Rank: New forum user 
|
I have a client who has a factory that produces low levels of dust (proved by customers own sampling). The HSE have investigated and issued a bill for their dust sampling running into 5 figures. They are now also threatening prosecution. The company has had independant advice from a specialist and is undertaking to comply with all the HSE requests, even though the dust level is below EH40 guidelines (about 25% of WEL).
- After the first visit, they immediately suspended production.
- They have been fully cooperative at all stages.
- They only have a workforce of 4 people.
The whole situation seems like a way of making money for the HSE. Does anyone have any experience of taking on the HSE or can recomend a good firm of solicitors that specialise in this area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
And before the HSE visit what was the company doing to ensure dust was controlled to levels as low as reasonably practicable?
The comment HSE conducted testing indicates little was known or controlled - if you wanted to control costs evidence of monitoring should have negated further HSE activity. Customer testing is NOT the same as an employer exercising control.
If your post had started with "for the last x years my client had annual external testing of dusts in the workplace then the HSE turned up" you may have had more sympathy - unfortunately your post reads the client got caught by the regulator risking their employees health and now has a bigger bill than the money they avoided paying to do their legal duty.
|
 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
And before the HSE visit what was the company doing to ensure dust was controlled to levels as low as reasonably practicable?
The comment HSE conducted testing indicates little was known or controlled - if you wanted to control costs evidence of monitoring should have negated further HSE activity. Customer testing is NOT the same as an employer exercising control.
If your post had started with "for the last x years my client had annual external testing of dusts in the workplace then the HSE turned up" you may have had more sympathy - unfortunately your post reads the client got caught by the regulator risking their employees health and now has a bigger bill than the money they avoided paying to do their legal duty.
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I agree with roundtuit,
The HSE never act without reasonable cause to (in my opinion) and I would be keen to examine the requirements set out by them.
I feel that generally speaking, the HSE prosecute either where persons have been harmed or where companies ignore any improvement notices/advice given by the HSE.
There are further reasons but these are the most common.
May I ask what the substance/material is which the dust is a byproduct of?
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
The product is wood dust created from shredding wood. The customer has taken all reasonable precautions in that they wet the wood dust, therefore reducing the dust at source. No employees have ever been harmed, nor have any complained. The company was given a notice, but as described immediately suspended production, called in an expert and made physical alterations. The history to the visit is due to a high profile similar case with a completely different company who did cause harm in the same industry, but used completely different 'dry' processing methods, prompting a flurry of HSE investigations across that sector of the industry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: nsingle111  The product is wood dust created from shredding wood. The customer has taken all reasonable precautions in that they wet the wood dust, therefore reducing the dust at source. No employees have ever been harmed, nor have any complained. The company was given a notice, but as described immediately suspended production, called in an expert and made physical alterations. The history to the visit is due to a high profile similar case with a completely different company who did cause harm in the same industry, but used completely different 'dry' processing methods, prompting a flurry of HSE investigations across that sector of the industry.
While I understand your postion, the HSE are not necessarily looking for the harm caused, they are looking at the potential for harm. Indeed I have known a company to be fined 5 figures for lack of face fit testing to one operative. The controls put in place after the event do not change the operation of the company for years, the fact the company has made physical alterations after the event shows that they should have controlled the risk sooner. Had they done nothing before the HSE visit towards this risk? In terms of challenging, if the HSE decide to prosecute, then they can be challenged in court.
|
2 users thanked fhunter for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Substances listed in EH40 fall under ALARP for control - see CoSHH. EH40 levels are therefore not "target" levels. All should be done to reduce exposure. To quote that a reduction to X% of the WEL has been achieved, but to then implement additional exposure controls, is therefore, by definition, an admission that ALARP has not been achieved with respect to exposure.
To paraphrase crudely..."we thought we were doing enough, but the HSE turned up and found we could do some more stuff to reduce exposure....". Not complied with CoSHH = FFI + Notice + Prosecution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Bit more time and detail. To follow the route;
HSE list wood dust as asthmagen.
CoSHH Reg 7(7)(c)(i) - Sch 1 lists hardwood
CoSHH Reg 7(7)(c)(ii) - lists sensitisers and carcinogens of which wood dust is classified.
Therefore ALARP applies
So EH40 para's 41,51(f),55
Hope this helps.
|
1 user thanked James Robinson for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
|
2 users thanked Ron Hunter for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Just a couple of quick notes: Control of carcinogens (wood dusts) is not ALARP, exposure must be eliminated, or where not technically feasible to use in a closed system: the employer shall ensure that the level of exposure of workers is reduced to"as low a level as is technically possible." EH40 is possibly out of date with the limit level of 5mg/m³, it may already be 3mg according to latest ammendment to Annex III (Directive 2004/37/EC), though do also note: Current proposals for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2004/37/EC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens or mutagens at work state: As the majority of EU Member States have a limit value set at 2 mg/m3, this should be the common limit value for the European Union until the stricter best practice limit value of 1 mg/m3 (France) can be achieved. An even stricter limit value of 0.5 mg/m3 should be evaluated in the future revision of the Directive.
Also as stated, depending who / what and how many measurements you have taken the HSE could easily decide your exposure monitoring results thus far were not sufficient.
Des
|
1 user thanked descarte8 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
A reminder, as if you need it, the HSE have declared that they will prioritise occupational stress and mental health issues, musculoskeletal disorders and Occupational Lung disease this year as part of their Health and Work Strategy. No surprise, therefore that they are having a good look at dust producing organisations, no matter how large or small they may be.
Graham
|
1 user thanked gt for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.