Raise your safety game01 March 2008

During the 10 years that LOLER (Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations) and PUWER (Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations) have been in operation, they've played a significant role in providing safe working environments across industry. Safety Assessment Federation (SAFed) member inspection companies, for example, carried out nearly 300,000 lift examinations and detected 14,000 safety defects - enabling timely corrective action to avert accidents, injury, damage and consequential loss.

And yet accidents, injuries and fatalities still happen: why is that, when industry is so regulated? 'Although the risks of operating dangerous, unsafe or defective equipment are obvious,' says Richard Hulmes, chief executive of SAFed, 'some organisations do not fully understand their obligations, or the simple precautions and steps that could avert such practice.'

In fact, statistical analysis from the German insurance industry shows that, in 2004, 30% of companies did not carry out any risk assessment whatsoever - despite this being a legal requirement - yet 82% believed the risks they took were lower than average. In practice, the results also showed that 23% of companies had at least one major accident in a year. 'This shows a remarkable complacency. Many companies clearly believe it will ?never happen to them'. They appear to be unaware of the risks they are taking and the consequential probability of having an accident,' says Hulmes.

Sensible precautions
The key to changing our fortunes in this respect is proper risk assessment, he says. This involves reviewing the activity, the most appropriate equipment that can be used and the training for those who undertake the activity, as well as environmental and human factors. 'This does not require a risk-averse approach, but one of sensible risk management, taking all reasonable precautions,' he advises. 'The government has just created the Risk and Regulatory Advisory Council (RRAC) to promote a proportionate response to public risk and, hopefully, to dispel the current waves of myths caused by overly risk-averse interpretation of the law. I have a strong empathy for the HSE, who are unfairly criticised for some ridiculous decisions, but which actually promote a sensible risk management process.'

When it comes to safety, where work equipment is concerned, there are a number of key factors: choosing the right equipment for the task; ensuring it has the appropriate guards and safety features; ensuring the operator is trained and competent; making sure that instructions for use are available; ensuring that the equipment is properly serviced and maintained; and insisting on proper inspection. And note that the latter should be by the user before use, by a competent maintenance company at regular intervals and periodically by an engineer surveyor from a competent inspection company.

Clearly, the more complex and major the equipment, the greater the attention to the above factors should be. 'All of these are legal requirements and responsibilities,' adds Hulmes. 'They are also common sense and should be part of any organisation's safety culture.'

Kevin Chicken, lead consultant at Norwich Union Risk Services (NURS), makes the point that injuries arising from manual handling activities are one of the biggest costs to industry. He cites disc prolapse, muscle strain, falls, repetitive strain injuries, cuts and crushes - all of which can result in both short-term and long-term disabilities.

'A lack of knowledge, competence, or supervision could all be to blame for injuries and fatalities continuing to happen in industrial environments, despite the UK's Workplace Regulations being developed to provide safe working conditions,' he states. 'The HSE reports that 80% of accidents in industry are due to individuals failing to follow the correct procedures when operating plant or machinery, whilst 20% of accidents relate to human error.'

Incidentally, it's worth noting that NURS recently surveyed 130 businesses and found that 42% could not identify that their nominated director (board member with responsibility for health and safety) had any formally recognised health and safety qualification (IOSH (Institution of Occupational Safety and Health) or NEBOSH (National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health)). 'This research and anecdotal evidence from NURS tells us that some company directors and senior managers may well be failing to take health and safety seriously, thus overlooking the risks associated with lifting, mechanical handling and operating, and maintaining plant and equipment properly,' warns Chicken.

The introduction of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, coupled with the Institute of Directors' and the Health and Safety Commission's guidelines for directors, should help raise the profile of health and safety, and the importance of adhering to Workplace Regulations. However, compliance with regulations is a minimum requirement and NURS advises that senior managers and directors should set objectives to ensure that all staff, including board members and directors, are trained and competent to fulfil their duty of care responsibilities.

'Attending a course such as the NEBOSH or IOSH Safety for Senior Executives (S4SE), and using the new guidance as a self-assessment tool to certify that standards are in place,' Chicken advises, 'will ensure that health and safety becomes a part of the business philosophy, and filters down to the handlers, fitters or operators of plant and machinery.'

Advice and recommendations can be obtained from NURS (www.nu-riskservices.co.uk), which provides guidance on risks associated with manual handling and the safe operation of machinery.

'Training staff and maintaining training records is imperative - as is recording the assessments and reviews at least once every five years. This should also be standard practice when circumstances and employees change,' he adds.

Accidents and near misses
Peter Millington, health and safety consultant at SETA (Southampton Engineering Training Association), has spent the greater part of his working life in the army (REME) as a vehicle and plant engineer, then in the commercial plant hire sector. 'A large part of my time is taken up with commercial training, delivering safety passports and courses on manual handling, COSHH and abrasive wheels, as well as risk assessment courses. Given that a significant proportion of my customers are experienced service engineers, who are subjected to a barrage of inductions on prestige sites, it is significant that 90% claim never to have heard of PUWER or LOLER,' he says.

Perhaps that's part of the reason for the numbers of accidents, but he believes human factors are mostly to blame. Correct specification and manufacturing standards are critical, but if an operator decides to ignore local proximity hazards - such as overhead cables - or to remove guards from machinery such as pillar drills, lathes and milling machines, who is responsible, he asks? He also points the finger at people who operate machinery in a careless or unorthodox manner, such as crane operators with feet on the dashboard.

'Before I set out on a civilian career, I attended several briefings, one of which was provided by a local health and safety consultancy. The gentleman concerned was crystal clear that ?weak supervision' was a primary cause of accidents. By this, he meant that those responsible would allow dangerous practices to continue, mainly to avoid confrontation.

'I always ask the question of my customers: ?Is training the complete answer?' I usually get a qualified response, with comments relating to the need for training to be relevant, of the best technical standard and, above all, accepted. Given the choice, though, all agree that enforcement by the site safety police has a negative effect. However, in the face of fatigue, and commercial, time and resource pressures, it is all too tempting not to bother with an effective lift plan. I've seen 30 ton loads being swung over toilet blocks while they're still in use and operators forgetting to spread forks on a telehandler when moving a 10 metre beam around a site.'

Pointers
- Choose the right equipment for the task
- Ensure it has the appropriate guards and safety features
- Ensure the operator is trained and competent
- Instructions for use must be readily available
- Equipment must be serviced and maintained
- And it should be inspected: by the user before use, for obvious hazards; by a competent maintenance company at regular intervals; and periodically by an engineer surveyor from a reputable organisation

SOE

This material is protected by MA Business copyright
See Terms and Conditions.
One-off usage is permitted but bulk copying is not.
For multiple copies contact the sales team.