This Month
| June 2010 |
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
Wednesday, June 2
Risk and your Business
by
AnchorHandS
on Wed 02 Jun 2010 10:12 BST
In this blog we will be looking at the physical risks that need to be accounted for within any business planning, but hopefully will cover the general areas necessary to give you an idea of what to look out for.
Before we move on let’s be clear what we are talking about.
What is Risk?
“Risk is the likelihood of a body or event to cause harm.”
This should not be confused with Hazard.
What is Hazard?
“Hazard is the ability of a body or event to cause harm.”
From this we can see that in order to reduce the risks to our businesses we need to remove, reduce or protect against the hazards we come across. The way we do this is by carrying out a Risk Assessment
There are five steps to carrying out any risk assessment.
Step 1: Identify and record the hazards that are present, these fall broadly into five categories
Physical: such as pressure, heat, damp, noise, radiation and electricity
Chemical: such as dusts, fumes, chemicals, toxic materials and gases
Biological: such as infections, viruses and contagions
Ergonomic: work conditions, stress, RSI and man-machine interaction
The fifth one we'll come back to as it’s covered under specific legislation
Step 2: Identify the people that may be affected by the hazard
Paying particular attention to those groups that may be especially vulnerable such as the elderly, blind, young and disabled.
At this point it is possible to rank the severity of the risk, giving it a more tangible identity
Step 3: Remove, reduce the severity or Protect against, the Hazard.
The preference here is always to remove the hazard completely (rearrange items to avoid trips and impacts), if this cannot be done then reduce the severity of the hazard (use low voltage equipment or less aggressive chemicals) and as a last resort protect against the hazard (provide warnings or personal protective equipment).
Once again assuming that all the measures have been put into place, it will be possible to rank the severity of the residual risks. You can then establish whether the remaining risks are acceptable or if they need further action.
Step 4: Record, Plan, Inform and Train
Record the significant findings from steps 1 to 3 and what actions have or need to be taken as a result.
Prepare any plans or procedures that may be required in order to facilitate the actions
Inform and instruct all relevant people, co-operate with all concerned.
Provide any necessary training that may be required as a result of the assessment.
Step 5: Review
Having carried out the assessments they must be kept relevant, which means that they should be reviewed on a regular basis or when conditions change (such as work practices, new technology, legislation or results of monitoring)
Remember any revisions to the assessments must be communicated to those that need to know the results of those revisions.
Why have we gone to the trouble of doing these risk assessments and putting whatever precautions in place, is it because of our genuine concern for our fellow workers safety, is it because it makes financial sense to do it or is it our legal duty?
The answer is all of the above
From a humanitarian and moral point of view, we do not want to cause or allow to be caused, harm to anybody
Research shows that investing in risk reduction leads to better company performance.
A good working environment is good business.
Staff feel that they are valued.
Your customers see a company that does it right and cares.
You avoid costs associated with disruption, sickness, investigation, down time, compensation claims, increased insurance premiums and loss of goodwill
And for those companies that cannot see the benefit, there are legal requirements, with quite hefty penalties for non compliance
Remember under step 1 of the risk assessment I said there was a fifth hazard, which was covered under its own legislation, this is Fire!
Potentially this one can be the most destructive, obviously to our staff, the public and visitors, but also to a business, if your stock and premises are all destroyed, how are you going to trade?
This is why in March 2006 the “Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005” came into force, making it the responsibility of all owners or occupiers of commercial properties, to carry out a Fire Risk Assessment of those premises and put into action any necessary precautions and planning.
For the purpose of the legislation “Commercial” means anything non-domestic, so that includes churches, schools, libraries etc. In fact only military and some government buildings are exempt.
When we carry out our Fire Risk Assessment it’s worth remembering how fire works, for this we use the fire triangle.Fire needs 3 elements to exist firstly Fuel (flammable gases, flammable liquids or flammable solids. Secondly Oxygen (The air around us, oxidizing agents and stored oxygen) and finally Ignition (Naked flame, faulty electrical appliances, hot processes and hot machinery)… Remove any one of these and the fire goes out.
