A Tragic Lesson

A Tragic Lesson

This article has been created from an incident report sent to us here at HSfB where a visitor to the site thought it could perhaps help prevent similar tragic events from happening in the future.

Incident Description

At 10.25 a.m. on 11 November, 2005 a plater fell to his death whilst replacing stair treads on the Clipper PW platform. The fall was not witnessed.

Outcome

The Injured Party sustained severe head injuries from which he died.

Main Findings from Investigation

* The Injured Party died as a result of falling through an opening in the stair tower created when two stair treads were removed.
* The team found all the associated permitry to be in place for the work being carried out. The work was prescribed to be undertaken on a ‘one stair tread out, one stair tread in’ basis.
* For whatever reason the Injured Party, in a change to the permitted work method, chose to remove a second tread. This change created a large opening through which he subsequently fell.
* The primary cause of death was the result of a severe head injury caused by a fall from height.

Immediate Causes

The Injured Party died as a result of falling through an opening in a stair tower created when two stair treads were removed.

Immediate Actions

Conduct a risk assessment to cover the specific case of stair tread replacement on the Clipper in order to clear the intent of the Prohibition Notice served by the Health and Safety Executive on 12 November 2005.

Contributory Factors

* The work permit stated that the work should be undertaken on a ‘one stair tread out, one stair tread in’ basis.
* For reasons that can never be established, a second stair tread was removed in a change to the permitted work method.
* This change was never subject to further risk assessment which might have identified additional controls.

Read the complete article and see the incident photgraphs here: http://www.healthandsafetytips.co.uk/Articles/A_Tragic_Lesson.htm

Noise at Work

Noise at Work

What is noise?

When speaking of noise in relation to sound, Wikipedia has subjectively defined it as ‘meaningless sound of greater than usual volume’. The Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 defines noise simply as ‘any audible sound’.

There are several alternative definitions of noise, three of which have been produced by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) within their research report - Non-Auditory effects of noise at work a review of the literature crr91030 (1991) as follows:

• A sound varying randomly and aperiodically in intensity and frequency.
• A sound which interferes with the reception of another (for example it masks it).
• A sound which we do not want to hear.

To some people the roar of an engine is satisfying or thrilling; to others it is more of an annoyance. Furthermore, loud music may be an enjoyable experience or a torment, depending on the individual listener and the particular circumstances at the time.

Legislation

In 1993 a European Union (EU) proposal for a Physical Agents Directive was made, which looked to establish a framework for the regulation of physical agents at work, which included noise. In January 2001, the Swedish Presidency introduced a proposal for a Noise Directive to repeal the existing 1986 Noise Directive (86/188/EEC) which was implemented in the UK by the Noise at Work Regulations 1989 and in the other European Union Countries around the same time.

The Noise at Work Regulations 1989 will therefore be replaced on 6 April 2006 by the more stringent Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005. A comparison of the changes to the 1989 Regulations and the forthcoming 2005 Regulations are highlighted in bullet form below.

Changes from Previous Noise Regulations

The Regulations impose duties on employers and on self-employed persons to protect both employees who may be exposed to risk from exposure to noise at work and other persons at work who might be affected by that work.

• Reduced threshold for hearing protection and training.
• Reduced threshold for introducing noise control.
• Introduce daily exposure limit value.
• Permit weekly average.
• Emphasis on consultation between employers, employees and reps.
• Requirements for health surveillance and hearing testing (at 85dB).

• Lower exposure action level = 80dB(A)
  • Limit value = 135dB(A)
    
• Upper exposure action level = 85dB(A)
  • Limit value = 137dB(A)
    
• Peak value = 87dB(A)
  • Limit value = 140dB(A)

• Assessment of risk.
• Risk from exposure to noise to be eliminated or reduced.
• If one of lower values is likely to be exceeded, a risk assessment is required: level; type and duration; effects of exposure; interaction with ototoxic substances and vibration.

