Repair to roof

1) Individuals working on roof in close

proximity to unprotected fragile

clear roof panel light, potential for

individuals to fall through clear

panel resulting in a serious or

major injury.

Stopped work activity until appropriate

controls have been put in place following

a suitable and sufficient risk assessment.

Carry out suitable and sufficient risk

assessment by competent individuals

and implement appropriate control

actions to minimise the risk to as low as

reasonably practicable.

Carry out training on awareness on

working at height to all employees who

are expected to work at heights.

Immediately

10 days

2 months

2) Area below overhead work activity

not cordoned off, potential for

objects to fall from height resulting

in serious injury.

Stop roof repair activity.

Cordon off area below.

Immediately

1 day

3) Although barriers have been

installed around roof edge to

prevent falls no edge protection

installed to prevent object falling

from height.

Stop roof repair activity.

Install edge protection/toe boards to

prevent objects falling from height.

Immediately

1 week

4) No signage to identify PPE

requirements while working in

area, this could result in individuals

entering the area without required

PPE.

Install appropriate PPE signage in entry

to work area.

1 week

5) Good access to roof by scaffolding,

access ladder secured.

Office block

6) Area in front of fire escape blocked

by waste skip placed there by

roofing contractor preventing

escape in an emergency. In an

emergency situation this could lead

to multiple injuries or fatalities.

Remove obstruction.

Carry out investigation to determine why

the contractor placed skip in front of

emergency escape.

Introduce weekly inspections on all

escape routes to ensure they are clear

and free from obstructions.

Implement finding of investigations.

Immediately

1 week

4 weeks

8 weeks

7) Fire assembly point located across

a busy road, potential for

individuals to be struck by a

moving vehicle leading to a serious

or major injury.

Carry out risk assessment on assembly

point location, is there a more suitable

location that does not require

pedestrians to cross road. If not can

other traffic control measures be put in

place such as reduced speed limits in

this area.

Install up to date pictorial signage.

2 weeks

2 weeks

8) Fire escape route not clearly

marked could cause

confusion/disorientation during an

emergency.

Introduce periodic emergency

evacuation drills so employees become

familiar with the access routes and what

to do in an emergency.

4 weeks

9) Fire extinguisher not mounted on

wall, this could result in unit falling

over and being accidentally

activated.

Purchase correct fixing brackets and fix

to wall.

4 weeks

10) Emergency break glass units and

emergency lighting in place by the

emergency exit. - GOOD PRACTICE

Workshop

11) Machine being operated with a

damaged guard that could lead to

objects being ejected from the

machine resulting in a serious or

major injury.

Stop work activity and isolate machine

until guarding is repaired or replaced.

Implement a scheduled safety tour

focusing on machine guarding.

Implement a pre-start check programme

on all machines.

Immediately

2 weeks

6 weeks

12) Coolant on workshop floor could

lead to a potential slip resulting in

a serious injury.

Clear up spill.

Carry out a risk assessment of machine

and suitability of floor covering to ensure

the risk of slips is reduced as far as

reasonably practicable.

Implement controls identified in the risk

assessment such as installation of splash

guards to prevent spill occurring or

installation of anti-slip mats around the

machine.

Immediately

2 weeks

6 weeks

13) Signage on machine not clearly

visible due to wear and tear as well

as smeared with oil and grease.

This could lead to incorrect

operation of the machine which

could result in an injury.

Stop use and clean machine.

Review machine maintenance

programme to see if it is still suitable

and sufficient considering the frequency

of use and age of the machine.

Implement a pre use check for the

machines. Obtain replacement signage.

Immediately

4 weeks

14) Operator was trained in the use of

machine. - GOOD PRACTICE

Workshop

15) Vehicles driving down centre of

workshop with no

vehicle/pedestrian segregation.

Potential for pedestrian to be

struck by a vehicle resulting in a

serious or major injury.

Restrict vehicle movements within the

workshop during normal working hours,

by scheduling vehicle operation during

lunch breaks or out of hours.