We have seen that there are many types of hazards and therefore risks, surrounding our businesses, it is essential then that we Eliminate these risks, if we cannot do this, then we should Reduce the effect of them, and finally Protect against any residual risk.
Remember none of this will work if we do not communicate your findings and plans to those who may be affected
This way our businesses should be safe environments in which to work, be protected from the disruption and costs that incidents can bring and demonstrate to others that we are responsible and considerate business people.
All of this has to be a cost effective benefit to all of our businesses, a benefit which you can take to the bank!
If you would like more information, then please contact us at info@anchorhands.co.uk
Wednesday, May 12
Sandbach Company Boss Fined For Safety Breach
by
AnchorHandS
on Wed 12 May 2010 17:23 BST
THE owner of a Sandbach company has been fined £80,000 after pleading guilty to serious breaches of fire safety ... more »
Wednesday, April 28
New protection for workers from artificial light
by
AnchorHandS
on Wed 28 Apr 2010 10:13 BST
New regulations further protecting workers from the dangers of hazardous sources of artificial light come into force today.
The Control of Artificial Optical Radiation at Work Regulations meets a European Union Directive to ensure that standards are set and harmonised across Europe to protect workers from harm arising from exposure to hazardous sources of artificial light.
Some sources of artificial light, particularly UV radiation and light from lasers can harm the eyes and skin of workers and must be properly managed.
Workers in Great Britain are generally well protected from dangerous sources of light and the majority of businesses know how to manage the risks effectively. Therefore the regulations will mean few practical changes for most businesses, including those who are already managing the risks.
To help those businesses who are not already managing the risks understand what's required and what they need to do, HSE is producing guidance to ensure workers can remain appropriately protected.
Common sources of light in the workplace such as office lights, photocopiers and computers are not affected by the regulations.
Article courtesy of HSE
Wednesday, April 21
Tesco pays £119,000 for fire safety law breaches
by
AnchorHandS
on Wed 21 Apr 2010 14:46 BST
Supermarket giant Tesco has been fined £95,000 and ordered to pay over £24,000 in costs after pleading guilty to five breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRO).
London Fire Brigade, prosecuting, said firefighters were called to a fire at Tesco’s Colney Hatch store in Barnet on 14 October 2007. When they arrived found the premises locked but managed to gain access after attracting the attention of an employee who was restocking shelves. There had been a fire in the staff kitchen but it had been put out by staff using extinguishers and a fire blanket. There was still a significant amount of smoke in the kitchen, the corridor and staff locker rooms and crews had to ask staff several times to evacuate the premises.
This incident made officers concerned about fire safety in the store, so on the following day they inspected the premises. A number of breaches of fire safety legislation were found, including a failure to review the store’s fire risk assessment, a failure to ensure escape routes were kept clear and inadequate fire separation due to doors being wedged open. An enforcement notice was subsequently served on 2 November 2007.
Tesco pleaded guilty to failing to keep emergency exits clear (£20,000 fine); failing to keep an emergency route clear (£20,000); two counts of fire doors being wedged open (£20,000 each) and storing flammable materials under an emergency stairwell (£15,000). Sentencing took place at Wood Green Crown Court on 20 April 2010.
London Fire Commissioner Ron Dobson said: “Fire safety is a key part of good business management and the general public should feel safe from fire when they are out shopping. London Fire Brigade will continue to take action when businesses, large or small, do not take their fire safety responsibilities seriously. Failure to comply with the law can, as this case has shown, result in a prosecution.”
A Tesco spokesperson told Info4fire.com: "We take safety matters in all of our stores extremely seriously. We would like to reassure customers that this was an isolated incident and all issues at this store have been resolved."
Article courtesy of info4fire.com
Five-year ban for director after raft of health and safety breaches
by
AnchorHandS
on Wed 21 Apr 2010 07:39 BST
Workers exposed to lead and dangerous practices
A director of a fuel tank manufacturing business has been banned from directing any company for five years after breaching a raft of health and safety regulations.
 [1]
A worker paints the underside of one of the fuel tanks with it suspended directly above him with no safety measures in place.
Brian Nixon of Evesham, Worcestershire, and managing director of Transtore (UK) Ltd was also fined £17,000.
