What is the risk?

Silicosis is a serious, irreversible lung disease caused by breathing in respirable crystalline silica (RCS) dust, which is created when stone, brick, concrete or engineered stone is cut, ground or polished.

The damage can continue even after exposure stops, and RCS is also linked with COPD and lung cancer. Silicosis is a progressive disease, requiring early diagnosis and treatment. At present, there are no mandatory screening processes in place in the United Kingdom.

Professor Neil Greenberg, president of the Society of Occupational Medicine said:

“If you’re working in an industry that uses asbestos, you have to have occupational health professionals advise you and do the surveillance. And so we would say, because the kitchen countertop industry is one which exposes people to the risk of a serious illness – silicosis, it’s like asbestos – there should be similar mandates that they must have access to occupational health.”

Who is affected?

Stonemasons are a key at-risk group, but they are not alone. The HSE identifies workers in stone working, constructio

n, quarrying, ceramics, foundries and worktop manufacture/installation as being at risk where silica-containing materials are processed. Concern has grown sharply around younger men working with engineered stone kitchen worktops, with recent UK reporting warning that more cases are likely to be found as awareness improves.

Signs and symptoms

One of the biggest concerns with silicosis is that harmful exposure may cause damage before symptoms appear.

When symptoms do develop, they can often be misdiagnosed. Symptoms include:

• Shortness of breath
• A persistent cough
• Wheezing
• Phlegm and frequent or prolonged chest infections

Recent reporting also highlights concerns that some younger workers have initially been misdiagnosed with sarcoidosis, delaying the correct diagnosis. It is thought that as awareness increases, so too will early diagnosis.

Proposed changes screening

Silicosis in stone working is now on the UK political agenda. In Parliament, ministers previously said HSE was not considering restricting engineered stone and that silicosis was not currently reportable, although reporting requirements were under review. More recently, campaigners, clinicians and MPs have pushed for workforce screening, better reporting, stronger enforcement and a ban on dry-cutting high-silica engineered stone.

In March 2026, Liz Jarvis MP said she would table a Silica Dust (Exposure) Bill calling for prevention, monitoring, reporting and screening. HSE also refreshed its health surveillance guidance in 2025, making clear that worktop manufacturing and installation are high-risk occupations where surveillance must be considered.

Health and safety best practice

Where workers are regularly exposed to hazardous materials and disease could develop, health surveillance is a legal requirement. Silicosis is preventable, but only if controls are applied consistently:

• Assess the risk properly, avoid or reduce dust at source
  • Use water suppression and effective extraction
  • Select lower-silica materials where possible
• Provide suitable RPE for higher-risk tasks
• Maintain good housekeeping
• Review controls regularly

As with the recent HSE inspections at bakeries and within the vehicle repair industry, ensuring workers are protected from occupational hazards should be at the forefront of all business’ priorities. For any support with air quality monitoring, training or occupational health support, reach out to the LRB Consulting Ltd team to find the right support for you.

The post Silicosis in stonemasonry: A preventable but serious risk appeared first on LRB.

HSE prosecution

In August 2025, a Manchester-based construction firm, A1 Property Maintenance Management Limited, have been fined after exposing workers to asbestos risks.

Whilst acting as the Principal Contractor on works taking place at a former public house, evidence of asbestos was found that an asbestos insulating board had been illegally removed from the dumb waiter lift. A worker had previously entered the building and discovered apparent asbestos fragments around the lift shaft, which was later wrapped and removed by a licensed contractor.

A1 Property Maintenance management Limited were fined £5.117 for breaching Regulation 4(6) of The Control of Asbestos Regulations. The company had failed to conduct an asbestos survey to confirm that all asbestos-containing materials had been removed following the earlier identification of asbestos on-site.

An HSE spokesperson said:

“This was a serious incident and put those working in the building at risk of being exposed to the harmful effects of asbestos.

“Duty holders are reminded of the need to review without delay an asbestos assessment if there has been a significant change in the premises to which the assessment relates.”

What are the risks?