At and above a lower exposure action value

• Suitable hearing protection must be made available to any employee who requests it (1st levels)
• Information and training in:
  • Nature of risks from exposure to noise
  • Organisational and technical control measures
  • Exposure limit values and action values
  • Findings of risk assessment
  • Availability of personal hearing protection and current use
  • Why and how to report signs of hearing loss
  • Entitlement to health surveillance
  • Safe working practices
  • Results of health surveillance

Noise samples can be taken with personal protective equipment (PPE) on at ‘point of ear’.

At and above an upper exposure action value

• Reduce exposure to as low a level as possible by organisational and technical measures, excluding provision of hearing protectors.
• Other working methods which reduce exposure.
• Choice of appropriate work equipment.
• Design and layout of workstations.
• Suitable and sufficient information and training.
• Reduction of noise by technical means.
• Appropriate maintenance programme.
• Limit duration and intensity of exposure.
• Appropriate work schedules and adequate rest periods.

At and above an upper exposure value

Provision of hearing protectors is a last resort. Hearing protection zones must be marked and protection provided must be worn in zones. Health surveillance including hearing tests should be provided even if hearing protection is worn.

At or above an exposure limit value

• Must never be exceeded.
• These values can be taken when wearing hearing protection.

John Johnston AIIRSM - HSfB

Further Information:

The Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051643.htm

Health and Safety Executive (HSE) - Noise Webpages - http://www.hse.gov.uk/noise/index.htm

Accident in work ... bad makes worse

This article was originally a post in our discussion forums, but it was thought to be a valuable lesson learned and has now been published in the hope it can help others. This article may be updated in time with the most recent findings, so check back soon in case there are any new developments.

Accident in work ... bad makes worse

Today I was witness to the aftermath of an accident in work. A team of us went to do some maintenance and part of the job was lowering a column using a winch. A job we do almost daily. All staff are trained on use of the winches. All winches are tested and tagged.

So what went wrong? Apparently they were winding the column down as they have done on many occasions when a bit of slack in the cable on the winch drum allowed the column to slip slightly. This is not unusual but allows the column to drop an inch or so, but on this occasion the slack managed to allow the cable to slip between off the pulley and jam "down the side". As they were in the process of winding the pole down this caused a bit of slack on the pulley side as the cable was now jammed.

This was an unusual occurrence that had not occurred before. So they were looking for a way to un-jam the cable. I am not sure what happened then but apparently, while they were investigating the jam, the cable slipped dragging the victims hand into the pulley. The full weight of the column was now on his hand and he could not free it. I was actually doing another job when I heard a commotion. I ran to the site and found the situation described above. The other two staff working with the victim were at odds as to what to do to say the least. I first had to release the trapped hand. To do this I had to relieve the pressure on the cable. The only way to achieve this was to manually force the column down. I got the other two workers to assist and we got enough slack for the victim to withdraw his hand. His injuries looked horrendous. One finger had a deep gash on both sides and another had a deep gash on one side. First aid consisted of cleaning the wounds with alcohol free wipes and applying a bandage then I sent him off to casualty with one of the other members of staff who had local knowledge of how to get to the local hospital. I reported the accident to our accident reporting line and the well oiled procedures kicked into place. Within minutes I was contacted by my line manager and the union H&S rep. Tomorrow I have to go to base to file a report and return the winch for testing. The line manager has arranged for photographs to be taken at the scene to aid with the investigation. We were lucky. Though the injuries looked horrendous there was no damage to bones, tendons or nerves. The victim was driven home, though protesting that he was OK to drive, and will probably be off for at least a week. He could easily have lost his fingers. After the victim had gone to hospital I was left with a column jammed half up and half down. The same situation they had before the accident. This required an additional winch to take the tension off the existing cable to allow it to be freed safely. Obviously something went wrong with the safe system of work. Now we have to find out how to stop this happening in future. This is a classic example of an unusual occurrence escalating into injury. In an attempt to put right something that had gone wrong the situation compounded from an incident to an accident.