Workers at Transtore (UK) Ltd in Stratford-upon-Avon were exposed to lead and other harmful chemicals while paint was sprayed at the plant without the correct safety measures in place. Workers were also put at risk of falls from height with no safety equipment provided.
Inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigated and prosecuted Mr Nixon and Transtore (UK) Ltd in Stratford-upon-Avon, after a receiving a complaint from a concerned employee.
Mr Nixon was also ordered to pay £9,169 costs after admitting breaching Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and Section 33(1)(g) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 at Stratford-upon-Avon Magistrates' Court today.
The company, Transtore (UK) Ltd, based at Long Marston Storage, Campden Road, Stratford-upon-Avon was fined £70,000, with costs of £27,507 after being found guilty of eight separate breaches of health and safety law. The company is now in administration.
 [2]
A worker sprays toxic lead-based paint without the proper equipment.
During HSE's investigation, specialist inspectors took air samples as well as blood and urine samples from the workers to assess their exposure to lead, among other harmful chemicals in the plant that was being sprayed unsafely.
The company was condemned for allowing workers to spray paint, containing toxic lead chromate, without adequate controls in place, leaving them to breathe in harmful fumes and absorb lead into their blood.
Five workers needed blood and urine tests, with the fumes having the potential to cause headaches, tiredness, and stomach pains. Long-term exposure can led to irreversible central and peripheral nervous system damage, kidney damage and gastrointestinal problems.
All results from the workers showed higher levels of lead than the UK population average.
 [3]
A worker balances precariously while working on top of one of the fuel tanks.
Workers were also expected to stand beneath the half-tonne fuel tanks they were painting during the spraying process with nothing to prevent them from being crushed if the lifting equipment, which had not been maintained or checked properly, had failed.
The company was also criticised for allowing its employees to work on top of the tanks with no safety equipment to prevent them falling two metres on to the concrete floor. The workers received no training or instructions and were left to devise their own systems of work.
HSE served four prohibition notices on the company during its investigation to immediately stop unsafe work. It also issued four improvement notices. Mr Nixon ignored the notice prohibiting work at height and continued to instruct his employees to work on top of the tanks.
HSE Inspector Peter Snelgrove said:
 [4]
A worker balances precariously while working on top of one of the fuel tanks.
"Mr Nixon deliberately flouted health and safety laws and paid scant regard to the safety of his employees. I agree with what the District Judge said in court about it being a lamentable situation and it was very fortunate that there were no injuries before we carried out our investigation. Legal proceedings highlighted that there was a complete flagrant lack of attention and as we heard in court, a gross dereliction of duty by the management of this company.
"Companies and their managing directors have a legal responsibility to protect their employees. No one should be expected to work in the conditions found at Transtore and it is quite right that an employee contacted HSE to complain. Failure to properly manage health and safety can have catastrophic results."
Transtore (UK) Ltd was found guilty of breaching:
- Regulation 6(1) of the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002;
- Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005;
- Regulation 8(1)(c) of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998;
- Regulation 21(1) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992;
- Regulation 13(2) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999;
It was also found guilty of contravening on three occasions prohibition notices that had been issued under section 22 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
Article courtesy of HSE
Thursday, April 1
Duty to consider the fire safety capabilities of workers
by
AnchorHandS
on Thu 01 Apr 2010 08:04 BST
From 6 April 2010, new regulations will clarify your responsibilities to consider the capabilities of your workers to carry out any fire safety-related tasks or assignments.
You will have to think about:
- what a worker is able and unable to do when giving them tasks
- how these capabilities may affect their ability to deal with fire-related risks
For example, you will have to consider a worker's capabilities as regards fire safety if you ask them to work with petrol.
