Batteries Not Included: Aviation Regulator Issues Christmas Warning

The danger posed by lithium batteries to the safety of passenger aircraft was highlighted this week by the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), as it issued advice on sending Christmas presents by airmail or carrying them in luggage on flights. The aviation safety regulator reminded anyone posting gifts, or taking them on board an aircraft as either hand or hold baggage, that certain items are dangerous in the confined, pressurised surroundings of an aircraft.

Lithium batteries, in particular, are a growing safety concern to the aviation industry. This follows a number of incidents in which batteries that had not been treated appropriately are believed to have started fires on aircraft. Such batteries are used in the majority of portable electronic devices, such as MP3 players, digital cameras, electronic readers, camcorders and laptop computers.

Last month a mobile phone caught fire on a Boeing 747 inbound to London Heathrow after being crushed by a seat as a passenger reclined. Cabin crew were able to extinguish the fire before any serious damage occurred.

When installed correctly, lithium batteries are unlikely to cause a problem, but they do pose a serious risk of short circuiting - which can lead to a fire - if packed loose. Overheating can also occur if the device in which they are installed activates inadvertently in-flight. Lithium batteries, even when contained in equipment, are not permitted in airmail and, since letters and parcels sent in the post will often be carried on aircraft even for relatively short domestic journeys (particularly `next day' services), such items are not permitted at all by Royal Mail. Counterfeit batteries, without the necessary inbuilt safety features, are also a serious and growing concern.

Geoff Leach, Manager of the Dangerous Goods Office at the CAA, said: "Over the coming weeks many people will be sending gifts in the post. If these presents are electronic devices, we urge the sender not to include any lithium batteries. We have seen a number of serious incidents in the last couple of years in which these batteries are believed to have started fires in cargo shipments. Some lithium batteries are permitted in passenger baggage, but specific conditions apply; details of these can be found on the CAA web site."

Lithium batteries are not the only concern for airlines, however. Dangerous goods that must not be sent in the post or carried as checked or hand luggage are:

• explosives, such as fireworks, flares, toy gun caps;
• gases, such as culinary blowtorches, camping or compressed gas cylinders, tear gas, mace or CS gas devices;
• flammable materials such as petrol, lighter fuel, paint, thinners, non-safety matches, firelighters;
• poisons, such as weed killers, insecticides; and
• corrosives, such as filled car batteries.
  

Goods that may be carried by passengers include:

• safety matches or a single lighter when carried on the person. One lighter per person may be carried through central search. Lighters form part of the passenger allowance permitted in the one litre capacity transparent bag and can either be placed inside the bag or screened separately. It is very important that passengers do not place the lighter into their cabin bag after screening - it must be carried on the person for the duration of the flight. Separate lighter refills are not permitted. Lighters and matches must not be placed in checked in baggage.
• battery powered wheelchairs subject to certain safety conditions, including ensuring the battery is securely attached to the wheelchair, protecting the battery from short circuiting, and ensuring that the wheelchair cannot become switched on during transport. Passengers should contact their airline in advance to check whether special conditions apply; and
• Toiletry or medicinal articles (including aerosols). Each item is limited to 500g/500mL with a maximum of 2kg or 2 Litres per passenger.
  

Passengers can obtain further information on what they can and cannot transport on aircraft from the dangerous goods section of the CAA website, or, by contacting the CAA Dangerous Goods Office on 01293 573900.

