HSE's approach to tackling occupational disease and ill-health from hazardous substances: Enforcement, Education and Partnership - Health and ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Health
Healthand
andSafety
Safety
Executive
Executive
HSE’s approach to tackling
occupational disease and ill-health
from hazardous substances:
Enforcement, Education and
Partnership
Health
Healthand
andSafety
Safety
Executive
Executive
Part 1
Marian Molloy CMFOH
Specialist Occupational Hygienist
HSE
A goal-based regulator
The regulator’s role goes beyond policing
compliance with prescriptive regulations and
imposing sanctions.
The role also includes an enabling function by:
• Sharing lessons learnt from incident
investigations;
• Providing sound advice;
• Sharing new knowledge;
• Publishing guidance on good practice;
• Consultation;
Work related deaths current size and scale of problem
Work-related ill health - the numbers
and context
• 1.2 million working people suffering a work
related illness and ½ million new cases each
year
• 23.5 million working days lost
• 13,000 deaths from occupational lung disease
and cancer (estimated)
• Wide spread of diseases and industries
• Costs to Britain - £ double figure billions
*2013/14 statistics
HSE’s ambition
To reduce the incidence of occupational
disease through:
• Prevention and control
• Sustained HSE activity
• Focus on improving compliance with the law by
supporting evidence-based targeted
interventions in high risk areas
An evidence based approach
Tackling the right issues in the right way
• Establish the evidence base
• Carry out research
• Identify key industry sectors
• Analyse structure, characteristics, ill health data,
evidence of what has worked/failed in each sector
• Identify the most effective interventions
• Implement and review
Current HSE priorities
Workplace ill health
Occupational disease Ill health
• Asbestos • Musculoskeletal
• Silica • Stress
• Occupational cancers • Noise & vibration
• Respiratory diseases
Strategy to tackle occupational
disease – not new!
Strategy for workplace health ‘Be part of the solution’
and safety to 2010 and beyond Health strategic goal - 2009
Strategic Research Programme (SRP) -
ongoing
Cancer Burden Research Partnership work – ongoing
Disease Reduction Programme 2005-
2008 Sector strategies and
6% reduction incidence ill health by 2008 intervention plans - ongoing
(stress/MSDs/chemical-induced disease)
2005 2010 2015
Example of working with others on silica Establishing and growing partnership teams
Influencing change in motor vehicle
repair
Safety and Health Awareness Days (SHADs)
Events to emphasise key messages:
• Hazards of isocyanates
• Concept of clearance times
• Proper use/maintenance of controls
• Using Biological Monitoring to check controls
• Need for health surveillance
• What HSE expectsBodyshops attending SHADs have
lower average isocyanate exposures
© Crown Copyright 2014Health
Healthand
andSafety
Safety
Executive
Executive
Part 2
Paul Billinger
Principal Inspector
Engagement and Policy Directorate, HSECover
• Current approach to inspection of occupational
health topics
• What, why and how
• Support to inspectors
• Emerging findingsNew UK Strategy
• Occupational health is one of six key themes:
“Greater awareness of the harm, costs and
preventability of work-related ill health
should drive collective action to improve
health outcomes.”Working together
Current approach
• Priority to specific occupational health issues.
– During proactive inspections
• Selected because:
– Serious ill health effect(s)
• Particularly long latency issues
– Data
• HSE
• Labour Force Survey
• SWORD
– Experience of industryPriorities
• Respirable crystalline silica
– Stone working, brick, ceramics/potteries,
concrete products (16/17), foundries
• Foundry fume and other substances
• Wood dust
• Flour dust and other organic dusts
– Food, grain milling (16/17)
• Welding fume
– Fabricated metals
– Ship and boat building…Priorities
• Metalworking fluids (16/17)
– Fabricated metals
• Plastic fume (15/16)
• Various substances
– Surface engineering (15/16)
Also
• MSD in foodSupport to inspectors
• Inspectors Regulatory Training Programme
includes the regulation of occupational health
• Specialists and sector provide:
– Industry specific refresher presentations
– Joint visits
– Team meeting discussions
– Telephone discussions
– Health topic peer reviews (16/17)How
• Specific Operational guidance (work instructions)
for inspectors
– Health inspection format
– Industry guides
– Enforcement guidance
– Initial Enforcement Expectation tables
• Central planning and coordination
– Blocks of work (16/17)
– Workplan briefings
– Newsletter articlesOG: example EMM position
Risk Exposure to RCS can result in several ill health effects such as
silicosis, acute silicosis, COPD and lung cancer.