These regulations should not impose any extra burden on your business. They simply re-impose a duty that:
- you had before the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 came into force in October 2006
- is implicit in your wider health and safety duties
You are reminded that you have - and will continue to have - a general duty to:
- carry out a fire safety risk assessment to identify the general fire precautions you need to put in place
- regularly review the assessment and make any necessary changes
- pay particular attention to young people when carrying out or reviewing a risk assessment
For further information or assistance with carrying out assessments contact Anchor Health & Safety on info@anchorhands.co.uk
Friday, March 5
Hotel company convicted of fire safety offences
by
AnchorHandS
on Fri 05 Mar 2010 13:38 GMT
A company that owned a London hotel has been ordered to pay more than £21,000 in fines and costs after pleading guilty to six offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
Malfax Investments Limited, which owned the Averard Hotel on Lancaster Gate in Bayswater, was sentenced this week at Westminster Magistrates Court.
The hotel was inspected by fire safety officers in April 2009, when they found a number of failings including inadequate fire detection and alarm system, problems with the external means of escape and inadequate and defective fire doors. As a result of these deficiencies, the officers issued an enforcement notice detailing the issues and when they needed to be resolved.
The company disclosed a fire risk assessment that was prepared in January 2008. Although it detailed a number of failings and advised steps they needed to take to address them, said London Fire Brigade, the company failed to act on the findings and implement any of the actions required.
The hotel closed shortly after the enforcement noticed was issued.
“The general public should feel safe from fire when they are staying at a hotel and the responsible person must make sure their premises comply with the regulations,” said London Fire Brigade’s assistant commissioner for fire safety regulation, Steve Turek.“All premises owners and operators must undertake a fire safety risk assessment. Although this was completed in this case, it is no use if the responsible person does not act on its findings.”
Tuesday, February 16
Pub company fined for multiple fire-safety breaches
by
AnchorHandS
on Tue 16 Feb 2010 12:09 GMT
A pub management company has been convicted of breaching fire safety law by North Wiltshire magistrates.
Sitting on 9 February, the magistrates fined Publicana Ltd £5000 for each of four offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. In light of the company’s early guilty plea, however, the total fine was reduced to £15,000. Publicana was also ordered to pay the prosecution’s costs.
The offences came to light after Wiltshire Fire & Rescue Service attended an incident at the Little George pub in New Road, Chippenham on 5 October 2008.
An investigation by officers from the Service’s technical fire safety department discovered that fire doors and fire exits had been screwed shut, or left propped open, escape routes were obstructed, and fire-protection systems had not been maintained. Consequently, Publicana Ltd – as the tenant at that time – was charged with failing to carry out or record a fire risk assessment, and failure to have effective protection policies and prevention measures in place.
It was also charged with failing to provide suitable and sufficient information for the licensee it had contracted to run the pub on its behalf. Separate charges are being pursued against this individual in connection with the case.
Group manager of Wiltshire Fire & Rescue Service’s technical fire safety department, Julian Parsons, said: “It is rare for a fire and rescue service to undertake prosecutions but, on this occasion, the offences were so severe we felt it was in the public interest to pursue charges.
“What this case has shown very clearly is that management companies always have a duty to ensure that public safety is not compromised, even if they have sub-contracted someone to act as licensee.”
He added: “Since these offences came to light, the Little George pub has changed management, and subsequent inspections have shown that the issues highlighted by this case have been addressed. In addition, Publicana Ltd, which was cooperative throughout the investigation, has introduced stringent new management procedures to ensure that something like this does not happen again in premises it is responsible for.”
article courtesy of SHP
Tuesday, December 1
Record £400,000 fine for retailer's fire safety breaches
by
AnchorHandS
on Tue 01 Dec 2009 14:19 GMT
A high street retailer has been fined £400,000 and ordered to pay £136,052 in costs after pleading guilty to two breaches of fire safety legislation, following a serious fire at its Oxford Street store in London
Thirty-five fire engines and around 150 firefighters attended the fire on 26 April 2007, when around 450 people form the store and surrounding premises were evacuated. The first call to the fire service did not come until an office worker in an adjacent building took action, and the delay meant that the fire had already broken through the second floor windows when firefighters arrived. Despite the building's fire alarm sounding, the alarm was reset on at least one occasion, said London Fire Brigade.
Crews remained on the scene for the next three days and a section of Oxford Street was closed to traffic and the public for two days. The cause of the fire was never established and the store was subsequently demolished.
