5 to 10 per cent of construction workers might be sensitive. But both the HSE and industry leaders stress that despite these new measures, the correct personal protective equipment should always be worn when handling cement to protect against dermatitis and cement burns. (14 January 2005)

HSE issues pressure vessels warning
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has warned of the need for effective operation, inspection and maintenance regimes to ensure the safe use of pressure equipment, following the prosecution of a chemical manufacturer. The warning comes after a worker at Clariant Life Science Molecules (UK) Ltd's plant in Flintshire, UK sustained serious injuries to an arm when the clamping system on a pressure vessel lid he was operating failed, causing the lid to fly off and hit him.
   The company was fined £100,000, split equally between Regulations 11 and 12 of the Pressure Systems Safety Regulations, with £24,474 costs after pleading guilty at an earlier hearing. The company admitted failing to provide workers operating the pressure vessel with adequate and suitable instructions for its safe operation and also failing to ensure the vessel was adequately maintained.
   An HSE inspector found serious deficiencies in Clariant's safe systems of work. Opening and closing of the lid was regarded as a simple process, carried out three times a day, but the hazards had been overlooked. Although the clamping system was designed with a substantial margin of safety, it had been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that the risk of injury became unacceptably high, said the inspector.
   In particular, HSE's investigation revealed that the company had failed to put in place adequate operating procedures to ensure the system was used correctly. For example, clamps were regularly over-tightened, occasionally causing them to break and the system was allowed to operate with less than its full complement of eight clamps. At the time of the accident, one of the clamps was missing and others showed excessive wear and tear, or inadequate repair.
  Furthermore, it had become common practice for leaks to be nipped up with the system under pressure because the operating procedures failed to state that the system should be depressurised first. The investigation also revealed that although Clariant had arranged for an independent competent person to examine the pressure system periodically, this was insufficient due to the frequent operation of the clamps, and the high level of wear and tear they showed. Instead, the firm should have introduced a more frequent system of inspection and maintenance, said the HSE inspector.
1. Regulation 11 of the Pressure Systems Safety Regulations 2000 states: "(1) The user of an installed system and the owner of a mobile system shall provide for any person operating the system adequate and suitable instructions for -
(a) the safe operation of the system; and
(b) the action to be taken in the event of any emergency.
(2) The user of a pressure system shall ensure that it is not operated except in accordance with the instructions provided in respect of that system under paragraph (1)(a)."
2. Regulation 12 of the Pressure Systems Safety Regulations 2000 states: "The user of an installed system and the owner of a mobile system shall ensure that the system is properly maintained in good repair, so as to prevent danger."

Consultation on work at height regulations
The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) has launched a six-week consultation on a proposed regulation to be added to the draft Work at Height Regulations (WAHR). The intention is to retain a provision already in construction safety law that requires employers in the construction industry to provide particular work equipment and fall protection measures where work is undertaken at or above two metres.
  The 2-metre rule is an existing provision in the Construction Health Safety and Welfare Regulations (CHSWR) which says that for construction work above two metres, employers should use specific measures to provide fall protection. Guardrails or similar work equipment should be used to prevent falls and sufficient working platforms to do the work. Where this is not practicable, because of the nature or duration of the work, then personal suspension equipment should be used and, where neither of these is practicable, other suitable and sufficient means for arresting a fall should be used.
  The draft WAHR are intended to bring together all existing work at height regulation and implement the EC Temporary Work at Height Directive. The consultation will therefore test support for such an additional provision in the WAHR and gain a better understanding of whether it will impact on other industries.
• Details at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/consult/letters/falls.htm

BS 8800:2004 - revised standard
As a result of recent major work-related accidents and legislation on occupational health and safety (OH&S), organisations with five or more employees must now carry out health and safety risk assessments. BSI has therefore revised its British Standard for OH&S management – BS 8800:2004 – to assist small to medium-sized enterprises in the management of their OH&S risks.
  Since the standard BS 8800 was last published, the law on health and safety at work has changed and organisations with five or more employees must now carry out health and safety risk assessments and document findings (as stated in The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999). BS 8800:2004 contains improved guidance on risk assessment and risk management which will help organisations meet their legal obligations and the revised standard also reflects national and international OH&S issues which have arisen since publication of BS 8800:1996.
www.bsi-global.com/healthandsafety