Carry out a vehicle/pedestrian risk

assessment and put in adequate control

to minimise the risk of

vehicle/pedestrian collisions to as low as

reasonably practicable.

Provide information, training and

instruction of new traffic management

system.

A control to consider is to purchase and

install barriers and have specific signed

and marked up crossing points.

Immediate

1 week

4 weeks

12 weeks

16) Although vehicles were travelling

at slow speed there was no visible

signage of maximum speed at the

entrance to the workshop.

Purchase and install speed limit signage

at entrances to workshop. Typical

speeds should be restricted to 5 mph,

should also consider the installation of

speed restriction devices to vehicles in

use in the workshop.

4 weeks

17) Vehicle parked next to machine

generating a blind spot.

Review parking requirements within the

workshop, if it is required mark out a

specific parking area for the vehicles.

4 weeks

18) Good use of safety/lap belts. -

GOOD PRACTICE

Workshop

19) High noise levels generated when

press in operation. Operator was

wearing ear defenders, however

other individuals in close proximity

did not have hearing protection,

which could result in noise induced

hearing loss.

Put in place temporary controls, for

example making the wearing of hearing

protection mandatory until a noise

survey determines otherwise.

Carry out noise survey to determine

individual daily exposure levels.

Carry out noise survey to determine

sources and levels of noise within the

workshop and develop an action plan to

reduce individual exposure levels.

Implement noise reduction plan.

1 day

4 weeks

6 weeks

12 months

20) A number of radios were in use

throughout the workshop

contributing to the overall noise

levels. This could cause

communication issues and prevent

individuals hearing approaching

vehicles.

Review and risk assess the use of the

radios within the workshop.

1 week

21) Space heater fan generating

excess noise.

Shut down space heater at earliest

opportunity and replace faulty

components.

1 week

22) Overall the workshop

housekeeping was in reasonable

condition. - GOOD PRACTICE

Introduction

This report covers the workplace inspection that took place on the 15th November 2012 at the premises of

Sample Engineering. Sample Engineering have 45 employees and manufacture electrical control panels

ranging from panel mounted units to walk in panels. The areas covered by the inspection were the roof

repairs, workshops, and office areas. The activities taking place during the inspection were roofing repairs,

general machine operation and vehicle movements within the workshop.

Executive Summary

During the inspection good health and safety practices were observed, such as the wearing of safety boots

and glasses. Individuals who were approached during the inspection were open and helpful, with regards to

health and safety matters.

The inspection has raised a number of concerns with respect to Working at Height, Contractor Management,

Emergency Preparations, Machinery guarding, Vehicle and Pedestrian interaction and Noise. These concerns

could lead to potential breaches in legislation resulting in possible prosecutions to both employees and the

company.

The concerns raised are:

Two contractors were observed working on a roof near clear fragile roof panels, there was no protection

to prevent these individuals falling through the panels to ground, potentially resulting in a major or fatal

injury. There was no evidence of a suitable or sufficient risk assessment.

The office fire escape was blocked by a waste skip placed there by the roofing repair contractor. The

blocked escape would have prevented the evacuation of fifteen individuals who were working in the office

building at the time.

A machine operator was operating a machine with a damaged guard that could have resulted in objects

being ejected from the machine, potentially resulting in a serious or major injury.

There appears to be little control over vehicle/pedestrian interaction in the main workshop. On a number

of occasions pedestrians crossed the path of a fork lift truck in the main workshop.

A machine in the workshop was found to be generating high level of noise when operated. Although the

machinist was wearing ear protection, other individuals working in close proximity were not wearing

hearing protection.

Main findings of the inspection

Observation No 1 - Refer to observation sheet

Two contractors were observed working on a roof near clear fragile roof panels, access to the roof via

scaffolding was good and there was adequate edge protection.

However there was no protection to prevent these individuals falling through these panels and no safety

netting to prevent the individuals falling to the ground. Also the area below the roof activity had not been

cordoned off. Due to the distance of the potential fall, the fall would likely to have resulted in a major or

even fatal injury not only to the person that could fall through the clear panel, but also anyone who might be

directly below at the time. There was no evidence of a suitable and sufficient risk assessment. The work

activity was immediately stopped due to the serious and imminent danger to the individuals involved.