One charge to which the retailer pleaded guilty was for an inadequate fire risk assessment which was found to have a number of flaws, including no record of the appropriate procedures to be taken during a fire alarm. Another breach was insufficient staff training, which led to a delayed evacuation of the premises. This lack of training, said LFB, also led to staff evacuating around 150 people through the main entrance which was directly underneath the fire on the second floor.
Other alleged breaches taken into account included the absence of an interface between the swipe card system and the fire alarm panel which would have deactivated the doors. In addition, green emergency door release units were fitted on the wrong side of the basement doors.
The fine is the largest to have been handed down for a breach to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
Chairman of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, Councillor Brian Coleman, said: “Good business management includes taking responsibility for fire safety, knowing the law and acting on it. This conviction shows that large companies are not exempt from prosecution and that London Fire Brigade will take action when businesses do not take their fire safety responsibilities seriously. Failure to comply with the law can, as this case has shown, result in a substantial fine.”
Monday, November 30
ACCIDENT PREVENTION AND CONTROL
by
AnchorHandS
on Mon 30 Nov 2009 16:43 GMT
ACCIDENT PREVENTION AND CONTROL
Recent HSE figures showed that 3,961 accidents involving major injuries, of which 133 were fatal ... more »
Thursday, November 26
Take the Pledge
by
AnchorHandS
on Thu 26 Nov 2009 10:13 GMT
The HSE have issued their new strategy for improving Health & Safety and are asking interested parties to "Sign up to the Pledge" A statement from HSE chair Judith Hackitt CBE is included below as well as an attached file giving the full details of the strategy. We at Anchor Health & Safety are only too pleased to sign up and support this initiative.
"The new HSE strategy has been finalised following a three-month consultation programme, with events held across the country.
During the consultation, we spoke to many interested parties and individuals,including: business leaders; industry representatives; trades unions; parliamentarians; employees; and others in the health and safety system. We wanted to hear ideas on how we could all become ‘part of the solution’.
The overall feedback we received was very supportive. We listened to suggestions made during the consultation and made sensible and useful changes to our original draft, to produce the version launched today.
We believe this strategy represents a clear statement of core principles and a sensible approach to health and safety in Great Britain.
Whilst the economic climate is difficult and the temptation for some may be to cut corners, HSE, its partners and businesses must resolve to continue to strive to improve health and safety performance.
Good health and safety is good business."
Judith Hackitt CBE \\ HSE Chair
 1 Attachments
Thursday, November 19
Cost Savings of Health and Safety
by
AnchorHandS
on Thu 19 Nov 2009 14:27 GMT
It pays to know the facts
Each year employee accidents and ill-health cost British employers an estimated £3.9 billion to £7.8 billion, of which £910 million to £3,710 million comes from accidental damage to property and equipment.
It's often assumed that insurance will cover any financial losses. But policies generally fall short when it comes to costs involved in the general day to day running of a business. The shortfall can be startling:
- Uninsured losses are ten times the cost of insurance premiums paid. (Source: HSE)
- Uninsured losses from accidents in smaller firms add up to £315 per employee, per year. (Source: Norwich Union Risk Services)
Other cost implications that are often overlooked include:
- Dealing with the incident - Immediate action means downtime for the injured person and anyone assisting. Time spent administering first aid treatment, a hospital referral or home rest, all result in downtime. Making the area safe and making machinery serviceable are more costs for which the business is accountable.
- Investigation of the incident - Time spent reporting the incident, holding meetings to discuss it and investigating it internally are the first step. Then time spent with an HSE, or Local Authority inspector and external consultants' fees to assist with the investigation can rapidly accumulate into hidden costs.
- Getting back to business - Rescheduling work, recovering production, repairing damage and cleaning the site are inconveniences which slow production and reduce efficiency. Hiring replacement tools, people and equipment might also be required.
- Business costs - Absentee costs are deceptive. Besides the salary of the injured worker, a combination of replacement staff salaries, lost time, reduced productivity and quality add to escalating costs. Training new or temporary staff, overtime and contract.
- Increased insurance costs - higher premiums following an incident, cost associated with conditions being applied in order to gain cover.
