Health and Safety Executive Board Paper No: HSE/10/15

Health and Safety Executive Board
Meeting Date:
Type of paper:
Paper No: HSE/10/15
27 January 2010
Below the line
FOI Status:
Exemptions:
Open
None
2010/5111
Trim reference:
Keywords:
REVISION OF THE QUARRIES REGULATIONS 1999 APPROVED CODE OF PRACTICE
Purpose of the paper
To seek agreement to:
(a) a limited revision of the Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) to the Quarries
Regulations 1999; and
(b) formal public consultation on the proposed changes.
Background
2. The Quarries Regulations 1999, ACOP is out of date and requires limited revision
which should improve health and safety at quarries. The proposed changes
necessitate formal consultation. The majority of changes update references to
legislation whilst the remaining four simplify and clarify guidance in the ACOP.
3. Quarry industry representatives, associated professional organisations, trades
unions and HSE have co-operated to develop the improved guidance. This
constitutes:
• incorporation of risk-based guidance on safe quarry face management
replacing a prescriptive approach;
• clarification of the requirement for a competent person to be on site when a
quarry is in operation;
• alignment of ACOP guidance with the current Work at Height Regulations
2005; and
• using risk assessments to determine the appropriate barriers to prevent
inadvertent entry to danger areas.
For more details, see the Consultation Document in Annex 1.
4. Industry feedback has confirmed the Regulations themselves remain fit-forpurpose and we do not propose to amend them.
Argument
5. The revision is strongly supported by industry and trades unions. It will:
• ensure that HSE’s guidance is correct, clear and consistent with quarry
industry guidance and other legislation;
• enhance health and safety regulation at quarries;
• reduce the administrative burden on industry; and
•
better meet the needs of industry and the regulator.
6. Doing nothing could adversely affect health and safety and threaten HSE’s
reputation.
1
Timing
7. The ACOP is freely available on-line. Printed copies are exhausted and will only
be produced on demand. Therefore, the timing of the revision is ideal.
8. The quarry sector will be affected by the forthcoming review of health and safety
explosives legislation. However, this will only involve updating legal references in
the ACOP. It seems sensible to do this in a future revision, rather than delay the
changes currently proposed.
Consultation
9. The revision of the ACOP necessitates formal public consultation in accordance
with the Government’s Code of Practice on consultation. The consultation
document is at Annex 1. There has already been lengthy engagement with
stakeholders on the revision.
Impact Assessment
10. Economic Advisers Unit is of the opinion that the costs of amending the ACOP
are small and almost unquantifiable. It is equally difficult to quantify the benefits.
A shortened impact assessment is felt appropriate and this is included in the
consultation document.
Presentation
13. There are no presentational issues.
Action
15. The Board is invited to approve the limited revision and formal public
consultation.
Paper clearance
16. This paper was cleared by the SMT on 6 January 2010.
2
Annex 1
Consultation on revision of The Quarry Regulations 1999
Approved Code of Practice
This consultative document is issued by the Health and Safety Executive in
compliance with its duty to consult under section 16(2) of the Health and Safety at
Work etc Act 1974.
Comments should be sent to:
Diane Savage
Health and Safety Executive
Mines, Quarries and Explosives Policy
5S.2 Redgrave Court
Merton Road
Bootle
Merseyside L20 7HS
Tel: 0151 951 4198 Fax: 0151 951 3098
E-mail: [email protected]
Internet responses to: http://www.hse.gov.uk/consult/condocs/cdXXX.htm
to reach there no later than XX XXXXXX 2010
We try to make consultation procedures as thorough and open as possible.
Responses to this consultation document will be lodged in the Health and Safety
Executive's Knowledge Centre, Redgrave Court, Merton Road, Bootle, Merseyside,
L20 7HS after the close of the consultation period where they can be inspected by
members of the public or be copied to them on payment of the appropriate fee to
cover costs.
Responses to this consultation document are invited on the basis that anyone
submitting them agrees to their being dealt with in this way. Responses, or part of
them, will be withheld from the Knowledge Centre only at the express request of the
person making them. In such cases, a note will be put in the index to the responses
identifying those who have commented and have asked that their views, or part of
them, be treated as confidential.
Many business e-mail systems now automatically append a paragraph stating the
message is confidential. If you are responding to this CD by e-mail and you are
content for your responses to be made publicly available, please make clear in the
body of your response that you do not wish any standard confidentiality statement to
apply.
1
Safety
CONSULTATIVE DOCUMENT
Revision to The Quarry Regulations 1999 Approved Code of Practice
Contents
Page
3.
