Know what you mean BJC - may seem a bit harsh & years ago it would have been a chat, put it right & away you go. Hearts & minds & all that, Earlier this year one of my clients subcontractors received a prohibition notice & subsequently an FFI for one handrail, on a scaffolding job the size of a football pitch, being 10cm too low. Given the chance to correct it? No. I'm afraid nowadays its a case of 'points make prizes'.

Appeal process is designed to fail & even more costly as there can be an additional FFI charge for the time spent.

How so Victor and welcome back - I thought you had retired and gone to play golf 7 days a week.

I'm afraid the weather has defeated me to day Rich777....... so time for a rant. Although I have to agree with some postings that say get it right first time is the answer..... the HSE FFI programme I don't fully agree with however. Anyway time for me to assume the role of Gino D'acampo in the kitchen & cook an Italian delight for the missus.....strange things you take on in retirement 😉

Thank you to those that can read and have a modicum of manners.

Can anyone direct me to an ACOP that states that Grinders are required to have water suppression when suitable PPE is in place.

Perhaps also the relevant section of TG20 13 thats states all ladder access points are required to have gates in the past it was just loading bays or areas of high risk.

Link to guidance in relation to use of cut off saws when cutting stone and concrete (assuming thats what was being cut).

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/cis54.pdf

It advises that
As silica dust comes under coshh regulations there is a requirement to ensure the most effective method of dust control is used to minimise spread and dust escape and where this cannot be suitably achieved precautions should also include RPE.

Is guidance now a legal requirement as there is no chance of health issues with suitable PPE ? Adding water to the scenario adds another hazard in my book with electrical grinders.

Still waiting for TG20 13 extracts to somehow back up the Inspectors stance on WAH. Those gates are a serious nuisance half the time and thats why imho they should only be used for loading bays and high risk areas ?

There is a duty I believe under the COSHH regulations to undertake a suitable and sufficient risk assessment to ascertain what control measures should be in place.
If this was undertaken properly it would have highlighted that the RPE alone was insufficient and either water or LEV should be used in conjunction with the ppe ( remember ERICPD when controlling hazards ?). If LEV was impractical then that leaves water suppression. Hazardous with electricity. Then use petrol driven. All identified in a suitable RA.

quote=FireSafety101]Methinks if your client has the same attitude toward the HSE inspector that you appear to have it is no wonder the inspector took the line he/she did take although he/she could quite easily have issued a notice.

Accept what happened and learn from it and advise your client accordingly, I think we on here agree there are improvements to be made.

Really good risk assessments can counter FFI areas as I know but unfortunately they are few and far between as the HSE know so they appear to be free to do as they like with little consistency

Volunteers: One recent event I was involved in concerned volunteers* undertaking construction work where the HSE came on site and made comments but as soon as they found out that it was volunteers hat were doing everything they walked away - so that may be a solution e.g. only have volunteers on your jobs!!!!

(*the volunteers were independent individual volunteers and were not part of charities so did not fall under any of those areas and the HSE has no guidance/experience for such people)

NB: If the environment agency had dropped in because of the dust it would have been far more than the FFI costs so think yourself lucky as the same thing re the dust cost a company know >£300.00! for one very small and short event and was sited as being under The Clean Neighbourhood Act

Hi BJC

I totally get where you're coming from.
Have seen similar things in field of legionella following the recent rounds of CT inspections - quoting from HSG274 Part 1 as though it was a law and using it to determine a material breach e.g. not timing taking of dipslides when reserve biocide at lowest level (in a system with continual bromine dosing!). Client did informally challenge and we got one item dropped but they weren't willing to go the formal route for the matters that were still clung to.

However.
There remains a rather strong argument that, where there is specific guidance, that guidance is the starting point for compliance. If you're going to move away from it or do less than it recommends then that should be by some sort of positive risk based decision - giving you your evidence to argue with an inspector. You're right that non-compliance with the guidance is not, in itself, a material breach (not sure all the HSE understand that!) but it's not necessarily enough to say that in isolation when, in the opinion of an inspector on your site, they believe there is an uncontrolled risk and you can't readily demonstrate otherwise.

NB. /disclaimer
All of this said without knowing the exact nature of the conditions and risks on your site.

"Appropriate PPE" for cutting silica materials is another minefield.
I seen many cases where protection from dust has deemed to be just a mask (be it a fitted FFP3 one) with no attempt at dust suppresion or abstraction. This totally ignores the dust that is produced that contaminates clothes, skin and hair or is diributed around the work place to be stirred up later. Some people can't seem to be able to see that the hazard does not go away when the cutting / grinding operation stops if they haven't removed the dust, it's still there, people will be breathing it in as they sit down for their snack, as they move about the workplace and when they go home sitting in their vans etc.

BJC
Thanks for your comments but the area of volunteers is relevant as if it was a professional construction company undertaking the work in that undertaking then I am sure that the HSE would have moved forward with an FFI as they were coming across very strong on the day about the way work being done but as soon as I noted to them that it was independent non-controlled volunteers who had organised themselves, inclusive of paying for the paint etc. themselves doing the work for no pay etc. they just did not appear to have the tools to tackle the situation

As I have said they walked away from that area to another area on the overall site where the employer was controlling what was going on via a professional CDM company where they found nothing wrong

The use of volunteers who are not part of charities or otherwise organised and where no form of contracts for or of service exists is an interesting legal situation do we not think?