It pays to fulfill your legal obligations with regard to Health & Safety, this way you reduce the chances of having a claim refused and all the additional costs listed above, which will probably include the cost of fulfilling those obligations again. So why pay twice?
For assistance contuct us at www.anchorhands.co.uk
Monday, November 9
Guide to Safe Equipment at Work
by
Clive Ankers
on Mon 09 Nov 2009 13:49 GMT
Guide to Safe Equipment at Work
Accidents happen in every walk of life and often, are down to lack of concentration or simple carelessness but accidents in the workplace can happen because equipment is not safe to use or a risk assessment hasn’t taken place.
Clearly, a worker should not use equipment if he or she thinks it isn’t safe but employers are bound by a duty of care which means they are ultimately responsible for making sure that both staff and visitors are not put at risk.
So employers must ensure that all equipment and machinery is safe for use. This means that it should be inspected regularly in case it has been damaged or misused.
Ensuring Safety in Your Business Most obviously, you need to keep the workplace clean and safe for all and ensure that people are protected from falling from heights or being exposed to hazardous substances.
You should also check that all roads, walkways, floors and stairs are safe to use and not blocked by large pieces of equipment or piled up stock.
Although serious accidents can occur with large or specialised machinery, many injuries happen every year when employees are using basic every day equipment such as stepladders, hand saws or mechanical screwdrivers.
Inspections So it’s extremely important to make sure that all equipment is inspected regularly. In most cases, a daily pre-check should be carried out. You can emphasise the importance to your workers through regular toolbox talks.
Show them some examples of accidents which have happened through every day equipment and make sure they know the importance of checking all equipment before they use it.
For example, before using a ladder they should check it visually for any broken or cracked rungs and ensure that the feet are solid.
They need to check that any locking devices on stepladders are working properly and should use any recommended safety equipment at heights, such as a harness.
Other equipment such as machinery should be visually checked and employees must know who is responsible for checking that any safety guards or switches are in good working order and that any moving parts, waste collectors and other gadgets have been oiled regularly.
If machinery has an exhaust system, this needs to be inspected on a regular basis.
Safety Aids
Research by the Health and Safety Executive has shown that experience is no substitute for safety guards or equipment.
It takes only a split second of concentration loss to lose a finger in cutting equipment but often, experienced workers have disabled safety features to make a machine easier to use.
It is easy to become complacent about small equipment such as wood saws or mechanical screwdrivers but they are capable of causing serious injury if not well maintained or used correctly.
Employers should make a list of all equipment in use and decide how and when it should be checked and who will note that an inspection has been undertaken. In the event of an accident, this will at least show that dangers have been taken seriously and that procedures are in place to keep employees safe.
Protective Equipment
Lots of every day equipment has the potential to cause injury unless workers have been given personal protective equipment (PPE) to reduce the chances of harm.
PPE equipment can vary from something as simple as clothing which provides protection against the weather to safety helmets, gloves, eye protection, safety footwear, noise reduction headphones or safety harnesses.
If PPE is needed for a job, it must be provided by the employer and they cannot charge employees for it.
It is important that employers provide the required PPE and ensure that it is fit for purpose. Check gloves for holes or damage, ensure that headphones are not broken and follow guidelines for checking harnesses.
Employees also have a responsibility towards their own safety and can refuse to undertake any job which they consider unsafe.
As an employee you can reduce the risk of accidents by reporting any faulty equipment or machinery as soon as possible. Make sure equipment that you are using is in good condition and well looked after. It should always be cleaned well and correctly stored after use.
Sunday, November 8
Workplace fire safety
by
Clive Ankers
on Sun 08 Nov 2009 15:09 GMT
Communities and Local Government (CLG) has policy responsibility for general fire safety in all non-domestic premises (including the common parts of blocks of flats and houses in multiple occupation) in England. The Scottish Government and Welsh Assembly Government have similar responsibilities in Scotland and Wales.
General fire safety in England and Wales is delivered through compliance with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (‘the Order’). In Scotland, fire safety duties are contained in Part 3 of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005, as amended, and the Fire Safety (Scotland) Regulations 2006.