IPPC to be covered in seminar
The Bulk Materials Handling Committee in conjunction with the Food Engineering Committee of the Process Industries Division of the IMechE (Institution of Mechanical Engineers) is organising a one-day seminar on IPPC in the Process Industries at the Institution’s headquarters in London on the 11 November 2004.
  The IPPC Directive (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) represents one of the most far reaching changes to environmental legislation since the Environmental Protection Act of 1990 and increases the number of industrial processes and activities previously regulated. IPPC is designed to minimise pollution from various point sources throughout the EU, requiring all installations covered by it to obtain authorisation (permits) to operate from the authorities in EU countries.
  IPPC has implications right across industry as the whole environmental performance of a plant will have to be taken into account in terms of emissions to air, water and land, generation of waste, use of raw materials, energy efficiency, noise, prevention of accidents, risk management, etc. One of the key changes is the inclusion of food and drink production which may be outside the scope of existing IPC legislation.
  The seminar will to bring together experienced presenters who will provide a broad overview of IPPC, looking at the implications for industry, investigating strategies for compliance and outlining compliance routes adopted by key sectors of the process industries.
• Contact: Tina Churcher, S1033,Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 1 Birdcage Walk, London SW1H 9JJ, UK Tel: 020 7973 1258, Fax: 020 7222 9881 Email: t_churcher@imeche.org.uk

Simplified procedures under new hazardous waste regulations
DEFRA has launched a consultation on new Hazardous Waste Regulations for England, covering movement of hazardous waste from producer to the disposal or treatment facility. They will replace the Special Waste Regulations 1996 in England and introduce new and simpler procedures for hazardous waste, whilst still meeting the requirements of the European Hazardous Waste Directive.
  It is proposed that the requirement not to mix hazardous and non-hazardous wastes, or different categories of hazardous waste, be extended to producers of hazardous waste. The aim is to help reduce hazardous waste at source, improve the opportunities for the recovery of waste, and reduce waste management costs throughout the waste chain.
  Proposals include the removal of the need to pre-notify the Environment Agency before hazardous waste can be moved and a simpler method for tracking wastes once they have been moved. Also included is a new system to ensure that sites producing hazardous waste are notified to the Environment Agency. It is also proposed to introduce fixed penalties of £200 for non-compliance with specific offences in the regulations to save the Environment Agency time and effort in pursuing court cases for relatively minor offences.
   Environment Minister, Elliot Morley said that the new proposals would allow the Environment Agency to focus more strongly on tackling hazardous waste at source, to provide advice and guidance to hazardous waste producers, and target those that do not comply with the regulations. The regulations are due to come into force on 16 July 2005, coinciding with the implementation of Waste Acceptance Criteria for landfill sites. (30 July 2004)
• The consultation paper can be found on the Defra website at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/wastereg-haz/index.htm

Minister urges sustainable waste management
Environment Minister Elliot Morley has warned UK industry that hazardous waste disposal practises must change and that cheap landfill is neither a sustainable option nor does it reflect the environmental costs of disposal. With the cost of transporting and disposing of hazardous waste set to rise, it is now down to individual firms to reduce and recycle their waste, rather than rely on landfill, if costs are to be kept down.
  As from the 16 July 2004, co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste will be banned and industry will have to pre-treat hazardous waste, part of a process that leads to the implementation of the Waste Acceptance Criteria in July 2005, setting limits on the contamination of waste in landfill sites.
  Mr Morley said that, in this area, the UK was lagging behind Europe in making greater use of more sustainable alternatives for hazardous waste. (16 July 2004)
• The European Landfill Directive (99/31/EEC) is designed to reduce the negative impacts of landfill by harmonising landfill standards across the EU, laying down the requirements with regard to design and operation of three classes of landfill site (hazardous, non hazardous and stable, non-reactive). Treatment of waste is defined as: a physical/thermal/chemical or biological process including sorting, that; changes the characteristics of waste, and; does so in order to: reduce mass, reduce its hazardous nature, facilitate its handling, or enhance its recovery.

