Saturday qualifying didn’t quiet go to plan as Caroline was hit into a spin on the third lap of qualifying, dropping her alone to the back of the pack and no one to slipstream with. She eventually caught up with another car on the final lap of qualifying which was her fastest lap putting her a disappointing 14th on the grid. David had a much better session and put his car in 3rd spot.

Race time came and Caroline made a poor start off the line and was then boxed in at the first corner, making a bad qualifying even worse!! As the race settled down Caroline and Mike Devine used each other for an aerodynamic advantage, as two minis are faster together than one alone and pushed past the cars in front. They pulled away from the cars battling behind them and pulled into clear track. Caroline lost her advantage over Mike on the penultimate lap and finished the race in 13th.

David and the front row drivers made a clean start, David was almost instantly demoted to 4th behind Steve Rideout. Team mates Jonathon Lewis and Zack Booth worked together and pulled away. David desperately tried to push Rideout  to reduce the advantage of the team mates, but Lewis and Booth finished in front of Hale and Rideout. Hale passed Rideout on the final lap to take the final podium step in 3rd..

Another qualifier on Sunday gave Caroline an opportunity to qualify further up the grid. This time it passed incident free and Caroline and David were able to work together, Caroline was in 9th place whilst David would be starting from 5th.

Not long before the start of the race on Sunday the heavens opened….. it was going to be a wet race! Sure enough the race was declared wet and the grid was given 2 green flag laps. Caroline’s last race in the wet saw her rolling the mini at Paddock Hill bend @ Brands Hatch, she was keen for this not to happen again!

Everyone made it through the first few corners and started to settle in to the race. On lap 3 going into Maggotts, Ella Markham mis judged her breaking and bounced off Caroline’s mini, slowing Caroline down and demoting in to the mid-pack as she recovered. Caroline became involved in a 5 way fight over 10th place, with drivers trying to outbreak and overtake each other in the very slippy conditions.

Meanwhile David leaped through the grid and quickly found his way to third place behind team mates Lewis and Booth. With his years of experience Lewis disappeared quickly leaving Booth and Hale fighting for second. Positions swapped most laps, but luckily as the flag fell Hale took second! Caroline finished in the middle of her battle in 13th place.

Not a bad second outing in the 2013 season for team CRS Risk, two podiums and two 13th places!

The next rounds are 22/23 June at Brands Hatch, Kent as part of the Mini Festival where crowd of 30000 people are expected.

CRS have two free tickets to give away for this fantastic event to be in with a chance please answer the following question: When was CRS first registered with companies house (month and year)? You can find the answer on our website www.crsrisk.com please email your answer to our Sales Director Ros Stacey ros.stacey@crsrisk.com . No purchase is necessary. Prize draw will take place on Wednesday 19^th June.

Southern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court was told today (8 May) the machine had been stopped and was slowing down when the employee went to collect a tub of mince from the end of the production line. He noticed some had got stuck in the outfeed so he removed the guard and reached in to remove the mince. However, his hand came into contact with the still-moving blade. He required emergency surgery at hospital and was off work for three weeks before later retiring.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that while the guard was not required to be fixed, it was only supposed to be removed by a trained operative with a specific method followed. The employee had not been trained to perform that task, so did not follow the correct procedure. The court heard the company had failed to implement a proper training system for the machine, despite a similar incident having occurred in the past and specific advice having been given by HSE.

Loscoe Chilled Foods Limited, of Wharncliffe Road, Ilkeston, Derbyshire, was fined a total of £16,000 and ordered to pay £16,192 in costs after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. After the hearing HSE inspector Emma Madeley said: “Loscoe Chilled Foods Limited had a duty to ensure its employees were protected from the dangerous moving parts of the mincing machine. The fact that a specific procedure had to be carried out to remove the guard shows the firm recognised the risk, yet it failed to ensure its employees were adequately trained and supervised. There was a lack of control which resulted in a man suffering a painful injury.”

Newly published consultative document CD253 (available for download from the link shown below) invites views on the revised Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) L24 ‘Workplace health, safety and welfare’.  L24 is relevant to a wide range of people, including almost all employers, building owners, managers and worker representatives.