The legislation implements a risk based approach to fire safety in community, industrial and business premises. It requires the responsible person (usually the employer, owner or occupier) to carry out a fire safety risk assessment and implement appropriate fire precautionary and protection measures, and to maintain a fire management plan.
Fire and Rescue Authorities are the principal enforcers and have a statutory duty to enforce the requirements of the legislation.
Further information on the purpose and application of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 in England and Wales is available on the CLG and Welsh Assembly Government websites, along with detailed guidance on how to ensure compliance in a range of businesses premises:
For help in carrying out a Fire Risk Assessment or for further advice, please contact Anchor Health & Safety at info@anchorhands.co.uk
Wednesday, November 4
Firework Safety
by
Clive Ankers
on Wed 04 Nov 2009 12:38 GMT
Firework displays should be enjoyable and spectacular occasions – but they obviously need some responsible planning. The good news is that there is straightforward guidance to help you.
If you are organising a major public event, you will clearly need a robust and detailed approach to planning as well as professional involvement. If you are holding a local firework display, such as those organised by many sports clubs, schools or parish councils, you still need to plan responsibly, but the same level of detail is not necessary or expected. Below are some tips and guidance to help you.
Before the event:
- Think about who will operate the display. There is no reason why you should not light a display yourselves provided it only contains fireworks in categories 1, 2 and 3. but remember, catergory 4 fireworks may only be used by professional firework display operators. In untrained hands they can be lethal.
- Consider whether the site is suitable and large enough for your display, including a bonfire if you are having one. Is there space for the fireworks to land well away from spectators? Remember to check in daylight for overhead power lines and other obstructions. What is the direction of the prevailing wind? What would happen if it changed?
- Think about what you would do if things go wrong. Make sure there is someone who will be responsible for calling the emergency services
- Make sure you obtain the fireworks from a reputable supplier.
- If the display is to be provided by a professional firework display operator make sure that you are clear on who does what especially in the event of an emergency
- Ensure you have a suitable place to store the fireworks. Your firework supplier or local authority should be able to advise
- If you plan on selling alcohol the bar should be well away from the display site
On the day of the event:
- Recheck the site, weather conditions and wind direction
- Don't let anyone into the zone where the fireworks will fall – or let anyone other than the display operator or firing team into the firing zone or the safety zone around it
- Discourage spectators from bringing drink onto the site
- Don't let spectators bring their own fireworks onto the site
- If you will also have a bonfire at the display then you should:
- Check the structure is sound and does not have small children or animals inside it before lighting it
- Not use petrol or paraffin to light the fire
- Have only one person responsible for lighting the fire. That person, and any helpers, should wear suitable clothing eg a substantial outer garment made of wool or other low-flammable material.
- Make sure that the person lighting the fire and any helpers know what to do in the event of a burn injury or clothing catching fire
- Never attempt to relight fireworks. Keep well clear of fireworks that have failed to go off
The morning after:
- Carefully check and clear the site. Dispose of fireworks safely. They should never be burnt in a confined space (eg a boiler)
Additional points to consider if you are organising a major public display
For major displays, particularly those involving category 4 ‘professional’ fireworks or very large number of spectators, a more robust approach is obviously needed.
- Plan and mark out the areas for spectators, firing fireworks (and a safety zone around it) as well as an area where the fireworks will fall
- Think about how people will get into and out of the site. Keep pedestrian and vehicle routes apart if possible. Mark exit routes clearly and ensure they are well lit. Ensure emergency vehicles can get access to the site
- Appoint enough stewards/marshals. Make sure they understand what they are to do on the night and what they should do in the event of an emergency
- Contact the emergency services and local authority. If your site is near an airport you may need to contact them
- Signpost the first aid facilities
Insurance
Although it is not required by health and safety law, if you are holding a public firework display, it’s a good idea to have public liability insurance. Bear in mind that not all companies are used to dealing with this type of event, and as with any other type of insurance, it’s worth shopping around: look for a company that’s used to insuring firework and other public events – you are likely to get much better deal and avoid unsuitable terms and conditions. If you have difficulty with the standard insurance terms, TALK to your insurer and find a way forward; they can be very helpful.
|
|
