Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Immediately
major injury.
10 days
2 months
Immediately
1 day
Immediately
1 week
from height.
4) No signage to identify PPE
requirements while working in
area, this could result in individuals
entering the area without required
PPE.
5) Good access to roof by scaffolding,
access ladder secured.
1 week
Office block
6) Area in front of fire escape blocked
Remove obstruction.
Immediately
1 week
escape in an emergency. In an
emergency escape.
4 weeks
8 weeks
2 weeks
individuals to be struck by a
or major injury.
2 weeks
4 weeks
confusion/disorientation during an
emergency.
to do in an emergency.
4 weeks
Workshop
11) Machine being operated with a
damaged guard that could lead to
Immediately
major injury.
2 weeks
6 weeks
on all machines.
12) Coolant on workshop floor could
Clear up spill.
Immediately
2 weeks
6 weeks
Immediately
4 weeks
Workshop
15) Vehicles driving down centre of
workshop with no
vehicle/pedestrian segregation.
Immediate
1 week
4 weeks
12 weeks
4 weeks
4 weeks
Workshop
19) High noise levels generated when
1 day
hearing loss.
4 weeks
6 weeks
12 months
1 week
1 week
Introduction
This report covers the workplace inspection that took place on the 15 th 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.
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
Priority
Target date
High
22nd November
reasonably practicable
Recommendation
Priority
Target date
Medium
End December
escape routes.
2012
and schedule.
High
22nd November
High
February 2013
High
December
appropriate controls.
sources of noise.
2012