Category Archives: Health and Safety


Published · Updated

Increase in the HSE FFI charge

hard hat and gloves PPEThe rate which the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) charges under its Fee for

Intervention (FFI)

cost recovery scheme has increased from £129 to £154 per hour as of 6 April 2019.

The fee is payable by organisations found by the health and safety watchdog to be

in material breach of health and safety law and, in terms of the requirements, the

employer (or self-employed person) is required to pay

the HSE for the time it takes to identify what is wrong and to put things right.

A material breach of health and safety law is something which an inspector considers serious enough that

they need to formally write to the business requiring action to be taken to deal with the issue.

Essentially, if the inspector gives a notification of contravention (NoC) after the visit, a fee will be payable.

The HSE has emphasised that organisations which do not break the law will not be liable for any payment.

In other words, duty holders who comply with the law, or where there is no material breach, will not be

charged FFI for any work that HSE does with them.

Therefore, where an inspector simply gives business advice, either verbal or written, no payment is required.

The FFI cost recovery scheme was designed and introduced in October 2012 with the aim of shifting some of

the costs of regulating health and safety at work from the taxpayer to those responsible for material breaches.

See previous Blog for FFI https://walkersafety.co.uk/2013/11/ffi-a-year-on/

Contact us for further information.

 

 

Published · Updated

Workplace Safety Hazards Infographic

We have a great post detailing 7 Common Workplace Safety Hazards. Due to the popularity of this piece, we have now created an infographic to support this. If you would like to share this image please scroll down for the embed code.


Workplace safety hazard infographic

Contact us if you require further information.

Share this Image On Your Site

Published · Updated

Tips to Help Manage Vibration and Prevent Cases of HAVS

Tips to Help Manage Vibration and Prevent Cases of HAVS

  1. Do a risk assessment to determine which vibrating tools are used in your workplace. Try to prevent any exposure to vibration, perhaps by using a machine to do the work instead, but if that cannot be achieved, look to reduce employee exposure to vibrating tools – perhaps by rotating individual workers on each job.
  2. Ensure that the correct tools are used for each particular job. Dispose of any tools which are broken or damaged to avoid them being used by mistake.
  3. Always pick tools that are designed to emit lower vibration levels – ensure this forms an important part of your procurement process.
  4. Check the manufacturer’s guidance for the vibration levels emitted by each tool, and establish the maximum time that the tool can be used for.
  5. Maintain and service tools effectively to keep them sharp – remember that blunt tools require extra force to be applied by workers.
  6. Provide health surveillance for workers to detect early signs of HAVS. Teach employees to report any problems such as tingling or numb fingers, finger blanching, or loss of strength in the hands or grip.

Take the time today to ensure your company is up to speed with the legal requirements concerning vibration, and that you have put the necessary controls in place.

Contact us should you require guidance.

 

Forklifts and pedestrians: How close is too close?

Forklifts and pedestrians - show your hand - mentorHere we look at what we must do to keep forklifts and pedestrians apart. 

Each year, 1,300 workers in the UK are seriously injured following accidents involving forklift trucks. Forklift truck accidents have revealed that nearly 75% of ‘impact with a third person’ events involve pedestrians that were completing tasks unrelated to the immediate truck operation at the time of their accident.

Wherever it is feasible to segregate your operating areas, it is best practice to do so. But how do we deal with areas that can’t be physically segregated? It’s here that life-changing accidents and injuries too often occur.

To try to minimise the risk, many companies opt for a generic safe distance rule across their entire site. This might be a set distance, or a minimum number of pick points that are expected to be maintained at all times.

But the danger of fixed-distance rules is that not all tasks carried out on your premises are the same, and neither are the associated risks. Every lift must be judged on its own merits, if the chance of an accident is to be adequately reduced. The best way to do this is via risk assessment, followed up with the relevant Safe Systems of Work.

Targeting the trend – lost loads

One recent trend in the news is those working alongside forklifts — often colleagues or delivery drivers — suffering life-changing injuries (or worse) as a result of a truck losing its load during operation. Many suffer crush injuries while trying to steady the load or get involved in the loading or unloading of their vehicle. Indeed, in one recent case, a delivery driver was fatally crushed when an overloaded forklift became unstable and tipped over, as no safe distance was kept between them.

Tragically, injuries to pedestrians caused by lost loads are almost always avoidable because the pedestrian should never need to be in the operating area in the first place. Should a forklift lose its load with no pedestrians in proximity, the worst-case scenario is damage to your stock or equipment. This is still an issue for budget-conscious businesses, but far preferable to the devastating consequences should a pedestrian become involved.

As stated earlier, nearly 75% of ‘impact with a third person’ events involve pedestrians on an unrelated task, but around half of the remaining pedestrian impacts are with delivery truck drivers not respecting safe working distances while their vehicles are being unloaded. In areas where physical segregation often isn’t possible, there need to be robust Safe Systems of Work in place to reduce the risk. These could include the following measures:

  • Traffic management – including the likes of one-way systems to reduce the risk of collisions;
  • Time rotation so that forklift and pedestrian tasks are not being carried out simultaneously in the same area;
  • Clear communication systems – between the two parties that alert one that the other is in the area;
  • Site inductions – to familiarise visiting drivers with procedures, site layout and access routes;
  • Personal Protective Equipment– to be worn by all staff to ensure they are visible and safeguarded as much as possible;
  • Safe working procedures – such as delivery driver position (e.g. remain in cab), key control during loading/unloading, and establishing safe operating distances;
  • Clear signage – to reiterate the above (ensuring that materials are available in relevant languages).