Asbestos carries serious health risks including mesothelioma, lung cancer, asbestosis and pleural thickening. Through continued vigilance, compliance, awareness and training, these risks can be minimised.

Take action

We provide practical support with Asbestos Awareness training courses and retained support to ensure safe working conditions. Get in touch today to start a conversation about asbestos management in your work.

The post Prosecution: Construction company fined after exposing workers to asbestos risks appeared first on LRB.

Fire door safety week 2025

Fire doors are a fundamental component of fire protection in commercial, industrial and many residential and healthcare settings. Designed to contain the spread of fire and smoke, they provide vital time for safe evacuation and emergency response by preventing the spread of fire in an emergency.

When is a fire door not a fire door?

Fire doors will only work if they are kept closed and in good condition. Research shows that whilst most people believed that propping a fire door open stops it from working, over half of those surveyed would not take action if they saw a propped fire door, or may not know who to report this to.

Two common issues are the removal of self-closing devices and propping fire doors open. Reasons for doing so are often not malicious – for example to allow better airflow, for the ease of foot traffic, or to move large items through doorways. However, these actions will render the fire door useless in an emergency.  By leaving a fire door open, it is no longer able to delay the evacuation window, and provide no protection against the damaging effects of fire and smoke inhalation.

If you have a fire door in a heavy footfall area, consideration could be given to fitting an automatically closing fire door retainer (such as a Dorgard). These hold doors open, and automatically close on the sounding of a fire alarm.

Often, people prop fire doors open without thinking about or understanding the consequences. Clear signage, proper instruction and regular fire safety training can help everyone understand and appreciate the role fire doors play in building safety.

What makes a fire door compliant?

Fire Door Safety Week is an annual campaign run in September by the British Woodworking Federation and the BWF Fire Door Alliance. As part of the campaign. A five-step fire door checklist has been shared to help people recognise and report problems with fire doors:

• Certification: The door is third-party certified to meet fire safety standards
• Gaps: Gaps around the fire door do not exceed the recommended maximum
• Seals: Intumescent seals are fitted correctly and are undamaged
• Closing: The door closes fully without sticking
• Hinges: Secure, fixed and functional with no missing or broken screws

How to maintain fire doors

There is a legal duty to maintain fire doors for all tenanted buildings. Landlords/building managers are required to ensure that fire doors are maintained. This can be done through inspection as part of a fire risk assessment and professional fire door inspection.

Routine inspections should be conducted to ensure all doors are functional and compliant. Fire door policies should be shared with and reinforced to all building users/tenants.

Adopting a ‘recognise it, report it’ approach encourages vigilance in fire door safety, not only with those in charge, but across the board.

If you need any support with fire door inspections, fire risk assessments or safety training, reach out to LRB Consulting Ltd.

The post ‘Recgonise it, report it’: Fire door safety week 2025 appeared first on LRB.

While evacuation chairs are not legally mandated, they are often identified as necessary during fire risk assessments, especially in multi-story buildings. The Equality Act 2010 reinforces this duty by prohibiting discrimination against disabled individuals, including in emergency planning.

Types of Emergency Evacuation Plans

Fire risk assessments may recommend evacuation chairs based on the following emergency evacuation plans:

• Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (PEEP): Tailored to the needs of a specific individual.
• Standard Emergency Evacuation Plan (SEEP): Designed for visitors or casual users of the building who may be present infrequently or on only one occasion.
• General Emergency Evacuation Plans (GEEP): Used in public spaces and workplaces to ensure the safe evacuation of visitors with disabilities.

Training

When installing evacuation chairs, it is also important to identify and train competent users. Regular practice and refresher training ensure that everyone involved is familiar with the chair’s operation and understands their role in a real emergency. Trained users should be identified in evacuation procedures and communicated with the wider team.

Maintenance

The type and number of chairs required depend on the building layout and occupancy. Once in place, it is essential to establish routine monthly checks and arrange service and inspection by approved contractors*. These records should also be accurately maintained, with dates for renewal also documented appropriately.

Need support?