About this document
3.
How to respond
4.
What happens next
4.
Code of Practice on Consultation
6.
Executive summary
7.
Proposed amendments and points for consultation
7.
Who will be affected by these proposals?
10.
Appendix 1 – Impact Assessment
14.
Appendix 2 - Response Form (to be inserted)
2
Consultation on revision of The Quarry Regulations 1999 Approved
Code of Practice
Consultation by the Health and Safety Executive
About this document
The Health and Safety Executive has a statutory duty to consult to seek
stakeholders’ views on proposals. HSE believes that this enables an open and
transparent approach to decision-making, which is essential if policies and decisions
are to have widespread ownership and reflect the needs and aspirations of the
people they will affect.
The Executive then decides on the best way forward based on an interpretation and
analysis of the results of the exercise.
If you reply to this consultation document in a personal capacity, rather than as a
post holder of an organisation, you should be aware that information you provide
may constitute “personal data” in the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998. For the
purposes of this Act, HSE is the “data controller” and will process the data for health,
safety and environmental purposes. HSE may disclose this data to any person or
organisation for the purposes for which it was collected, or where the Act allows
disclosure. You have the right to ask for a copy of the data and to ask for inaccurate
data to be corrected. Please note that all replies will be made public unless you
specifically state that you wish yours to be made confidential.
If you are reading this document on a computer screen and would prefer a printed
version, it can be obtained on request by emailing [email protected]
or writing to Diane Savage, Health and Safety Executive, Mines, Quarries and
Explosives Policy, 5S.G Redgrave Court, Merton Road, Bootle, Merseyside L20 7HS
(Tel: 0151 951 4198 Fax: 0151 951 3098).
If you require a more accessible format, an Executive Summary is available in
Braille, large print, audio formats (eg CD, audiocassette tape) or in other languages.
Please contact HSE’s Infoline on 0845 345 0055, or write to HSE Information
Services, Caerphilly Business Park, Caerphilly, CF83 3GG.
How to respond
We welcome your comments on all the issues raised in this document (including the
Impact Assessment), but we would particularly like you to answer the questions we
have asked.
We would prefer you to reply using the electronic reply form, which can be accessed
by following the links at www.hse.gov.uk/consult. You can go straight to this
consultation by typing the following address in full (including the final“.htm”):
http://www.hse.gov.uk/consult/condocs/cdXXX.htm
3
If this is not possible and you wish to respond in writing, please use the response
form at Appendix 2. Please attach additional pages if necessary.
Written replies should be sent to:
Diane Savage
Health and Safety Executive
Mines, Quarries and Explosives Policy
5S.2 Redgrave Court
Merton Road
Bootle
Merseyside L20 7HS.
Tel: 0151 951 4198
Fax: 0151 951 3098
Email: [email protected]
to arrive no later than XXXXXXX 2010
What happens next?
We will acknowledge all responses and give full consideration to the substance of
arguments in the development of proposals; we may also contact you again if, for
example, we have a query.
When HSE has decided upon its recommendation to Ministers, we will let you know
how the work will proceed and how the decision reached reflects the results of the
consultation. We will publish the results of this consultation on HSE’s website in due
course.
Code of Practice on Consultation
We are committed to best practice in consultation and to the Government’s Code of
Practice on consultation. The Code of Practice sets out seven criteria for
consultation. These are:
• When to consult - Formal consultation should take place at a stage when there is
scope to influence the policy outcome.
• Duration - Consultations should normally last for at least 12 weeks with
consideration given to longer timescales where feasible and sensible.
• Clarity of scope and impact - Consultation documents should be clear about the
consultation process, what is being proposed, the scope to influence and the
expected costs and benefits of the proposals.
• Accessibility - Consultation exercises should be designed to be accessible to, and
clearly targeted at, those people the exercise is intended to reach.
4
• The burden of consultation - Keeping the burden of the consultation to a
minimum is essential if consultations are to be effective and if consultees’ buy-in to
the process is to be obtained.
• Responsiveness - Consultation responses should be analysed carefully and clear
feedback should be provided following the consultation.
• Capacity to consult - Officials running consultations should seek guidance in how
to run an effective consultation exercise and share what they have learned from the
experience.
If you believe that this document, or the consultation on these proposals, does not
meet these criteria, or if you are not satisfied with the way in which this consultation
exercise has been conducted, we want to know and put things right. Please contact
Maureen Kirwan, HSE, 5S.3, Redgrave Court, Merton Road, Bootle, Merseyside
LS20 7HS.
