Demand for health and safety advice has soared during the past year. The main driving force has been the increased attention paid to the subject by insurance companies providing cover for employers liability. The number of claims on such cover has risen sharply, meaning that insurers are paying much greater attention to their clients’ claims record and the systems that are in place to control health and safety hazards.

According to one of the main players in the insurance market, organisations offering liability cover are operating on loss ratios of 100-250%. Consequently, in the past year premiums have increased by at least 30 -40% for claim free businesses and have risen by up to several thousand per cent for those with a poor claims record.

Compensation culture

The main problem is the compensation culture fostered by the widespread advertising of ‘no win no fee’ services for anyone who has had an accident at work. Many within industry would see this problem as partly being created by insurers themselves. There have been many cases where spurious claims by former employees have been paid by the insurer rather than contested – often because a payout is cheaper in the short term for the insurer. Insurers would claim that they have to pay such cases to save money for themselves and hence for their clients in the longer term. Disputing a case can involve having to pay the claimant’s legal fees which can be several times greater than the compensation itself.

Insurance companies also quote additional factors to justify their rise in premiums:

  • The costs of individual incidents have increased as a result of a recent Law Commission report which stated that past compensation pay-outs have been too low.

  • Where incidents relate to a longer term loss of income, costs have risen as the income discount rate has reduced in line with interest rates.

  • The health service can claim for costs incurred during the treatment of road accident victims – and this concept is spreading to other areas.

  • There is a time lag associated with some diseases – eg asbestos claims will not peak for a number of years.

  • Two major liability insurers have been declared bankrupt and their obligations have fallen upon the remaining insurers.

Insurance inspections

Consequently, insurers feel that their increases in premiums are fully justified and are likely to be repeated in future years. They are also sending their own auditors to inspect health and safety systems, documentation and practices. Many manufacturers have been provided with lists of requirements and suggestions regarding actions to be taken before cover will be renewed. Target areas typically include ensuring that documented risk assessments are up to date, relevant monitoring has been conducted and training records are held.

Asbestos is one of the problem issues identified by insurers. A new regime is being consulted upon to formalise many of the existing implicit requirements. In the near future, it is likely that legislation will require companies to conduct asbestos risk assessments, develop a plan for any tasks involving asbestos, reduce stocks of asbestos held on site and take immediate steps to reduce exposures which exceed the limit values.

Housekeeping issues

Housekeeping is another issue which makes insurers uneasy in providing cover in the woodworking industries. A fire needs three elements to develop: oxygen, fuel and a source of ignition. The first is present throughout the workplace and there is often a significant quantity of fuel in the form of wood dust, timber store and off-cuts. Furthermore, there are often large amounts of timber in external areas – making them prone to arson attacks. This accounts for around 40% of all industrial fires and is the single largest source of ignition. Other sources include faulty electrical equipment, poor control of smoking and inadequate machinery maintenance.

Another piece of legislation is being introduced to help to reduce the likelihood of dust fires and explosions. The Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations will require the classification of zones from June 30, 2003 for new workplaces and from June 30, 2006 in those which already exist. Areas would be deemed “zone 20” where an explosive atmosphere in the form of a cloud of combustible dust is present continuously, for long periods or frequently. However, the furniture and timber industries are more likely to have areas classified as ‘zone 22’ where explosive atmosphere is not likely to occur, but if it does, will persist for a short time only.

Noise levels

More significant for these sectors will be the Physical Agents Directive, which proposes to tighten noise levels by 5dB(A) relative to the UK standards – thus making the first action level 80dB(A) and the second action level 85dB(A). There is also a proposal to introduce a maximum level at the operator’s ear of 87dB(A).

It should be remembered that an increase of 3dB(A) is the equivalent of double the level of noise because of the logarithmic scale. Therefore, a 5dB(A) reduction in threshold values is extremely significant. Whereas traditionally hearing protection zones have only been required in woodworking areas, it is likely that the new limits would be extended to other areas. Costs may also be incurred in attempts to measure or calculate maximum levels of sound at the ear of operators wearing protection.

The directive will also set limits for vibration: hand arm vibration action value 2.5m/s2, exposure limit value 5.0m/s2; whole body vibration action value 0.6m/s2, exposure limit value 1.15m/s2.

The implications of these limits are poorly understood in relation to woodworking companies. The hand arm vibration issue is most likely to be of concern with hand tools such as routers, while whole body vibration may have implications for fork lift drivers. It is likely that improved damping/suspension will be required, together with job rotation to limit the amount of exposure. WOODNIG (the Woodworking National Interest Group of the Health and Safety Executive) is researching the issue.

Wood dust exposure limits

Another issue that is still some way off but worth knowing about concerns a provisional position of the Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits of the European Union with regard to an occupational exposure limit for wood dust. This study concluded that consideration should be given to a wood dust exposure limit of 0.5 mg/m3 – significantly tighter than the existing UK limit of 5 mg/m3. Given that the majority of woodworking companies struggle to meet the current limit, any tighter requirement does not bode well. It would involve:

  • Enclosure of dust generating parts of machinery wherever possible.

  • Upgrade of extraction systems to remove greater volumes of air.

  • Investment in extraction for hand sanding areas.

Such measures would still not lead to a guaranteed meeting of a very tight limit, so it is likely that dust masks would have to be used in all woodworking areas.

To finish on a more positive note, the above suggestions with regard to wood dust are far from formalised. However, companies should be encouraging their relevant trade bodies to take action at this early stage to ensure that no official proposal results from the suggestion.