If you need help developing a PEEP, SEEP, or GEEP, or require support with manual handling or evacuation chair training, reach out to LRB Consulting Ltd. Our experts are here to assist you in ensuring that your emergency plans are comprehensive and inclusive.

*All maintenance should be carried out in line with the Regulatory Reform, BS9999 and the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER) Regulation 6.

The post Evacuation chairs: Fire safety planning appeared first on LRB.

The summer this year has been one of the hottest and sunniest for a long time, and it is essential to think about working safely in the sun.

In short, try and avoid working in very hot condition, and try to avoid working in strong sunshine.

As it is now a sunnier time of year, those who (control) work outside should think about working safely in the sun. When working outdoors the effects of the weather in this environment can potentially have a very serious impact on an employee’s welfare if the risks have never been previously considered or managed properly. This impact may be immediate or it can occur over a long time period of time.  Exposure to the sun can cause skin damage including sunburn, blistering and skin ageing and in the long term can lead to an increased risk of skin cancer. Skin cancer is one of the most common forms of cancer in the UK with over 50,000 new cases every year.

Each year many people suffer, unnecessarily, from sunburn and over 2300 people die from skin cancer caused by sun exposure.

What are the dangers of working in the sun?

In the short term…
sunburn can blister your skin and make it peel, but even mild reddening is a sign of skin damage.
In the long term…
too much sun will speed up the ageing of your skin, making it leathery, mottled and wrinkled, but the most serious effect is an increased chance of developing skin cancer.
Abnormal reactions to sunlight
Some medicines, contact with some chemicals used at work (such as dyes, wood preservatives, coal-tar and pitch products), and contact with some plants, can make your skin more sensitive to sunlight. Your works doctor or family doctor should be able to advise you further.

Who is at risk (or at higher risk) of skin cancer?

Some people are more liable to skin cancers than others. People with white skin are at most risk. Take particular care if you have:

• fair or freckled skin that doesn’t tan, or goes red or burns before it tans;
• red or fair hair and light coloured eyes;
• a large number of moles – 50 or more.

Workers of Asian or Afro-Caribbean origin are less at risk, but they should still take care in the sun to avoid damage to eyes, skin ageing and dehydration.

Working safely in the sun – What can you do to protect your Staff?

• Reschedule work to cooler times of the day
• Provide more frequent rest breaks and introduce shading to rest areas
• Provide free access to cool drinking water
• Look to provide shade in certain work
• Ensure your staff always wear a safety helmet on site (if required), which also provides sun protection for your head.
• Educate workers about recognising the early symptoms of heat stress
• Include sun protection advice in routine health and safety training.

Working safely in the sun – What can your employees do to protect themselves?

• Keep your top on.
• Wear a hat with a brim or a flap that covers the ears and the back of the neck.
• Stay in the shade whenever possible, during your breaks and especially at lunchtime.
• Use a high factor sunscreen of at least SPF15 on any exposed skin.
• Drink plenty of water to avoid dehydration.
• Check your skin regularly for any unusual moles or spots. See a doctor promptly if you find anything that is changing in shape, size or colour, itching or bleeding.
• Take their breaks in the shade and refrain from sunbathing.

Link to the HSE leaflet: Sun Protection

Drink plenty of water to avoid dehydration.

The post Working safely in the sun (try not to) appeared first on LRB.

Distressing images on social media showed people who had collapsed as they tried to escape the gas in the city of Vishakhapatnam (Southern Andhra Pradesh state, India).

The leak took place at a plant just operated by LG Polymers, owned by South Korea’s largest petrochemicals firm LG Chem. A company spokesperson said the plant was gearing up to reopen after closing when India went into a nationwide lockdown to stem the spread of coronavirus.

According to the police, about 400 people had been taken to hospital and around 1,500 evacuated, mostly from villages immediately adjacent to the plant. Those affected by the gas have described suffering burning eyes and breathing difficulties.

The gas leaked after a fire broke out on the premises, which was discovered by a night shift maintenance worker and has since been extinguished. Other workers are believed to have been inside the plant when the leak began, but it is unclear what happened to them at this stage.