The implication to the company and the contractor could be significant as both have obligations under the

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 section 2 and 3. If a fall had occurred or an enforcement officer came

to inspect the activity, potential breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, Management of Health

and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and Work at Height Regulations 2005 would be found. The

Management Regulations require clients and contractor to coordinate work, and the Work at Height

regulations require work at height to be planned and managed safely.

It is recommended that a suitable and sufficient risk assessment is carried out by competent individuals to

see if working at height could be avoided. If not, put in place suitable controls to first prevent a fall and f

this is not possible then reduce the distance and consequence of the fall by installing safety netting or

equivalent type safety devices or fall arrest equipment together with the appropriate rescue plan for the type

of fall protection selected.

Observation No 6 - Refer to observation sheet

The office fire escape was blocked by a waste skip placed there by the roofing repair contractor. The blocked

escape would have prevented the evacuation of fifteen individuals who were working in the office building at

the time, and could have resulted in multiple injuries of a serious or fatal nature. The skip blocking the

emergency exit breaches the requirements of the Regulation 8 of the Management of Health and Safety at

Work regulations which require employers to have emergency procedures in place for individuals to follow in

the event of an emergency.

Immediate corrective action was taken by removing the obstruction. A formal investigation should now be

conducted to determine the failure mechanisms in the contractor management system that resulted in the

contractor placing the skip in front of the fire escape.

It is recommended that a routine inspection should now be scheduled to ensure emergency evacuation

routes are not obstructed and set up routine fire evacuation drills so employees are well informed and

trained in what to do in the event of an emergency.

Observation No 11 - Refer to observation sheet

While inspecting the workshop area one machine being operated was found to have a damaged guard that

reduced the protection against objects being ejected from the machine potentially resulting in a serious or

major injury. There are potential multiple breaches of legislation and prosecutions when using machinery

with faulty guards, the Health and Safety at Work Act section 2(2)(a) - Employers must provide safe plant,

section 2(2)c - Employers must provide information, instruction, training and supervision, Section 7 -

Employees must take reasonable care of themselves or others who may be affected by their acts or

omissions, Section 8 - No person may misuse or interfere with anything provided in the interest of Health,

Safety or Welfare. The provision and use of Work Related Equipment Regulations also require machinery to

be adequately guarded.

As this observation identified a situation that could lead to serious and imminent danger the machine was

immediately stopped and isolated. It is recommended that this machine must not be bought back into

operation until the defective guarding has been repaired or replaced. It is recommended that a pre start

inspection programme on all machines is implemented together with a scheduled safety tour focusing on

machinery to ensure they are in good condition..

A further recommendation would be to review the maintenance program of the machines in the workshop to

ensure they are fit for purpose based on machine usage, age and recommendation from manufacturer

instructions.

Observation 15 - Refer to observation sheet

There appears to be little control over vehicle/pedestrian interaction in the main workshop. On a number of

occasions pedestrians crossed the path of a fork truck in the main workshop. There was no vehicle

pedestrian segregation, or other traffic control measures in place. There was no evidence of a risk

assessment to identify the hazards, who might be harmed or suitable controls that need to be in place.

It is recommended that immediate controls are put in place to reduce the risk as far as reasonably

practicable, such as using the fork truck or other vehicles in the main workshop during out of hours activities

or during lunch breaks so removing pedestrians from the building while vehicles are in use and setting

appropriate maximum speed limits inside the workshop building i.e. 5 MPH.

It is recommended that a full vehicle pedestrian interaction risk assessment be conducted identifying the

hazard, who might be harmed, and identifying suitable and sufficient control measures to reduce the risk of

collision to as low as reasonably practicable, such as segregation procedures, speed restrictions on vehicles

information and training.