Team CRS congratulates driver Caroline Gilbert

Team CRS congratulates driver Caroline Gilbert on her performance in the 2011 BRSCC Mighty Mini Championship contested over twelve hard-fought rounds across the UK.  Finishing runner-up in the ladies championship, Caroline finished a very creditable 10th overall from a field of 34 drivers and cars.  Her best races were both at the Rockingham Circuit in the two events raced there, so she’ll be looking forward to going back there on 30 June and 1 July for round 7 of the twelve-race 2012 series (see all of the dates listed below).  This will be the eight season where CRS has sponsored Caroline in the series.  Read more about it HERE at  and Caroline’s own site HERE
Once again, Caroline and her car will be present at the Health and Safety Expo at Birmingham’s National Exhibition Centre on 15-17 May 2012, where she will be happy to chat and sign autographs.
We also can obtain race tickets for our guests, and do regular track days where our clients can enjoy ‘fast laps’ in the car with Caroline.  Let us know if you would like more information on how to join in by contacting Ros Stacey at rs@crsrisk.com

Events	Dates		DH	Venue
1	March	31		Oulton Park
2	April	21		Donington Park
3	May	13	X	Cadwell Park
4	June	4	X	Castlecombe
5	June / July	30 / 1		Rockingham
6	July	28 / 29	X	Silverstone (Nat)
7	September	1 / 2		Snetterton
8	October	20 / 21	X	Donington Park

Cyber Attacks could "Cost Lives" and "Cause Huge Damage" says Shell

The oil industry has been warned that cyber-attacks could "cost lives" and cause "huge damage".  Ludolf Luehmann, an IT manager for Shell, told the World Petroleum Conference in Doha this week that the company had suffered an increased number of attacks. He said the hacks had been motivated by both commercial and criminal intent.

Security researcher David Emm said that such attacks were "not only possible, but they're now real".

Mr Luehmann said Shell and others in the industry were experiencing a "new dimension" of attack which could leave physical machinery at serious risk.  He made reference to Stuxnet, a targeted "worm" which was designed to attack industrial systems in the summer of 2010.  Mr Luehmann said Stuxnet showed energy giants that cyber-attacks could have a real-world consequence on business processes.  "If anybody gets into the area where you can control opening and closing of valves, or release valves, you can imagine what happens.  It will cost lives and it will cost production, it will cost money, cause fires and cause loss of containment, environmental damage - huge, huge damage."

He added: "We see an increasing number of attacks on our IT systems and information and there are various motivations behind it - criminal and commercial."

When contacted by the BBC, Shell said it would not comment further on Mr Luehmann's statements.

BP, itself a target of high-profile cyber-attacks following the Gulf oil spill, said it did not speak publicly about security issues as a matter of company policy.  Dennis Painchaud, director of international government relations at Canadian energy company Nexen, said targeted attacks such as Stuxnet and the more recent threat Duqu form a "very significant risk to our business".  "Cybercrime is a huge issue. It's not restricted to one company or another - it's really broad and it is ongoing.  "It's something that we have to stay on top of every day. It is a risk that is only going to grow and is probably one of the pre-eminent risks that we face today and will continue to face for some time."

Moscow-based security experts Kaspersky, said the past 18 months had seen a dramatic change in how cyber-threats were perceived by large companies.  "The scene used to be dominated by speculative attacks - people being at the wrong place at the wrong time, but it was nothing personal," Mr Emm told the BBC.  "But we certainly are in a different world than where we were 18 months ago. What we're starting to see is an increase in targeted attacks. We know critical systems, like those in oil production, are vulnerable to attack.  "A lot of countries now are pumping money into research - the last 18 months have shown these people are after not just the public's money, but they're after larger organisation's information.  Organisations like Shell and others are hopefully taking steps to minimise that risk."

ISO Guide 83 - A revolution for Management System Standards?

Stephen Asbury, our Managing Director and a widely-published author on management systems and auditing, introduces a new ISO guide which is set to impact all management system standards

Standards users who have adopted standards such as ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 and have successfully implemented them into their organization may not have heard of ISO Guide 83 – but this new document is likely to impact on all management system standards when published (expected Spring 2012?). Once in use, this guide could revolutionize the way that management system standards are written. While this might sound alarming, it will make life simpler in the long term. If this sounds interesting, then read on…

Guide 83 is not a standard, but a guide to help standards developers write management systems standards.  It was circulated for review by the International Standards Organisation (ISO) in September 2011 and supported by a majority of ISO members. It provides a high-level structure and common text for all management system standards (MSS). It was developed in response to standard users’ criticism that, while current standards have many common components, they are not sufficiently aligned, making it difficult for organizations to rationalise their systems and to interface and integrate them.