The Investigation
Things moved pretty fast this morning. I had to go to the depot and fill out a witness report. Both winches, the original one and the one used to un-jam the column, have been taken in for inspection as required by LOLER. Then there was a site meeting attended by myself and another who was present at the time, our line manager, his manager and a senior member of the Health and Safety team during which photographs and measurements were made to assist in the investigation and some concerns highlighted. It was stressed throughout the meeting that there would be no blame attached to anybody and the purpose was to ensure that we were not being told to do something that was dangerous. The victim has been signed off by his doctor for at least a week which makes the accident reportable under RIDDOR.

What went wrong?

Quick update. The investigation is ongoing. Not being part of the H&S team I am not privy to all actions but I have been made aware of a few. Both winches involved have been inspected. The original winch involved has no damage. However, as the winch I used to recover from the situation could not be mounted correctly (there was another winch on the mounting point) it now has to have a new cable fitted, the old cable being kinked where it was fastened around the pole. The main issue raised is that, although the winches are regularly tested by an outside firm, the pulley wheels we use were not. The pulley wheel in use at the time of the accident had a slightly elongated hole which allowed it to tilt on the spindle increasing the chances that the cable would run off and jam.. Initial action is to replace ALL pulley wheels in the field and ensure that they are renewed every time the winches are tested. Another issue raised was a result of the investigation but not relevant to the accident. During the site visit I lowered the pole. The H&S manager noted that as I was winding the cable back onto the winch after securing the pole I allowed the cable to slip between my fingers to keep tension on it. Doing this put me at risk of hand injury should there be any frayed ends on the cable. So I have been informed that in future I must wear gloves and hold the cable by the thimble at the end.

Three weeks on...
The injured member of staff is still off work. I spoke to him yesterday and he is still on painkillers and just getting movement back in his fingers. He will be attending his GP's surgery again this week to ascertain whether he needs more time off and/or physiotherapy.

All staff involved in using these winches are to attend retraining at the manufacturers premises later this month. This will entail a 400 mile round trip on top of the training effectively taking all staff out of action for a day as well as travelling costs.

Phil

Driving: A Cause for Concern?? - The Hidden Dangers

Most, if not all, Safety Reps in the Region will be aware of the ongoing HSE and the Northern TUC coordinated ‘Backs 2005’campaign to improve the health and safety of all workers particularly in regard back injury and associated injuries.
Therefore the report below, compiled by a member of the Northern TUC Health & Safety Forum Working Party arrived in my email tray at a very opportune time highlighting an area of concern that does not seem to have been addressed in this way before.

George Partridge Chair Northern TUC Health & Safety Forum.


We are all aware of the substantial advances in safety that have been developed to help reduce the risks of injury or fatalities when driving, such as Seatbelts, Airbags, Abs Brakes, etc. However there are number of hidden dangers that professional drivers face on a daily basis, these are Musculoskeletal Disorders, Wruld’s, & Possibly Dvt’s.

Having worked in the Public Transport Industry for over 17 Years I have seen a lot of changes within the Industry. New Technology means that Buses are able to be designed to be faster, smoother and more Passenger friendly allowing access for wheelchairs and Prams, however when it comes to cab design it seems that it is almost an after thought and last on the list for overall improvement of the vehicle.

On average Drivers spend in excess of 8 hours in the driving seat per day. This means that there is significant pressure placed on their joints and spine arising from working in a cramped position and from twisting their backs and shoulders.

Also poorly maintained roads and potholes lead to shocks sent up into their hips and spines.

Part of the problem is the fact that large companies buy their Buses in large orders and do not actually take on board the suggestions on the layout and design of the cabs from the people who actually drive them.

This means that by the time the drivers get to drive them in service the cab has already been fitted out and this invariably means the layout is disorganised and cramped and not ‘user friendly’ with poorly placed ticket machines and dispenser trays that force the Driver to twist round to use and also blind spots from security screens that mean that they must stretch or twist just to see around them.

And of course there is also the pedal layout, switches and the many other controls that are contained within the cab area.

Or to put it another way fitting the driver to their workstation and not the workstation to the driver, which as everyone knows is ‘best practice’ in health safety & welfare.