Consultation on accident hazards regulations
The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) has today published an online consultative document containing proposals to implement an EC Directive, which amends the scope of major accident hazards Directive 96/82/EC (known as the Seveso II Directive). Seveso II aims to prevent, or limit the consequences of, major accidents near establishments that hold or use specific dangerous substances and is implemented in Great Britain through the Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) Regulations.
  The amending Directive (2003/105/EC) takes into account recent industrial accidents and the results of research on carcinogens and substances dangerous to the environment carried out on behalf of HSC. For the powder and bulk handling industries the key features of the amending Directive and the proposed new Regulations are:
• a broadening of scope with respect to mining/quarrying;
• a redefinition of ammonium nitrate to cover lower percentage composition,   and new classes covering self-sustaining decomposition and reject material;
• new thresholds for potassium nitrate fertilisers;
• the specifying of seven new carcinogens and raised threshold limits for all   carcinogens;
• lower qualifying thresholds for substances dangerous for the environment;
• change to the aggregation rule to be applied to all substances classified as   toxic, dangerous for the environment, flammable and oxidizing;
• and administrative provisions for establishments newly covered by the   Directive regulations to allow time to comply.
HSC is keen to seek views from a wide variety of stakeholders who come within the scope of the proposed Amendment Regulations, including: operators of current COMAH establishments; establishments where dangerous substances are present, which may now become subject to COMAH; employers of other workers (such as sub-contractors) who work at such establishments; local authority emergency planners and emergency services. Member states are obliged to implement the Amendment Directive by 1 July 2005. (12 July 2004)
• The consultation document can be viewed or downloaded from the HSE website at: www.hse.gov.uk/chemicals/ and comments on the proposals should be sent to comah.consultation@hse.gsi. gov.uk no later than 1 October 2004.
• The kind of accidents which the proposed new directive takes account of include the 2001 explosion involving granular ammonium nitrate which occurred at a chemicals complex in Toulouse, France, in which 30 people died.

New guidance on accident investigation
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has published new guidance on investigating accidents and incidents, including near misses. Prepared in consultation with industry, unions and health and safety professional bodies, it is intended as a first step in introducing organisations to the benefits of carrying out investigations and the methods by which accidents should be recorded, investigated and the findings acted upon.
  The guidance is aimed primarily at small to medium sized enterprises where it is often difficult to build up an expertise in investigating, although larger organisations may also find it helpful.
  The four steps featured in the guidance are: gathering of information; analysis of information; identifying risk control measures; and the action plan and its implementation. (8 July 2004)
• Copies of 'Investigating accidents and incidents - a workbook for employers, unions, safety representatives and safety professionals' (HSE Ref. HSG245) are available from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 2WA Tel: 01787-881165 Fax: 01787-313995. Publications are also available from booksellers ISBN 0 7176 2827 2, price £9.50.

Rubber company fined
UK. Sovereign Rubber Ltd of Stockport has been fined £175,000 plus £20,000 costs following two incidents at their premises in Stockport, UK in October 2001.
  This follows the death of a maintenance engineer attempting to clear a blockage on a rubber mixing machine. Prior to this, a colleague suffered severe lacerations whilst dealing with the same machine - an accident that was not reported to the Health and Safety Executive.
  Two charges under Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and one charge of Regulation 3(2) of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 were brought against the company.
  A director of the company had previously pleaded not guilty to a personal charge under Section 37(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act in relation to the death and the case is now scheduled to be heard in January 2005. (12 May 2004)

New dangerous goods regulations
The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) has announced new regulations covering the carriage of dangerous goods by road and rail which come into force on 10 May 2004. The Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Use of Transportable Pressure Equipment Regulations 2004 is a response to requests from industry for a rationalisation of requirements, consolidating into one set the previous extensive portfolio of over a dozen sets of regulations.
   They implement EC Directives 2003/28/EC, 2003/29/EC and complete the implementation of Directive 1999/36/EC. In addition, they directly reference the 2003 texts of the international agreements - RID for rail and ADR for road - that govern land carriage of dangerous goods.
  The main changes include: new limited quantity and load thresholds for transporting dangerous goods; packaging requirements now based on RID/ADR; transport of diesel, gas oil and heating oil coming fully into scope; new reporting requirements; and the phasing out of the competent person periodic inspection regime for transportable pressure equipment by 1 July2006.
  The regulations carry forward the mandatory Emergency Action Code system for placarding certain GB-registered vehicles on GB journeys. A free guidance leaflet, entitled Working with ADR - an introduction to the carriage of dangerous goods by road is available.
  Responsibility for the preparation of future GB legislation on the transport of dangerous goods by road and rail is soon to pass from HSE to the Department for Transport. (21 April 2004)
• Copies of the guidance leaflet can be downloaded at http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/trandan.htm

back