The ACOP has been revised in response to Professor Löfstedt’s independent review of health and safety legislation which was conducted last year – regular readers of our news will remember this, and new readers will find it using  our search facility in the top right corner of our webpage. This new consultation aims to establish if the changes make it easier for employers to understand and meet their legal obligations.  The main proposals for change include:

• Removing out-of-date duties and requirements that are superseded by new regulations.
• Simplifying the language to clarify what duty-holders must do to comply with the Workplace Regulations.
• Updating the publication to include the provisions of the Miscellaneous Amendment Regs 2002.
• Improving guidance, referring to the most up-to-date and relevant advice.

View the consultative document

In April 2010 a large fire broke out at Abbey Metal’s Nuneaton metal finishing works and in tackling the blaze a “cocktail of hazardous substances” was washed into the River Anker.

Birmingham Crown Court heard that the company’s emergency measures to contain firewater onsite were “inadequate” and that no plan had been made to access the sewerage system for emergency storage of contaminated water.

As a result, despite the fire service using pollution prevention equipment, water from the site containing cyanides, copper and cadmium from metal treatment processes reached the river running along the back of the site.

Investigations by the Environment Agency confirmed that the chemicals polluted a 6km stretch of the river, killing around 27,000 fish.

The fire qualified as a major incident under the Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMA) Regulations 1999, and the firm pleaded guilty to breaching regulation 4, which states that operators must “take all measures necessary to prevent major accidents and limit their consequences to persons and the environment”.

“The Environment Agency expects high standards from COMAH establishments. Where accidents are foreseeable, the operator must plan to prevent or mitigate them. This is what Abbey Metal failed to do,” commented an agency officer.

The company, which also pleaded guilty to three offences under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, was fined £133,000 by Birmingham Crown Court and ordered to pay a further £33,000 in costs.

Abbey Metal, which supplies the defence and automotive sectors, has since completed the construction of a new finishing facility three miles from the Nuneaton site, and has achieved ISO 14001 certification for the facility.

CRS’S Head of Environment commented ‘ the fact that Abbey looked to ISO 14001, following such as significant incident and fine shows the importance of embedding an effective EMS into your organisation. Whilst EMS certification does not guarantee compliance, it provides a structured means of control.’

Food supplier Moy Park has been fined £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £42,500 after being found guilty of breaching its environmental permit and allowing nauseous odours to be released from one of its poultry farms

In a nine-day trial, Lincoln magistrates’ court was told that, over a three-year period, the Environment Agency had received close to 100 complaints about smells from the Heal Poultry Unit in Kirkby-on-Bain, near Woodhall Spa. Local residents said that odours from the intensive poultry farm left them feeling sick and depressed, and had forced many to stay indoors.

Moy Park held an environment permit allowing it to rear up to 156,200 chickens at the farm on a 37-day cycle, on the condition that it protected the environment and local communities. However, between July 2008 and September 2011, 94 complaints were lodged with the regulator about odours from the site.

The agency visited the site and sent “numerous” communications to Moy Park about the need to better manage smells, but the problem continued.

In February 2010, after the firm refused to have staff interviewed voluntarily, the agency used its statutory powers to interview two employees. They admitted that odours were monitored only occasionally and that no records were kept.

The agency continued to receive complaints over the next 11 months and Lincoln magistrates convicted Moy Park of breaching its environmental permit twice between 21 July 2009 and 18 January 2011, fining the firm £5,000 for each offence.

Since February 2011, the firm has cut the number of chickens reared at the site by one-third, which has reduced odours. However, district judge John Stobart said the firm could have made changes earlier, but instead tried to mask the smell and maximise its profit.

Environment Agency officer Emma Benfield said: “If Moy Park had resolve problems earlier it would not have been necessary to take enforcement action. The intensive farming sector needs to recognise that its activities have potential to cause amenity impact to neighbours and act sooner to rectify problems.”

Moy Park, whose consumer brands include Castle Lea and Jamie Oliver’s ready-to-cook chicken, was convicted of failing to control odours from its farm in Sibsey in March 2011 and fined £30,000. In August 2012, it was fined £12,000 for breaching its water abstraction licence at another of its Lincolnshire sites.

CRS’s Head of Environment comment, ‘ this organisation was aware of the complaints and choose not to tackle the issue. Environmental Management Systems provide a clear framework for identifying, monitoring and controlling these issues and ensuring that they are at the for-front of company planning decisions. ‘

Source: Environmentalist

The GHG Protocol has published free guidance for businesses on how to calculate greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions from across their value chains.