So when forklifts and pedestrians must operate in proximity, how close is too close? Well, there’s certainly no one-size-fits-all answer when it comes to safe operating distances.

A safe distance for your operations

The best approach is to create separate Safe Systems of Work for the different forklift operations carried out on your site, each taking into account the specific risks that the task presents. A good start is to consider the following:

  • Width of the load – the longer the load, the wider the area of impact, should it fall
  • Picking height – the higher the operating height, the wider the area at risk below
  • Load structure, make up and contents – further distance will be required if loads are volatile, high-risk or prone to movement in transit
  • Driver distraction – if the proximity of pedestrians could affect driver concentration, consider putting more distance between them

Make sure a safe distance is kept between forklifts and pedestrians

Once you’ve assessed safe distance throughout your operations, the next step is to communicate it, and be sure to include everyone who may need to access an area where forklifts operate, however rarely this may be. This shouldn’t just include staff but also contractors and visitors, particularly delivery drivers whose vehicles become part of your operations during the loading/unloading process.

Forklifts and pedestrians - show your hand - mentor 2

Remember, your safety measures are only effective if they’re being followed, so raising awareness and fending off complacency is key.

Not worth the risk

As someone responsible for health and safety, you’ll need no reminding of the implications if you and your organisation are found by the HSE to have failed to identify risks or provide adequate training and instruction. It could result in a hefty fine or even a jail term, but that pales into insignificance when compared with the devastating and life-changing effects a forklift-related injury can have on the victim along with their colleagues, family and friends.

Ultimately, as a manager or health and safety representative, it’s up to you to ensure staff follow processes and procedures that will keep them safe and your business compliant and efficient. But with the right policies, communication and guidance, you can take simple, practical steps towards developing a culture of personal responsibility, where everyone takes ownership of their own safety and that of those around them, to the benefit of everyone.

Contact us for further information.

 

Published · Updated

Employer Factsheet: Electronic Cigarettes

  • Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have become popular substitutes for smoking tobacco. It is estimated that there are around 700,000 users of e-cigarettes in the UK.
  • The devices consist of an electronic inhaler that vaporises a liquid — which may or may not contain nicotine — and allows the user to inhale an aerosol mist.
  • Manufacturers of e-cigarettes provide different “flavours” of liquids (menthol, vanilla, coffee, etc) so that users can choose the taste that they prefer. The “flavours” are usually in a solution used in inhalers for medical purposes, ie for asthma. This provides the simulation of smoking.
  • The e-cigarettes normally have an LED light on the tip to identify when the device is being used. The colour is usually blue so that it can be distinguished from tobacco cigarettes.
  • Manufacturers have provided liquids that can contain different quantities of nicotine. Hence these can assist tobacco smokers to use an alternative nicotine replacement therapy. In tests, people inhaling the aerosol from liquids containing nicotine have been found to have similar amounts of the substance in their blood as those people using nicotine patches.
  • Manufacturers also supply liquids without any nicotine in them, as some users see the psychological habit of “smoking” more critical than simply the nicotine effect itself.
  • Currently there is very little information about the long-term health effects of using e-cigarettes. It is clear that there is no combustion of tobacco, so substances like tar do not exist. Hence they appear to offer a safer alternative to tobacco for both the user and those around them. Nicotine is addictive but in the amounts used in e-cigarettes it is thought to be no more harmful than the quantities released in nicotine patches, for example.
  • The World Health Organization acknowledges that e-cigarettes are likely to be less harmful than conventional smoking, but warns that their use may potentially increase the background air levels of nicotine and other substances that could be harmful to adolescents and pregnant women. It also points out that e-cigarettes have not been subjected to many independent tests and that any impact on health arising from their use may not become obvious for some years. It, therefore, recommends a legal ban on the indoor use of e-cigarettes and other such devices.
  • Given the known health effects of smoking tobacco, the use of e-cigarettes has obvious benefits. In the EU there are proposals to regulate tobacco alternatives that contain nicotine. Such products are permitted but, under the proposal, would require consistency in certain standards of manufacturing the products. While this would put nicotine-containing products under the same controls, e-cigarettes not using nicotine are not likely to be included in such a regime.

E-cigarettes and no smoking policies

  • Currently the inhaling of e-cigarettes is not in breach of the No Smoking legal requirements that apply to tobacco.
  • However, some employers ban e-cigarettes for food hygiene reasons, eg they do not want any potential food contaminants on the production floor. Others ban e-cigarettes on the basis that it may lead to employees believing that the tobacco ban is no longer in place or can be ignored.
  • As e-cigarette users are not smoking tobacco, there appears to be a much reduced health risk when compared to tobacco smoking.

As the sale of e-cigarettes is permitted, the health risks appear to be significantly reduced, and — in the case of liquids containing nicotine — nicotine patches, etc are already available, employers will need to consider their own circumstances whether or not to permit e-cigarettes in the premises they control. Given the emphasis on consultation when developing a smoking policy, it may be equally important to undertake a similar consultation exercise on developing a response to e-cigarette use.

Contact us if you require further information.