RAILWAY GROUP STANDARDS REVISIONS

 

GE/GN8578 Guidance on the Use of Satellite Navigation December 2008

GE/RT8070 Testing Railway Safety Critical Workers for Drugs and Alcohol December 2008

GE/GN8570 Guidance on the Management of Drugs and Alcohol December 2008

GC/RT5112 Rail Traffic Loading Requirements for the Design of Railway Structures December 2008

RT3119/A SPAD Data Collection Form RT/3119/A (infrastructure manager) December 2008

RT3119/B SPAD Data Collection Form RT/3119/B (railway undertakings) December 2008

 

Guidance to the above are available to Member Only. To apply for membership click here

 

NEWS

 

Safety, Health and Environment Alert - Health & Safety (Offences) Act

the Health & Safety (Offences)Act came into force on the 16th January 2009. Perhaps the most significant provision of the Act is the reversal of the normal condition within UK law where the presumption is "innocent until proven  Under this legislation, the burden of proof is reversed from the Prosecution and on to the Defendant. How this will be operated by the Court remains to be seen, but the obligations the Act imposes are potentially onerous for both the organisation and the individual.

 

The bullet points below detail the main changes to the penalties that the Courts may impose.

 

 

The Act alters the penalty framework under s.33 of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA) and:

• Raises the maximum penalties for breaches of health & safety regulations in the Magistrates Court from £5,000.00 to £20,000.00 (for each offence). The maximum fine in the Crown Court remains unlimited.
• It also extends the power of imprisonment to most health and safety offences for which an individual is convicted in either the Magistrates or the Crown Court with a maximum imprisonment term of up to six months currently (increased to 12 months if s.154(1) Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force) and up to two years in the Crown Court.
• It also makes certain offences currently triable only in the Magistrates Court, triable in either the Magistrates or the Crown Court, notably certain contraventions of s.20 HSWA.

 

The objective behind the Act is to increase the deterrence against breaching health and safety laws and to give the court sufficient powers to deal appropriately with offenders, in accordance with the Hampton report on Effective Enforcement in March 2005 and the Macrory report on Making Sanctions Effective in November 2006.

 

There is certainly now more scope for a financial sting on organisations, even for less serious health and safety breaches sentenced in the Magistrates Court. Cases under HSWA are subject to the s.40 HSWA reverse burden of proof requiring the defendant to prove that it was not reasonably practicable to do more than was in fact done to satisfy a duty. This reverse burden makes some inroads into the usual presumption of innocence in criminal cases. It was the subject of an unsuccessful human rights challenge in the Court of Appeal case of Janway Davies v HSE (2003). Part of the rationale for this decision was that the reverse burden was proportionate and justified in health and safety cases, particularly in the absence of imprisonment sanctions, which is now no longer the case.

 

Whilst the HSE are subject to their enforcement policy in bringing cases and imprisonment is likely to be reserved for cases involving flagrant breaches of health and safety laws, the new powers of imprisonment will be concerning to individuals who are subject to employers' duties, such as those working in partnership and also to directors, senior managers and any employees who face individual prosecutions under sections 7 and 37 HSWA, exposing them to both personal liability and the risk of loss of liberty for breaching their personal workplace duties.

 

HSE ISSUES NEW 2009 DESKTOP CALENDAR

 

In the news we hear 'Health and safety' is banning everything from ladders to school trips is a but is it realy true?. The calendar includes cartoons and show how misleading stories can distract people from the serious business of managing real health and safety risks sensibly.

The calendar highlights how ridiculous most of the so-called ‘elf ‘n safety’ tabloid tales are, and gives details of the reality for each situation portrayed.

 Dispel the myths! Don’t be fooled – download your free ‘Great health and safety myths calendar 2009’ straight to your desktop.

Download your free calendar here!

 

CONTRACTOR FINED £75,000 WITH ADDITIONAL £8,584 COSTS AFTER WORKER RECIEVES ELECTRIC SHOCK

 

The prosecution brought by th On the 12 January 2009, Maintrain Limited, part of National Express Group, was fined £75,000 and ordered to pay £8,584 in costs for failing to ensure the heath and safety of people working in one of its maintenance depots.

e Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) followed an incident on 16 February 2007 where a maintenance worker received an electric shock while working in Maintrain Limited’s Soho Light maintenance depot in Handsworth, Birmingham. The worker was removing a cover used to protect the train axles. The train, which should have been isolated, was electrified at the time. He suffered significant muscle damage to his chest, had burns to his hands, and required treatment to his legs resulting in being off of work for two months.

An investigation by ORR’s railway inspectorate found inadequate risk assessment by the company and a failure to implement safe systems of work.

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/

 

NETWORK RAIL UNDER THE SPOTLIGHT AFTER WCML INCIDENTS

 

January saw the WCML suffering five separate incidents of power lines coming down causing heavy delays for thousands of passengers. Reports by the BBC have suggested that the successive faults may be linked to the higher speeds trains are able to travel on the line thanks to the WCML upgrade. Network Rail stated that all five failures were being treated as separate incidents,with no underlying cause evident.

 

 

NETWORK RAIL TENDERS FOR PARTNER ON CROSSRAIL

 

 

Network Rail is investing about £3bn in Crossrail and Reading over the next ten years. Improvements to travel, especially east-west will improve dramatically.

 

Network Rail is now assembling a team to work on these improvements, which will include a delivery partner to help deliver both schemes.

 

Robbie Burns, Network Rail’s major programme director, Crossrail, said: “This tender is an important first step towards delivering Crossrail and the improvements at Reading. We are looking for an organisation that has the key skills to compliment our experienced in-house team effectively.”

 

The works to be undertaken as part of the Network Rail (NR is responsible for the design, development and delivery of Crossrail works outside the central tunnel) package are:

 

· Electrifying the western part of the route, including substantial re-signalling along the whole of the route

· Major rebuilding at Paddington station including a reworking of platform and interchange between the new Crossrail station and mainline platforms

· Station rebuilds including Abbey Wood, Ilford, Romford and Ealing Broadway

· Junction remodelling, including airport junction flyover to Heathrow

· Bridge rebuilds, many of historic Brunel bridges and other heritage assets

· Platform extensions at over 20 stations along the route

· Managing approximately two million m³ of tunnel spoilage

 

 

At Reading, Network Rail conducted a successful public consultation in 2008 and is now progressing with plans for a new viaduct junction to the west of Reading and more platforms at the station.

 

 

CHANGES TO PLASTERBOARD AND GYPSUM WASTE DISPOSAL ARRANGEMENTS

 

The land filling of gypsum and other high sulphate-bearing wastes with biodegradable waste has been prohibited in England and Wales since July 2005. However, The Environment Agency took a pragmatic view that separate disposal of these substances is not necessary where a waste contains less than 10 per cent of gypsum waste. This was a working guideline that the EA have  planned to review in response to scientific research.

 

The results of this research will soon be available. It will confirm that the relationship between sulphate in waste and the production of hydrogen sulphide gas is complex, but will conclude that there is no minimum quantity of gypsum below which no hydrogen sulphide gas will be produced in a landfill. The EA are therefore revising their guidance to remove the 10 per cent guideline value.

 

After 1 April 2009, if gypsum is accepted for disposal in the same cell as biodegradable waste, the EA will take action in accordance with our enforcement and prosecution policy.

 

 

Sunday, February 8, 2009