According to the plant owners, LG, the source of the leak had been contained – but the city’s municipal corporation said anyone living within a 3km radius of the plant was vulnerable.

According to eyewitnesses, there was a total panic as a mist-like gas enveloped the area.

People felt breathless in their homes and tried to run away. Darkness added to the confusion.

Of those who were killed, one died after falling into a well trying to flee the gas, while another jumped from a second-floor window in a bid to escape. The youngest dead was reported to be an eight-year-old girl.

The post Process Start-up is a Dangerous Time (again) appeared first on LRB.

Respiratory Protective Equipment (or RPE) is used to protect wearers from exposure to a range of chemicals, solvents, dust, fibres, etc.  It is often a protective measure that is identified in the risk assessment. The RPE must be able to provide adequate protection for individual wearers (otherwise there is no point in wearing it). It makes sense that RPE cannot protect the wearer if it leaks. One of the major causes of leaks is poor fit – tight-fitting facepieces need to fit the wearer’s face to be effective. It stands to reason that if people come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, it is unlikely that one particular type or size of RPE facepiece will fit everyone.

Providing even the highest quality FFP2 or FFP3 respirators to healthcare workers and enforcing their use is only the first step. The best masks will not protect the wearer if they leak – such as with poor fit due to facial characteristics or the wrong model mask selected (as two big causes). Other necessary steps include ensuring that respirators fit along, couple to proper training and continued use.

The principle is that “fit testing” will ensure that the equipment selected is suitable for the wearer. The best time to do fit testing is at the initial selection stage when individual users can be given a choice of adequate models of RPE. You should ensure that the make, model, type and size of the facepiece that they wore when they had their successful fit test is made available for their use. If an employee wears more than one type of tight-fitting facepiece, then each type of facepiece should be fit tested.

Face Fit Testing of RPE

RPE fit testing should be carried out by a competent person. Ensure that the person who carries out the fit test is appropriately trained, qualified and experienced, and is provided with appropriate information to undertake each particular task. The British Safety Industry Federation (BSIF) has introduced a scheme for fit testers, which may provide evidence to help you decide whether a fit tester is competent.

Many masks rely on a good seal against the face so that, when you breathe air in, the air is drawn in through the filter material where it is cleaned. If there are any gaps around the edges of the mask, the potentially contaminated air will pass through these gaps and into your lungs. It is therefore essential that you put your mask on correctly and check for a proper fit every time.

It should be noted that facial hair – stubble and beards – make it impossible to get a good seal of the mask to the face. If you are clean-shaven when wearing tight-fitting masks (i.e. those which rely on a good seal to the face), this will help prevent leakage of contaminated air around the edges of the mask and into your lungs. You will, therefore, be breathing in clean air, which will help you stay healthy.

If there are good reasons for having a beard (including religious reasons), alternative forms of RPE, which do not rely on a tight fit to the face, are available.

There are two major types of RPE:

• Tight-fitting facepieces (often referred to as masks) rely on having a good seal with the wearer’s face. These are available as both non-powered and powered respirators and BA. A face fit test should be carried out to ensure the RPE can protect the wearer.
• Loose-fitting face pieces rely on enough clean air being provided to the wearer to prevent contaminant from leaking in. This is available as powered respirators or breathing apparatus. Examples include hoods, helmets, visors, blouses and suits.

Face Fit Testing is required for the following types of masks:

• Disposable half masks
• Re-usable filter or cartridge half masks
• Powered respirators
• Full face filter or cartridge masks
• Escape set masks
• Full breathing apparatus masks

Qualitative face fit testing

Qualitative fit testing is a pass/fail test based on the wearer’s subjective assessment of any leakage from the face seal region, by sensing the introduction of a test agent. These tests are suitable for half masks. They are not ideal for full face masks. Examples of qualitative fit testing methods are:

• an approach based on bitter- or sweet-tasting aerosol
• an approach based on odour compounds

Quantitative face fit testing

Quantitative fit testing provides a numerical measure of the fit, called a fit factor. These tests give an objective measure of face fit. They require specialised equipment and are more complicated to carry out than qualitative methods. Quantitative methods are suitable for full face masks (but can also be used for half masks). Examples of quantitative fit testing methods are:

• laboratory test chamber
• portable fit test devices, such as a particle counting device

 Competence and Face Fit Testing

RPE face fit testing should be conducted by a competent person. Competence can be demonstrated by achieving accreditation under the Fit2Fit RPE Fit Test Providers’ Accreditation scheme. This scheme has been developed by the British Safety Industry Federation (BSIF) together with industry stakeholders and is supported by HSE.