Guide 83 was developed by the Joint Technical Coordination Group, set up by ISO with representatives drawn from its technical committees dealing with major management systems standards.

Once in use, all new and revised MSS could have the same architecture and use the same language and clause structure in areas common to all the standards. Despite the common approach, Guide 83 allows sufficient flexibility to incorporate unique components for different disciplines, by allowing additional text to be incorporated in a structured manner. The need for requirements, with respect to customer focus in any ISO 9001 revision and issues such as prevention of pollution in any ISO 14001 revision, will be accommodated in this manner.

Arguments about the ‘process’ approach versus ‘plan, do, check, act’ (PDCA) have also been overcome by using a framework that is compatible with both approaches without using either model.

Although the revision of standards such as ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 in the new format will take some years, other standards will appear sooner; for example, ISO 27001 on information security and ISO 39001 on road traffic safety, have followed the approach given in Guide 83 as they have been developed. Organisations with well-developed and effective systems should not have any problem with the new approach and may find it a breath of fresh air.

There are new items in the guide, in particular, greater emphasis on top management, its role, and the need to understand the context of the organization. The overall framework is provided below:

1. Scope
2. Normative references
3. Terms and definitions
4. Context of the organization
5. Leadership
6. Planning
7. Support
8. Operation
9. Performance evaluation
10. Improvement.
    

Clause 4 is interesting, and requires:

• understanding the organization and its context (4.1)
• understanding the needs and expectations of interested parties (4.2)
• determining the scope of the management system (4.3)
• X management system (4.4), where ‘X’ denotes where the specific discipline is included within the common text – e.g. ‘quality’ for ISO 9001 and ‘environmental’ for ISO 14001.
  

Clause 5 clearly spells out what is expected of top management, no matter the discipline:

5.1 General: ‘Persons in top management and other relevant management roles throughout the organisation shall demonstrate leadership with respect to the X management system’.

Risk-based approach

One area that has been hotly debated within the committees charged with the responsibility for writing standards has been the use of the word ‘risk’. Some have thought the term should not be associated with some standards. Common sense seems to have prevailed and Clause 6.1 deals with ‘Actions to address risks and opportunities’ and follows with ‘Objectives and plans to achieve them’ under clause 6.2. All the requirements that relate to documents and records are dealt with in 7.5.

The standard writers are hopeful that this new document will address the concerns expressed over many years, about a perception (real or otherwise) that there was conflict and unnecessary duplication in the various MSS. It is not yet known yet whether the guide will be mandatory or how it will be applied.  British Standards Institution (BSi), following consultation with its management system committees, has submitted suggestions to ISO in the hope that this will help standards developers implement the guide effectively.

The next step will be for the development group to incorporate all the comments and suggestions for implementation from National Standard Bodies into a revised draft being prepared for discussion in February 2012 – it is expected that a final version will be ready for standards writers to use soon after that.

How these changes will affect standards outside the control of ISO such as OHSAS 18001 remains to be seen. Hopefully, these will follow the same route over time, so that consistency can be developed and maintained.

It is expected that PAS99 will be revised to reflect this new structure in order to help those with integrated systems to migrate with ease, as and when new standards are published.

Business Travellers at Risk

A large scale survey has reported that a third of global companies do not understand their duty of care to employees travelling abroad for business. The survey of more than 600 companies, which was conducted by International SOS, found that 95 percent had sent staff on business trips to high risk locations in the last year. Lawlessness, terrorism, political upheaval, civil unrest and pandemics were identified as among the top-20 risks faced by employees abroad.