Failure to have a suitable and sufficient risk assessment is in breach of the Management of Health and Safety

Regulations and could potentially lead to enforcement notices being issued impacting on the business output,

reputation and employee morale. If enforcement notices are upheld the company could potentially receive

fines or individuals being imprisoned.

The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations also require safe interaction between vehicles and

pedestrians.

Observation 19 - Refer to observation sheet

One of the machines in the workshop was generating a high level of noise when being operated. Although

the machinist was wearing ear protection other individuals working in close proximity were not wearing

hearing protection. Following discussions with the supervisor no noise surveys had been carried out to

determine individuals daily exposure levels and if they were exceeding the lower exposure action value of

80db(A)Lep.d.

It is recommended as an immediate control measure to restrict the machines operation to when the majority

of the individuals are not present for example out of hours or during breaks.

If this is not possible ensure all employees in the workshop wear hearing protection when the machine is

operating.

It is recommended the company carry out an adequate noise survey to determine the exposure levels of its

employees, should the survey show the exposure level breaches the upper exposure limit of 85db(A)Lep.d

implement plans to reduce the noise exposure by relocating the machine. If the machine cannot be

relocated then consider installing an acoustic booth around the machine or screening the machine from other

individuals working in the workshop. Installing noise dampening materials on the walls and ceilings can also

reduce the noise impact.

The company is at risk of being in breach of the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 as it cannot

demonstrate they have carried out adequate assessment of noise within the workshop so they do not know

the noise levels they are exposing their employees to.

Conclusions

This report has identified several failings in the health and safety management system, and breaches of

legislation. Each of the breaches of legislation could lead to a fine of up to 20,000 or imprisonment of up to

12 months. More serious breaches that result in a major or fatal injury could lead to unlimited fines and up

to two year imprisonment.

In addition to these legal issues, the cost of accidents in these areas could have a serious financial impact on

the company. Lost production time, training costs, increased insurance premiums, management time and

many other costs could result. Spending the money required now will have much greater savings in the long

term.

Additionally, the company has a moral duty of care to look after employees. It is not acceptable to have

employees at work who are at risk of being injured, or even worse, not going home at all.

For these reasons, it is important that the deficiencies identified are addressed within the timescales given.

Recommendations

Recommendation Likely resource implications Priority Target date

Competent individuals to conduct a

suitable and sufficient Working at

Height Risk Assessment and

implement appropriate controls to

minimise the risk to as low as

reasonably practicable

Resources required will be Contractor

personnel and Company Contracts

Manager. Depending on the roof

repair specification and terms and

conditions of the contract the cost of

the assessment and the

implementation of control actions sit

with the contractor. Estimated costs

3000

High 22nd November

Recommendation Likely resource implications Priority Target date

Carry out a formal investigation into

the failure of the contractor

management system. Set up

routine inspection of the emergency

escape routes.

Set up an investigation team,

consisting of a competent investigator

and company contract manager.

Further internal resources will be

required to modify the contractor

management system based on the

finding of the investigation. Although

not a direct cost, these individuals will

not be able to carry out their normal

working duties during the

investigation and implementation of

corrective actions. Estimated costs

1500

Medium End December

2012

Carry out repair to machine guard.

Review maintenance requirements

and schedule.

An external cost will be incurred to

bring in a machine specialist to

repair/replace the guard. An internal

cost will be incurred carrying out a

review of the maintenance

requirements and scheduled and there

will be a cost associated with

production losses as the machine will

be out of use until the guard is fixed.

Estimated cost 4000 for the repair

High 22nd November

Carry out a suitable and sufficient

vehicle and pedestrian interaction

risk assessment and implement

appropriate controls.

A team of employees from across the

company assisted by an external

vehicle/pedestrian consultant. The

large cost will be the design and

installation of any segregation controls

such as barriers and markings.

Estimated costs 20000

High February 2013

Carry out Noise Survey to determine

individual exposure rates and

sources of noise.

A competent external specialist would

need to be employed. 1 to 2 hour

awareness training session need to be

set up for all employees. Further

engineering requirements to reduce

noise exposure levels over the coming

12 months.

High December

2012