The scheme is not compulsory, and you are free to take other action to comply with the law.

The post Face Fit Testing of RPE – Risk assessment and Prevention appeared first on LRB.

We are now several years on from the introduction of the introduction into UK law of the Work at Heights Regulations 2005. Despite that, not all organisations have come to terms with the implications of this law on their work activities.  Many organisations still view the Work at Heights Regulations 2005 as construction-related legislation. The truth is that the regulations apply to all working at height activities in all workplaces. This may include:

• manufacturing areas
• storage areas
• fabrication areas
• mixing areas
• silos
• walkways
• gantries; etc.

In common with nearly all recent health and safety legislation, risk assessment lies at the heart of the Work at Heights Regulations 2005

The risk assessment process aims to avoid the need for working at height where this is reasonably practicable, but where this is not reasonably practicable, to introduce measures to prevent falls and to mitigate the effects of such falls.

Falls remain the biggest cause of Britain’s workplace deaths accounting for about 27% of workplace fatalities. Causes of typical accidents involving working at height include using ladders and stepladders incorrectly, overstretching from ladders and standing on benches or chairs to reach high surfaces. Accidents can also involve access equipment, such as mobile elevated work platforms (MEWP) and suspended access equipment (SAE); window cleaning cradles for example. The big question is how can a business keep its workers safe, and stay compliant with its legal and regulatory obligations?

What is work at height?

1. work in any place, including a place at or below ground level
2. obtaining access to or egress from such place while at work, except by a staircase in a permanent workplace, where, if measures required by these Regulations were not taken, a person could fall a distance liable to cause personal injury. There is no minimum height requirement before these regulations apply (such as the two-metre rule) This means that not only must the employer consider elevated workplaces, but any workplace where there is a risk of injury from falling further. This includes areas around ground level openings into vehicle inspection pits and sumps, etc., it also includes areas below ground level where there is a risk of injury from falling.

Employers’ Duties

The duties imposed on an employer by the Work at Heights Regulations 2005 with respect to the employer’s employees will also apply to any other person under their control. Under the new Regulations, every employer must ensure that all work at height is:

• planned properly
• supervised appropriately; and
• carried out in a manner which is, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe
• selection of suitable work equipment
• provisions for dealing with emergencies and rescue; and
• regard for weather conditions (where appropriate)

The employer shall ensure that no person engages in any activity (including organisation, planning and supervision) in relation to work at height or work equipment for use in such work unless they are competent to do so or, if being trained, is being supervised by a competent person.

Risk Assessment

As is common in modern health and safety, risk assessment is a key element of the regulations. Regulation 6(1) requires the employer to carry out a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks arising from any work at heights. There will be no need for a specific risk assessment dealing with working at height if this subject has been dealt with fully and satisfactorily in the risk assessments already completed for compliance with Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. For many employers, it will be necessary to revisit these assessments or to complete new “working at height” risk assessments to ensure compliance with the new regulations.

Avoidance of risks from work at height

The employer is under a duty to avoid the need for working at a height where it is reasonably practicable to do so (Regulation 6(2)):

“Every employer shall ensure that work is not carried out at height where it is reasonably practicable to carry out the work safely otherwise than at height.”

Work must be carried out in a manner such employees are not placed at risks of injury from falling from a height if this is reasonably practicable. Where reasonably practicable, work should be carried out at ground level (such as by the use of long-handled tools) rather than at height. This applies to maintenance activities as well as to assembly and production activities.