It is inconceivable to me that any Organisation fails to take on board suggestions on cab design from the very staff that will be using these vehicles when it is obvious that if they did so this would inevitably mean that the layout of the cab would be of a better design with the ‘knock on’ effect helping to reduce the amount of time that staff had to take off on the sick and also any injury claims they may face leading to a reduction in the Organisations sickness levels, leading to a more cost effective workforce and a raising of staff morale leading to a happier workforce and the ‘knock on’ effect of an overall increase in customer satisfaction.

As part of my final assignment for my TUC Certificate in Occupational Health & Safety I looked at the problems that my members faced whilst Driving and I was unable to find a Body Map that showed a person in a Driving position, I decided to design my own Body Map that Drivers and people working in the Transport Industry could relate to and use to identify any problems within their Organisation.

This Body Map is only one element designed to help identify how many members are suffering from the above mentioned problems and to help identify the action needed by senior managers to reduce the risks.

It is clear that there is a great amount of work needed to be done before these risks are reduced but hopefully this Body Map will go some way towards reducing these risks.

The body map can also be used by all professional drivers, HGV, Driving Instructors in fact anyone who spends a large proportion of their working day behind the wheel of a vehicle.

You have to question the wisdom of having a set of health & safety regulations, quite rightly, for workers, that includes the layout of their workstation, seat design, and a number of other aids for their health & safety and wellbeing, entitled the DSE Regs, but not a set of regulations for a PSV driver’s workstation, namely the drivers cab.

Please feel free to utilise/adapt the Body Map in any way you wish all we ask is that you identify the source.

Best of luck and Good Mapping

The Body Mapping tool can be downloaded here: Body Map

The Interactive Body Mapping tool can be downloaded here: Body Map Interactive 66.7KB, just place the cursor on the appropriate coloured square then click and it will place either a tick for constant or a star for occasional.

From a member of the Northern TUC Health & Safety Forum

Driver Tiredness

Driver tiredness is the biggest killer on our roads, particularly on motorways and other monotonous roads. One in five crashes on these roads is estimated to have been caused by drivers nodding off at the wheel and the ratio of serious injuries is even higher because a sleeping driver doesn’t brake before an accident. Driving at night or during the afternoon dip are the most dangerous times.

Some of the things people do when they are feeling tired whilst driving are opening a window, turning up the volume of the radio or just trying to fight sleep off. They don’t prevent sleep, especially the “microsleeps” of just a few seconds.

The Government’s recommendations if you feel tired while driving are:

• Drink two cups of coffee or, ideally, a high-caffeine drink.
• Take a ten minute snooze to give the caffeine time to kick in.
• If you are still tired don’t drive any further

The advice adds that the effect of the caffeine only last 60 – 90 minutes and the only real solution is not to be tired in the first place.

Some of the things that can be done are:

• Get enough sleep – Obvious enough but it is impossible to stop yourself eventually falling asleep if you are shattered.
• Let people know if you are having trouble sleeping and take it into account when planning journeys.
• Make sure that any medication you take doesn’t cause drowsiness.
• Drive carefully and calmly and think about any possible hazards (like the nutter who is swapping lanes and cutting up cars in front of you to get wherever they are going a minute quicker, if they are lucky). It helps prevent boredom if nothing else.
• Be especially alert on long monotonous roads. Cruise control is a nice technological advance but can make it even easier to fall asleep.
• Be especially careful and if possible avoid driving at the most dangerous times, between midnight and 6am and 2pm to 4pm.

Ian Paton

Ian has also sent us various documents relating to driving sensibly and can be downloaded here:

• Child Safety Seat Use
• Head Restraints
• Motorway Hard Shoulder Safety
• Overtaking
• Speed Control

Disability Rights Commission launches ‘The Disability Debate’

The Disability Rights Commission (DRC) has launched a major national debate on the future of disabled people’s equality in Britain with its discussion paper, ‘Shaping the Future of Equality’.