We aim to reply to all complaints within 10 working days. If you are not satisfied with
the response, you may ask for your complaint to be passed to a more senior
member of staff. Following our second response, if you are still not satisfied, you can
ask for your complaint to be referred to the Chief Executive.
5
Executive Summary
This consultation document sets out the proposals to amend HSE’s publication
“Quarries Regulations 1999 – Approved Code of Practice" (the “ACoP”). The ACoP
provides practical advice and guidance on how to comply with the requirements of
the Quarries Regulations 1999.
In addition to the Quarries Regulations 1999, the ACoP refers to other legislation
that covers those people in Britain working in the quarrying industry. Due to
legislative changes over the years, several of these references are now in need of
updating, and the revision of the ACoP will allow us to address this. We also propose
to amend four paragraphs of the ACoP to clarify existing guidance and ensure that it
is consistent with industry guidance.
These proposals relate to guidance on compliance with the Quarries Regulations
1999. They are relevant to operators and duty holders responsible for health and
safety in quarries, and those people, including contractors, working in quarries.
This consultation document provides an overview of the HSE’s proposals and a
short questionnaire for your completion.
What are the changes?
Apart from updating references to legislation, there are changes to paragraphs 62,
174, 176 and 265. Table 3 in paragraph 344 has also been amended to correct
references to regulations.
Summary of changes
•
The amendments to paragraph 62 and the introduction of paragraph 62a aim
to make it clear who can be the competent individual and aims to clarify the
role and responsibilities of those people appointed as competent individuals
under Reg. 8(1) (c) or nominated as substitutes under Reg. 8(1) (d).
•
The amendment to paragraph 174(c) removes the reference to falls of more
than 2 metres. This is to ensure consistency with Reg. 11 of the Work at
Height Regulations 2005 which imposes duties for the avoidance of risks from
danger areas.
•
The Work at Height Regulations 2005 revoked the requirements of regulation
13 of the Workplace Regulations regarding the prevention of falls and falling
objects. The amendment to paragraph 176 removes the minimum standard
for barriers, adopting instead a risk-based approach. We intend to produce
separate guidance on the suitability of barriers.
•
The amendment to paragraph 265 is at the request of industry and will bring
the guidance on face working in the ACoP into alignment with the new
industry guidance on face working which is based on risk.
6
Proposed amendments and points for consultation
Who will be affected by these proposals?
These proposals relate to guidance on compliance with the Quarries Regulations
1999. They are relevant to operators and duty holders responsible for health and
safety in quarries, and those people, including contractors, working in quarries.
Equality Impact Assessment
An impact screen has been carried out and there is no evidence to suggest that the
proposed review will have a negative impact on operators, employees or any other
group.
Proposed amendments
Current Paragraph 62
62. A competent individual must be appointed to manage the operation of the
quarry at all times when work is being undertaken. If the operator is a
competent individual, he/she could also be this quarry manager. The
arrangements for multi-shift systems, sick leave and holidays should be set
out clearly. Everyone working at the quarry needs to know who this manager
is.
Proposed Paragraph 62 and new paragraph 62a
62. A competent individual must be appointed to be in charge of the operation
of the quarry at all times when work is being undertaken. If the operator is
competent, they could also be this individual. The arrangements for
emergencies, multi-shift systems, sick leave and holidays should be set out
clearly. Arrangements should be in place to ensure that everyone working at
the quarry can be made aware as to who is the competent individual in charge.
62a. The competent individual appointed to take charge of the quarry for work
being undertaken at that time would be expected to be present on site so as to
be able to co-ordinate the health and safety requirements laid out in the health
and safety document. Where that individual is temporarily unable to be
present at the site for which they are appointed, a person having the relevant
competency for the activities being undertaken at that time, and anything
which might affect those activities as identified by a suitable and sufficient
risk assessment, should be nominated to hold the authority and perform the
duties of the relevant appointed individual.
Points for consultation
1. Does the proposed wording of paragraphs 62 and 62a make clear the roles and
responsibilities of a “competent individual”?
YES / NO
7
If no, please state why.
2. Does paragraph 62a make it clear that the competent individual (appointed under
Quarries Regulations 1999 Reg. 8(1) (c)) or the substitute (nominated under Reg.
8(1) (d)) must be present on site when work is being carried out.