Prevention of falls

The requirement for prevention of employees working at a height from falling is introduced in Regulation 6(3):

“Where work is carried out at height, every employer shall take suitable and sufficient measures to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, any person falling a distance liable to cause personal injury.”

Where work involves access to areas from where a person may fall, access to that area must be prevented in some way. This may involve several solutions, such as:

• the use of suitable scaffolding systems,
• the use of mobile elevated work platforms and similar equipment,
• the construction of suitable walls or guard-rails (including intermediary guard-rails and toe-boards),
• the use of a harness and anchored lanyard that stops the person reaching the point from which they may fall (such as a 2m lanyard anchored 2.5 m from a fall, i.e. it is too short all allow the person wearing it to reach the edge over which they may fall).

Planning

The law on working at height requires employers to take into account the risk assessment when organising and planning work. That’s how the precautions (or control measures) required can be identified and work carried out with optimum safety. HSE’s clear advice is to avoid working at height whenever it is reasonably practicable to do so. That can mean using alternative methods such as telescopic water fed poles or, most simply of all, cleaning the windows from the inside. The next option should be using an existing place of work that is already safe: a balcony for example.

There are times when working at height is unavoidable. That’s when employers must make sure that the people doing the work are trained and competent, and that the equipment provided is suitable, properly maintained and will be correctly used.

Where use of the access equipment involves a risk of falling, additional measures to minimise the distance and consequences of any fall must be put in place. Prevent any person falling a distance liable to cause personal injury (such as by the use of a scaffold platform, erected by a competent person, with double guard-rail and toeboards).

Equally importantly, arrest a fall with equipment to minimise the distance and consequences of a fall. Options include safety nets, where work at height cannot be avoided or the risk of falling prevented.

Many HSE investigations of work at height accidents have been investigated and employers have been prosecuted. Perhaps unsurprisingly, one of the most common findings is that the work was not properly planned and supervised. Follow links to some HSE Prosecutions for Work at Height: Warburtons Case – Tesco Case

Mitigation of the effects of falls 

The employer is under a duty (Regulation 6(5)) to mitigate the effects of falling from a height where it is not reasonably practicable to eliminate the risks of the employee falling.

“Where the measures taken under paragraph (4) do not eliminate the risk of a fall occurring, every employer shall take:

1. suitable and sufficient measures, including the provision of work equipment, to minimise—
   1. the distance and consequences; or
   2. where it is not reasonably practicable to minimise the distance, the consequences, of a fall; and
2. without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (3), such additional training and instruction or other additional suitable and sufficient measures to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, any person falling a distance liable to cause personal injury

There are several ways of mitigating the effects of a fall from a height, these include:

• the use of a suitable fall arrest system,
• the use of suitably positioned and secured safety nets,
• the use of rail lock systems on vertical ladders,
• the use of suitably sited, specially designed airbags (note, there are, currently, no British or European Standards for such equipment),
• etc.

The specific requirements relating to suitable fall arrest systems are outlined in Schedule 5 to the Working at Height Regulations. Where a risk on a person being injured by a fall exists, the regulations require the use of suitable falls prevention measures and fall mitigation measures. This is a case of both, not either/or.

Falling Objects

Regulation 10 establishes a statutory duty on the employer to take suitable and sufficient steps to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, injury to any person arising from falling objects.

In the case of elevated work and storage areas (such as mezzanine floors), this may mean the provision of: suitable, secure storage facilities; suitable toe boards; suitable fencing or netting; solid walls in place of guard railings; etc.

Danger areas

The Regulations place a duty of the employer to ensure that an area where there remains a residual risk of any person being injured as a result of either a fall or as a result of being struck by a falling object is indicated clearly. As a minimum standard, suitable warning signs (complying with the provisions of the Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996) must be displayed.

Ladders

There has been a great deal of discussion on how the Work at Heights Regulations 2005 affects the use of ladders. The use of ladders is permissible only if the risk assessment has demonstrated that the use of more suitable work equipment is not justified because of the low risk and there is a short duration of use or the existence on site of features which the employer cannot alter.