Our Comment

The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 only applies in the UK. However, under common law, companies have a duty of care to staff anywhere in the world. If an employee died on a business trip to a high risk location as result of a gross breach of that duty, a company could be found guilty of Corporate Manslaughter.  Employers should make certain that staff are insured, that they check in on a regular basis and that they have the necessary vaccinations. Companies also need to assess the potential risks of travel destinations and take appropriate measures to minimise them. An assessment might take into account, for example, whether someone is travelling alone. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) can advise on particular overseas threats. If business travellers are visiting regions known to present risks, companies may need to take extra security steps, which might even include consulting a specialist security agency.

A Victory for Common Sense - Court rules that assessment of every risk is not realistic

In the case of Hodgkinson v Renfrewshire Council, the Scottish Courts rejected a claim for personal injury saying that it was, “clearly not realistic to expect an employer to risk assess every single detail of an employee’s work”.

Heather Hodgkinson, who was employed as a gardener, made a claim for personal injury after being hit in the face by a park gate. The gate was fitted with a metal lug about five feet above ground level to stop it swinging beyond the gate post into the street. The court heard arguments from Ms Hodgkinson’s legal team to the effect that a risk assessment should have been carried out on the operation since opening the gate was a necessary part of her work.

It was agreed the gate was work equipment and the park a workplace. Both the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 impose an absolute duty but define suitability as “suitable in any respect which it is reasonably foreseeable will affect the health and safety of any person”.

Judge Lady Wise held that no damages were due to Ms Hodgkinson because she had failed to prove that the construction of the gate gave rise to more than a mere possibility of injury if opened carelessly. In handing down her judgement she said that “the particular gate in question, fitted with the lug at eye level, had been opened each day for many years without any incident taking place” and furthermore “there was nothing to suggest it posed a risk of harm to employees.” The judge attributed blame for the accident to the actions of Ms Hodgkinson herself, not to the presence or absence of the lug.

Our Comment

The case has been hailed a victory for common sense. While each personal injury case will turn on its specific facts, Hodgkinson v Renfrewshire Council does show that the courts are willing to take a pragmatic view on liability for accidents which involve employees engaging in routine low risk activities. The gate was found to be suitable and there was no evidence of deterioration or lack of maintenance. Therefore, there was no breach of the relevant regulations. As the judge observed, in these circumstances the claimant could only have succeeded if liability attached to an employer whenever an accident happened, whatever its cause.

New Business Development Manager

Corporate Risk Systems Limited (CRS) are delighted to announce the new appointment of Ros Stacey as Business Development Manager. Ros comes to CRS with over 19 years’ experience of Sales, Marketing and Business Development within the Training Industry, recently working for AGE UK Training. Ros takes over this position from Charles Ford who after six years with CRS has decided to take up a new post in London.

Ros says “I am looking forward to working with CRS, I have the experience and skills to develop the business and take it to the next level, and I am looking forward to introducing myself to all old and new clients of CRS and working closely with them to discuss their training needs”.

CRS are the market leaders in Safety, Health & Environmental Training and offer courses across 51 countries and at 11 training centres in the UK. NEBOSH, IOSH CIEH are just a few of the course programmes available. Ros can be contacted on 01283 509175 or email rs@crsrisk.com

Carbonfund.org e-Certificates for Corporate Risk Systems

Corporate Risk Systems Limited (CRS) is a Risk Management Consultancy providing Consultancy and Training Solutions across Health, Safety and Environmental Sectors.  From its UK base it supports many International Clients in insurance markets, the public sector, and commercial organisations. Our tailor made approach is designed to meet the needs of all organisations offering company wide training programs, to specific project based support, and open courses.

As a responsible organisation offering environmental and health and safety support to our clients we recognize the need for all organisations to reduce their environmental impact, but at Corporate Risk Systems we know that Policies need to be implemented to be effective. This is why we have developed a Carbon Reduction and Offset Policy, using Carbonfund.org to make Corporate Risk Systems Carbon Free. At Corporate Risk Systems we don’t just give advice to others on reducing their environmental footprint; we take action to reduce it. Please visit crsrisk.com for more information.

Commitment

Corporate Risk Systems Limited (CRS) has offset its entire corporate emissions.