YES / NO
Any other comments
Current paragraph 174
174. Areas of the quarry where access is foreseeable and the risk is high
should be treated as danger areas. Particular consideration needs to be
given to:
a) sections of the excavation, particularly where there are significant
overhangs, which are liable to collapse onto people;
b) edges of excavations, particularly water-filled excavations, which may
collapse under the weight of people or equipment;
c) places from which people can fall more than 2 m or where falling a
lesser distance could be particularly dangerous;
d) places where people are liable to be struck by falling objects such as
stone falling from faces; or
e) places where there are materials which behave like quicksand and
could drown people.
Proposed amendment to paragraph 174 (c)
174. Areas of the quarry where access is foreseeable and the risk is high
should be treated as danger areas. Particular consideration needs to be
given to:
c) places from which people could fall a distance liable to cause
personal injury
Point for consultation
3. Does this make the need for assessment of the risk from falls obvious in this
context?
YES / NO
Any other comments
Current paragraph 176
176.
Regulation 13 of the Workplace Regulations contains requirements
regarding the prevention of falls and falling objects. The minimum standard for
such barriers is 1100 mm high with a mid-rail, and usually a solid section at
8
the bottom. Tensioned ropes or straps and earth bunds which provide
equivalent protection are also acceptable.
Proposed paragraph 176
176. The choice of barrier should be determined by an assessment of the
relevant risks.
Point for consultation
4. Should guidance on barriers, for example, the suitability of a particular type of
barrier, be included in the ACOP or in a separate guidance note?
ACOP (insert tick box)
Separate guidance note (insert tick box)
Any other comments
Current paragraph 265
265. The maximum safe height of excavated faces is influenced by the size,
height and type of machinery and working methods used. Generally, the lower
the face, the easier it is to manage and maintain. Traditionally, a maximum
face height of 15 m is preferred where blasting takes place. In other
operations, the top of the face should be within the reach of the loading
equipment.
Proposed paragraph 265
265. Generally, the lower the face, the easier it is to manage and maintain. The
maximum safe height of excavated faces should be the result of an
assessment of the properties of the material, the extraction method and the
size, reach and type of machinery to be used. In quarries where blasting takes
place the face height will be additionally influenced by blast design and the
effect of previous blasting operations. The duty imposed on the Operator by
Regulation 30 is an absolute duty; the excavation must be designed,
constructed and operated such that face maintenance, if required, can be
carried out in a safe manner.
Point for consultation
5. Does the proposed amendment align guidance in the ACOP with the industry
guidance on safe face working introduced in 2009?
YES / NO
Any other comments
9
Appendix 1
SHORT IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Description of the intervention:
Revision of Quarries Regulations 1999 Approved Code of Practice
Objectives:
•
•
Update references to other legislation referred to in the ACoP.
Clarify guidance for face height working and availability of the
competent person on site.
Calculation of costs:
It is proposed that four paragraphs from the Approved Code of Practice,
L118 for the Quarries Regulations 1989 will be amended to provide
clarification to duty holders: paragraph 62; paragraph 174; paragraph 265
and paragraph 175.
Paragraph 62
The wording of the paragraph is to be updated to provide clarification that
there is an existing legal duty for a competent individual to be present on site
and that if absent for any reason; a deputy should be nominated to take
charge.
It is believed that many operators are already complying with the regulations,
but the clarification in the ACOP may result in a small number of operators
updating their procedures to ensure that there is always a competent
individual on site and that cover is provided. It is expected that there will be
sufficient numbers of competent individuals to provide this cover, but a small
administration cost may be incurred in relation to updating the procedures.
As this cost is not expected to be significant and there is no readily available
evidence on which to base this cost, no attempt has been made to quantify
the impact on industry.
Paragraph 174
The current wording of this paragraph specifies that consideration needs to
be given to places from which people can fall more than 2m or where falling
a lesser distance could be particularly dangerous. The proposed
amendment to the paragraph is to remove the 2m rule to make it consistent
with the Work at Height Regulations 2005, but to retain the consideration to
places from which people could fall a distance liable to cause personal
injury.
Given that this paragraph has always required consideration of risk when
working at a low height there will be no additional duties placed on the
quarry industry. Consequently, there are no direct costs associated with this
10
amendment.
Paragraph 265
The amendment to this paragraph takes away the reference to the maximum
preferred height of 15m where blasting takes place. This is to be replaced
by reference to the maximum safe height of the excavated faces which
should be the result of an assessment of the properties of the material, the
extraction method and size, reach and type of machinery to be used.
This amendment was something that was introduced by industry, endorsed
by a meeting of the Quarries National Joint Advisory Committee on 22nd
June 2009. Quarry operators should therefore already be adopting a risk
based approach to the blasting of faces and so there are no costs directly
associated with this option.