The above will have the effect of making it difficult to justify the use of ladders for many tasks. Employers will need to consider suitable alternatives, which could include the appropriate use of tower scaffolding and the use of podium steps. Where ladders are used to gain access to elevated work levels, consideration should be given to the provision of a suitable stairway as the primary means of access and egress.

Inspection and records

The employer must make suitable arrangements for all places of work at height, and all equipment used for working at heights, to be checked/inspected by a competent person, with suitable records being kept.

Selection of contractors for working at height

Even when the work at height is contracted out, the employer still has responsibilities. When selecting contractors to work at height, an employer must ensure that the contractor is competent to do such work. In brief, the employer should: Determine the experience and competence of the contractor by addressing the types of questions below:

• Do they have experience in the type of work?
• Is this supported by references?
• Do their workers have any appropriate qualifications, training and experience? (such as in the use of tower scaffolds, cherry pickers, etc.)
• Are the contractors members of a trade or professional body?
• What is their safety performance like (accident, incident and prosecution history)?
• Can the contractor provide examples of methods of work, risk assessments, etc.
• Do contractors have suitable procedures for managing health and safety?
• Will the contractor be using subcontractors (and how will this be managed)
• How will the contractor supervise and manage their site work?
• How will the contractor monitor and check their safety standards?
• How will the contractor inspect and check their equipment (both owned or hired)?
• Do they have adequate insurance?

Summary

Work at height is still the major cause of death within the workplace. All work at height activities need to be risk assessed, with a view to avoiding the need to work at height. Where this is not reasonably practicable, the work at height needs to be carried out in such a way as to ensure the safety of all those involved.

The post Work at Height appeared first on LRB.

23 September – 29 September 2019 is Fire Door Safety Week.

Fire doors save life and property. This campaign aims to engage and educate building owners and building users on how to use them properly.

An excellent resource is available here!

The post Fire Door Safety Week appeared first on LRB.

There are also some businesses that “get it wrong”. These tend to be, organisations who:

• think of risk assessments purely as a paperwork exercise (and so do not involve the workforce),
• don’t see the value of risk assessments,
• don’t make time for risk assessments,
• consider risk assessments as a waste of time,
• don’t consider the risks of one-off jobs,
• etc.

Consider this simple thought experiment:

The task is to lift a heavy object and move it. The tools to hand include a telehandler. What might be included in your risk assessment?

• is the telehandler suitable for the task?
• is its lifting capacity sufficient for the task?
• is the driver trained?
• have we planned the lifting operation?
• what steps do we need to put in place to keep people away from the lifting area?

This is not a definitive list but it starts the process and can be built on.

Recent Prosecution – similar to the thought experiment

Alan Little Ltd of Lurgan (Northern Ireland) pleaded guilty after employee JP suffered fatal injuries during an unloading operation. JP died after he was struck by a palletised load that fell from the forks of a telescopic handler during the lifting operation. The driver of the lorry also suffered minor injuries when he was impacted by the load as it fell.

The (hired) telescopic handler was being operated by an untrained member of staff. The palletised load weighed over two tonnes and consisted of a robot and an electrical control box. Neither were secured to the pallet and during the lifting operation to remove the pallet from the lorry, the robot became unstable and toppled over, striking JP as it fell.

HSENI Inspector Kyle Carrick said:

Our thoughts are with the Peden family. Jonathan’s tragic death could have been avoided if his employer had properly considered the risks associated with this unloading activity. Careful consideration of the risks is vital to ensure practical and often simple measures are put in place to prevent such incidents from occurring.

Load stability and security are important factors to consider, as is operator training, which is a legal requirement for anyone operating lift trucks, including telescopic handlers. Pedestrians and other people who are not directly involved in loading or unloading operations should always be kept clear of dangerous lifting activities.

Alan Little Ltd was prosecuted for breaching Article 4(1) of the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 and fined £45,000. They were fined a further £5,000for breaching Article 5(1) of the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978.

Risk Assessment: Being wise before the event

A little thought and planning would have created a very different outcome. It is all well and good to be wise after the event, but it is possible to be wise before the event.

The post Risk Assessment: Being wise before the event appeared first on LRB.