Partner Quote

“It’s down to each individual and organisation to accept its environmental impact, if sustainable development is to turn from a concept into reality. Climate Change is one of the most serious threats facing the world today, and it is all our responsibility to reduce carbon emissions at source where possible, and offset our residual carbon footprint.”

Richard Ball – Head of Environment
Carbonfundorg Certificate

Horror as Sheffield Carvery Fills Toddlers' Drinks Bottles with Bleach

The parents of two toddlers have described their horror after the youngsters became violently ill when restaurant staff accidentally filled their drinks bottles with cleaning fluid.

According to their lawyers, the mix-up happened when Philip and Claire Martin went for a meal with their friends Stuart and Diane Watkinson at the Toby Carvery, on Ecclesall Road South, in Sheffield.

Sophie Watkinson, then 16 months, and Daniel Martin, one, were left violently coughing, choking and vomiting when staff mistook a jug of fluid used to clean the drinks pipes for water. Claire Martin, 37, and Stuart Watkinson, 36, were horrified to find it smelled like bleach.

Both children were taken to Sheffield Children's Hospital for cautionary treatment for burns to their mouths and were kept in for observation before being discharged.

Mr Watkinson, from Sheffield, said: "When I took a sip of the water Sophie had been drinking I couldn't believe it, it felt like I was drinking bleach, the taste was horrific and I immediately spat it out.

"To know my child had drunk such a dangerous substance through no fault of her own made me absolutely furious. A moment's carelessness could have devastated our lives. It just doesn't bear thinking about how things could have turned out. "I want assurances that steps will be taken so an incident like this cannot happen again."

The restaurant firm, which is owned by parent company Mitchells & Butlers, told the journalists it had admitted liability and was in contact with Mr and Mrs Martin's solicitors. It said: "The safety and well-being of our customers is our primary concern."

Looking to compete in the jobs market in 2012?

Corporate Risk Systems is a leading provider of environmental courses for those looking to enter the sector with our highly successful NEBOSH Environmental Certificate course, or those looking to move on in the sector with or unique AIEMA environmental management course by applied learning. Figures from NEBOSH show that increasing numbers of people are seeking an environmental management qualification.
NEBOSH revealed that in the last two years the number of people registering to take its Environmental Management qualifications had more than doubled. In 2009, around 1,100 people registered for a NEBOSH environmental qualification. Last year, the number of registrations rose to almost 2,200. Registrations so far in 2011 indicate a further rise this year to around 2,700, an increase of almost 150% on 2009.
“Our figures show that more and more people are seeking a specialist qualification to go with their environmental management responsibilities,” said NEBOSH Chief Executive, Teresa Budworth. “And judging by the willingness of employers to fund and support their staff with this, it is clear that more and more employers want them to be qualified in this field.” Around two thirds of those who take a NEBOSH Environmental Management qualification are employed in a health and safety role. The majority of the rest are environmental specialists.  (Source NEBOSH)
Our NEBOSH Environmental course is now taking bookings throughout the UK and has a pass rate in 2011 of over 97 % and in July we ran two courses, with different tutors and achieved 100% credit s or distinctions, with rates like that it makes you wonder if we need the CRS Sure Pass Promise.
Our AIEMA course is unique in that it 100% exam and assignment free, the course is now in its fifth year and has had delegates from across the UK Canada, Malaysia and Romania. The Course focuses on understanding environmental issues, systems and legislation in the context of you organisation. This is an ideal qualification for those looking to take on Environmental Responsibilities such as an ISO14001 Environmental Management System.
(1) Research carried out among 46 recently qualified NEBOSH
Environmental management students in September 2011.

FREE Lead Paint Test

The Lead Paint Safety Association is delighted to offer its 'FREE Lead Paint TEST' service to anyone living and working in the UK that might need it.  Families, schools, contractors, construction and Health and Safety professionals and their clients, as well as medical professionals and their patients, now have ready access to 100% reliable analysis of dust wipes COMPLETELY FREE OF CHARGE. Click here for more details
Posted by Kerry Edwards