Immediacy of risk Failure to adopt appropriate control measures can result in
exposures to RCS with the possible risk of a serious health
effect
Benchmark The benchmark set is a nil or negligible risk of a serious health
standards effect. This benchmark can be achieved by applying the COSHH
principles of good control practice and using a variety of
engineering control measures, provision and use of suitable RPE,
plus the provision of suitable instruction, information, training and
health surveillance
Risk Gap Non-compliance with the benchmark standards will produce at
least a 'substantial risk gap' with standards established or
defined. This would result in an initial enforcement expectation of
an Improvement Notice.
Exposure The WEL of 0.1 mgm3 is the established standard.
benchmarkOG: example IEE table
Stone working health risks
Health risk is normally substantial and the associated standard is established
Substance is respirable crystalline silica (RCS)
Task Situation IEE Comment
Machining No or poor overall control. High IN To deal with underlying management issues. Action on immediate risk must also be
silica content stone, poor water considered.
suppression, lack of segregation
no or poor RPE
Powered rotary tools No or poor overall control. High IN To deal with underlying management issues. Action on immediate risk must also be
silica content stone, poor LEV or considered.
water suppression, no or poor
RPE
Powered percussive No or poor overall control. High IN To deal with underlying management issues. Action on immediate risk must also be
tools silica content stone, poor LEV, no considered.
or poor RPE
Hand work No or poor LEV and/or RPE NoC or IN
Cleaning Dry sweeping NoC or IN Expect vacuum equipment which should be at least M (medium hazard) classification
Housekeeping Accumulation of dust NoC or IN To deal with underlying management issues.
LEV maintenance Poor LEV maintenance IN To deal with underlying management issues.
LEV examination Lack of current thorough IN Lack of a TExT may be indicative of a poor standard of LEV maintenance.
examination and test (TExT) for
the LEV A TExT will only evidence that the LEV was working efficiently and in good repair at the
time it was carried out. TExT will NOT give assurance that the LEV is suitable designed
and achieves an adequate level of control.
RPE maintenance Poorly manage RPE system IN To deal with underlying management issues.
Health surveillance Absent IN Discuss with SG Occupational Health
(where guidance would indicate it
is necessary)Emerging findings
Feedback from trade association:
“we can see much more attention being given
to welding fume during inspections”
“…and the inspectors are concentrating on
control, not just TExT”
If it is being noticed here, it will have been noticed
in other industriesInspection outcomes
• Good engagement on single issue health topics:
– Fabricated metals,
– Food (A&C) and food (MSD),
– Stone
– Wood
• Overall increasing material breach
– Indicator of effecting change
• Southern stone campaign had good impactAreas to consider further
• Lower engagement on:
– Multi-issue health topics (molten metal, surface
engineering)
– Plastic fume
• Continue to support action on health issues
• Continue to support action on control rather than risk
assessment or TExTEnforcement: top ten
Enforcement: COSHH
13
12
11
Health surveillance
10
9 TExT
8
7 Control
6 Risk assessment
5
Regulation
4
3
2Health
Healthand
andSafety
Safety
Executive
Executive
Part 3
John Healy
HSE Occupational Hygiene
Specialist GroupHealth
Healthand
andSafety
Safety
Executive
Executive
Enforcement Management
Model:
application to safety risksPurpose of enforcement
• Ensure duty holders take action to deal immediately with
serious risks.
• Promote and achieve sustained compliance.
• Ensure duty holders who breach H&S requirements will
be held to account.Assess risk of serious personal injury
Yes
No
Consider action using
HSW Act Section 22
and/or Section 25 Determine risk gap
Identify Initial Enforcement Expectation
Apply duty holder factors
Apply strategic factors
Enforcement conclusionWhat the EMM is seeking to describe first is the
difference between what the inspector sees on site and
what the remaining residual risk should be if the
standard were fully complied with by the duty holder.