The debate asks how we can ensure that by the year 2020, Britain can be a place where all disabled people are equal citizens – living active lives that are fulfilling and rewarding for themselves and valued by others.

Bert Massie, Chairman of the DRC said ‘While massive progress has been made since the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) first came onto the statute book in 1995, there is still a long way to go to reaching this goal".

The Disability Debate seeks to identify and articulate the big priorities for a new disability agenda and provide a roadmap for both the organisation which will replace the DRC, the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) and for Government over the next 10-15 years.

Questions that will form part of the Disability Debate include:

• how can we ensure disabled people are safe and feel like they fully belong in their communities?
• how can disabled people be equipped with the skills to play an active role in society?
• how can we ensure that disabled people are in control of their own lives?
• how can we reform the welfare state so that it supports independence rather than creating dependence?

People can read the papers and take part in the debate on-line at http://www.disabilitydebate.org/, listen to a summary of the paper and leave comments on a local rate phone line 0845 333 0303, or order a copy of the paper from the DRC Helpline on:

Tel: 08457 622 633

Textphone: 08457 622 644

Quoting reference number: DRC35

History of Asbestos

What is Asbestos?

Asbestos is a naturally occurring fibrous silicate mineral which has been used in a variety of useful products for hundreds of years since Roman times. It is found throughout the world including Africa, Australia, Canada, Russia, the United States of America and China.

Between the 1950’s and 1980’s, asbestos was used in substantial amounts of building projects, products and materials. In addition, most buildings constructed or refurbished within this time period are extremely likely to include asbestos containing materials (ACM’s), particularly in buildings constructed using steel frames. Steel frames were often coated with asbestos spray for fire protection.

One of the main reasons why asbestos was so popular and widely used was its versatility and cheap production/importation. Asbestos has various useful properties including the following:

• Resistance to electricity, heat and fire giving asbestos ideal fire-proofing capabilities and insulating properties.
• Fibres can be mixed with cement or woven into fabric or mats.
• Asbestos will not rot or burn and is relatively impervious to any weather effects, some acids and to vermin.
• Asbestos has a desirable high tensile strength and flexibility.

There are three main types of commercially used asbestos as shown in the following images:

Crocidolite Asbestos (Blue), Raw and Processed

Amosite Asbestos (Brown)

(please click the link for the image)

http://www.healthandsafetytips.co.uk/Articles/Images/amosite2(brown%20asbestos).jpg

Chrysotile Asbestos (White)

(please click the link for the image)

http://www.healthandsafetytips.co.uk/Articles/Images/chrysotile1(white%20asbestos).jpg

The Risks and Dangers Associated with Asbestos

All forms of asbestos are dangerous and can cause fatal illnesses to which there is no cure, however, blue and brown asbestos products are known to be more dangerous than white asbestos.

Entry into the body is through inhalation into lower parts of the lung and can lay there for years, or can even work their way into the lining of the lung. Any fibres that may be ingested into the body will be removed naturally by the body; moreover, entry via absorption through the skin is not possible.

Asbestos is made up of tiny fibres that can only be seen under a microscope, which can penetrate deep into the lung and stay there causing respiratory disease or some types of cancer. The principal asbestos related diseases are that of: asbestosis (fibrosis) scarring of the lungs; mesothelioma - a cancer of the inner lining of the chest wall or abdominal cavity; lung cancer; and diffuse pleural thickening - a non-malignant disease in which the lining of the lung (pleura) becomes scarred.

Present statistics from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) indicate that there are 3500 asbestos related diseases in the United Kingdom per year which is expected to increase dramatically by the end of the decade. This is mainly attributable to the fact that there is usually a substantial delay between the first exposures of asbestos to the first symptoms of any asbestos related disease, varying from between 10 to 60 years.

Asbestos is safe if left undisturbed, nevertheless, where any project involving asbestos and the removal of asbestos is undertaken, complete awareness and precise controls are required at all times throughout the project, and work should be carried out under the assumption that asbestos will be present unless established otherwise.

John Johnston AIIRSM - HSfB