Paragraph 175/176
The changes to this paragraph centre on the choice of barriers, clarifying
that the choice should be made on an assessment of risks, but with no
specifics provided. HSE experts have confirmed that the change to
paragraph 176 will not require any changes from what happens in practice in
the quarry industry. There will not therefore be any costs associated with
this option.
Familiarisation costs
Due to the fact that the amendments proposed will not substantially change
the meaning of the ACOP, nor will they require current industry practice to
be changed, it is estimated that it will only take 10 minutes per duty holder
per site to become familiar with the amendments. Given that there are 1,740
quarry sites the total hours spent on familiarisation by the industry will be
290 hours. Therefore the cost per quarry site is insignificant as is the total
cost to industry which will be less than £10,000 in the first year.
Impact on industry (including any effect on the Admin Burdens
Baseline):
The clarifications made to paragraphs 174, 265 and 175/176 will not require
anything additional from industry compared to what the quarry operators are
already doing in practice and so will not impose a cost on industry.
It is expected that paragraph 62 will require some additional administration
costs to ensure competent individuals are on site and cover is provided at a
small number of quarry sites. The overall costs to industry of this have not
been quantified due to lack of available evidence. However, the total costs
associated with this are expected to be small.
Additionally, there will be some costs associated with familiarisation, but
these are insignificant and assumed to be less than £10,000 in the first year.
11
Cost savings
Paragraph 62
The amendments to clarify this paragraph will remove the potential for any
misinterpretation and will save HSE inspectors time when visiting quarry
sites and will also reduce the number of queries from operators regarding
their duties in this area. Due to the current ad hoc nature of such queries, it
is not possible to quantify these savings in a robust manner.
Paragraph 265
Any benefits to industry from the updates made to this paragraph are a
consequence of the industry guidance issued in June 2009. However, the
amendments to the ACOP will emphasise the benefits that the industry
guidance might deliver.
For instance, it is purported that benefits could include the achievement of
greater loading efficiencies from the face load out equipment in use due to
improved loading pad design and improved loading cycle times. It might
also be possible to use smaller equipment if desired, thus reducing capital
outlay.
Further benefit might be realised in that burdens and spacings could be
reduced in the blast design (and even hole diameters reduced in some
cases), thus spreading the explosive energy more evenly throughout the
rock mass, possibly giving improved fragmentation and the production of
less of both oversize and undersize material, resulting in reduced waste and
reduced secondary breakage costs.
Another benefit is that stemming length in the blast hole might be reduced,
which could lead to reduced oversize material coming from the stemming
region of the blast and a cleaner resulting face. More evenly distributing the
explosive energy throughout the rock mass could also bring benefit in
reduction of break back at the crest, which will both improve the safety of the
resulting face and make subsequent blasts more effective by reducing the
artificial reflective lenses within the rock that are the result of break back.
It is important that the cost of blasted rock is measured against the quantity
of premium saleable rock produced, not just the amount of rock in the
blasted rock pile (which will include all of the oversize, which will incur a cost
to reduce in size; and the undersize, which might mostly be put to waste),
secondary breakage costs should be added to arrive at a true cost of
processable rock, as should the cost of transporting waste to tip. Improved
fragmentation could also result in better use of the properties of the primary
crusher, possibly resulting in reduced energy usage and thus savings in
electricity.
It is not possible to quantify the value of these benefits due to their anecdotal
nature and lack of robust evidence. Also, the benefits described are not
directly attributable to this ACOP, but will be emphasised by the clarifications
proposed to the ACOP.
12
Health and Safety Benefits
Paragraph 62
The proposed clarification that there should be a competent person on site
and a nominated deputy could have some impact on health and safety, but
there is a complex causation between the presence of competent individuals
and health and safety outcomes. Thus, it has not been possible to quantify
this effect.
For all other amendments it is not expected to lead to industry introducing
changes to procedures or behaviour and so it is not expected that health and
safety will not be adversely affected.
Consultation: Mines Quarries and Explosives Policy, Economic Analysis
Unit, Policy Capability Team.
Chief Economist’s comments: I am satisfied that both the costs and the
benefits of amending the four paragraphs in the ACoP are small and largely
unquantifiable.
Recommendation: That, based on proportionality, a full impact assessment
should not be completed.
Signed:…Alan Spence……..
HSE’s Chief Economist
Date: …16 December 2009
13
Appendix 2
Response Form (to be inserted)
14