The EMM calls this the “risk gap”.Actual risk – minor injury possible Benchmark – minor injury remote Therefore – nominal risk gap
Next step
• Decide how clear the legal standard actually is.
• Some standards are clearly defined under health and
safety law.
• Others require interpretation.Next step
• Defined – the standard is clear in law and needs little or
no interpretation.
• Established – the standard is not set in law but there
are commonly known and published standards that, if
met, demonstrate compliance with the law.
• Interpretative – the standard is not set in law and there
are no commonly known or published standards. The
law must be interpreted from first principles and applied
to the particular circumstances and the risk involved.Guarding for drills is an established standard – leads to verbal warning and therefore not a material breach – assuming duty holder factors agree
• If drill is larger – or there
is some other factor
which suggests that the
actual risk here is greater
than previously
described – the following
could apply.Actual risk – significant injury possible Benchmark – significant injury remote Therefore – moderate risk gap
Guarding for drills is an established standard – leads to letter and possibly a material breach – now apply duty holder factors
Improvement Notice
Relevant incident history? Yes
No
Previous relevant enforcement? Yes
No
Economic advantage deliberately sought? Yes
No
Level of actual harm Serious
Not serious
Good Inspection history Poor
Standard of general conditions Reasonable Standard of gen. conditions
Standard of general conditions
Good Poor
Reasonable or poor Reasonable Reasonable or good
Letter Improvement Notice and ProsecutionDoes the action coincide with the public interest?
No
Yes
Are vulnerable groups protected? No
Yes or not relevant
Will the action result in sustained compliance? No
Yes
What is the effect on other dutyholders? Negative
Positive or not relevant
Will action result in the benchmark being achieved? No
Yes
Is the functional impact of the action acceptable? No
Yes
Have the principles of the EPS been met? No
Yes
Action confirmed Review of actionAssess risk of serious personal injury
Yes
No
Consider action using
HSW Act Section 22
and/or Section 25 Determine risk gap
Identify Initial Enforcement Expectation
Apply duty holder factors
Apply strategic factors
Enforcement conclusionHealth
Healthand
andSafety
Safety
Executive
Executive
Part 4
Priti Shah
HSE Occupational Hygiene
Specialist GroupHealth
Healthand
andSafety
Safety
Executive
Executive
Enforcement
Management Model:
application to health
risksEMM: Health
• EMM: Application to Health Risks
– Occupational Health Descriptors and
consequences
• EMM: Application to Hazardous Substances
– Descriptors for likelihoodEMM as applied to Health Risks Occupational Health Descriptors of: • Serious risk • Significant risk • Minor risk
Serious health risk
Any disease or condition causing or likely to cause:
• death
• a permanent, progressive or irreversible
condition
• permanently disabling, i.e.
– i) lifelong restriction of work capability or,
– ii) major reduction in quality of lifeSignificant Health Risk
• A non-permanent, reversible, non-progressive
condition
• Temporary disability e.g. restriction of work
capability or quality of life lasting more than
seven days.Minor Health Risks
Any other disease or condition causing or likely to
cause:
• Transient, temporary symptoms lasting seven days
or less.
• Temporary symptoms like irritation, nausea,
headacheEMM as applied to Hazardous
Substances - Appendix 1
• Is exposure is likely to be
probable/possible/remote/negligible
• Judgement of the likelihood of these exposuresExcerpt from Appendix 1
Risk Gap Table – single casualties
General theme of the powerpoints • Process description and hazard/risk • Prevention considered? • Controls expected at process/machine • Maintenance of controls, LEV • PPE/RPE and maintenance • Housekeeping/cleanliness • Information/instruction/training • Ancillary processes • Health surveillance
Topics covered • Foundries • RCS in stonemasons • RCS in Brickworks • Welding • Flour dust in SME bakeries • Woodworking • Surface Coating(electroplating) • Plastic processing fume
Demonstration of powerpoint clips
You can also read