The GHG Protocol, which published an international standard for assessing scope 3 emissions in 2011, has now launched accompanying guidance to help firms estimate GHGs from both suppliers and the life cycles of products. The guidance expands on the information in the standard. It includes, for example, methods for calculating emissions for each of the 15 categories of scope 3 emissions listed in the standard, such as purchased goods and services, business travel, end-of-life treatment of products and waste generation.

Following a consultation on draft guidance published in 2011, the final guide has been revised to include more detail on the “hybrid method” of calculating emissions for purchased goods and services – where supplier specific data are available for all activities associated with producing the goods.

The new document also gives advice on how to select the most appropriate calculation methods and includes examples of each method and provides more information on assessing emissions related to investments, recycling, and energy from waste.

Hugh Jones, managing director of the advisory arm of the Carbon Trust, which helped to develop the guidance, said: “Scope 3 emissions present the next frontier to not only drive significant carbon reductions but also help future-proof businesses against supply chain risk, through sustainable practices.

“All too often we observe a tendency within companies to prioritise what is easy, rather than what is important, however, we recognise that tackling scope 3 emissions can be a daunting task. We hope this guidance provides a clear roadmap for businesses to venture beyond their boundaries so we can all reap the benefits of more sustainable business.” The new guidance is available for free download from the GHG Protocol website.

This weekend sees Caroline Gilbert and Team CRS at the Formula One Grand Prix circuit at Silverstone. Whilst the Sahara Force India Team are in Barcelona with Paul Di Resta and Adrian Sutil fighting for points Caroline will be collecting her own set of  points to ensure that this year again she holds on to the Ladies Championship Title for the Mighty Mini.

The weather is looking good and if you would like to give Caroline and Team CRS some support at Silverstone 11^th/12^th May we have two tickets for the race for either day to give away. To be in with a chance of getting the tickets and having a really enjoyable day at Silverstone contact Ros Stacey – ros.stacey@crsrisk.com and we will enter your name in our Prize Draw – its free to enter and no purchase is necessary. The winner will be notified on Thursday  9^th May after the draw.

CRS’s Head of Environment, Richard Ball attended an IEMA consultation event on the proposed changes to ISO 14001. The changes will change the standard and will affect all organisations’ currently accredited to or in the progress of implementing ISO 14001. The changes are due to come into effect after the standard is published, currently planned for January 2015.

The current draft includes changes from two key sources, the first aligns the standard to the new ISO high level structure, the first of the main standards to do so. The new high level structure is a departure from the existing, policy, planning, implementation and operation, checking and corrective action and management review model, replacing it with Leadership, Planning, support and operation, performance evaluation and improvement. This new structure will be used in all future ISO management standards e.g. ISO 9001.

The second key source of changes incorporates a range of improvements to the 1996, and 2004 versions of the ISO 14001 standard. Whilst the wording is still being agreed the main concepts are likely to remain.

In addition to the significant change of the new high level structure, the key new proposed alterations from these two sources of change include:

1. A stronger integration of environmental management into the strategic planning of the organisation.
2. Evaluation of Business Risk and Opportunities in an environmental context
3. Life Cycle approach and Value Chain planning and Control
4. Indicators and Communication

If you need more direct support Corporate Risk Systems offers a transition consultancy service, to ensure you maintain your 14001 status. Want to know more – contact rb@crsrisk.com

Last year, 79,552 people died in work-related accidents in China, an average of 218 people a day, official figures show.  And many believe the real death rate to be much higher. Omana George, the programme coordinator with the Hong Kong pressure group Asia Monitor Resource Centre, described it as “the tip of the iceberg”. “The figures reflected officially are not the real figures,” she said.

China has grown dramatically during the past three decades, but hundreds of thousands of people have died in the process. Nationally, the authorities have indicated that they want improvements, saying that between now and 2015 death rates should drop by 10 per cent each year. Li Yizhong, previously the head of the State Administration of Workplace Safety, once criticised owners of coal mines for exchanging “life and blood for coal and high profits” and described one mine as “licensed by devils from hell”.

Yet among local authorities tasked with enforcing rules there is “almost complete disregard of safety standards”, according to Geoffrey Crothall from CLB, another Hong Kong campaign organisation. “They have no interest or no desire to enforce the relevant rules and regulations,” he said.

Part of the reason for this apparent apathy is local officials do not want to push industry into other parts of China. “They simply do not want to scare them off”, said Mr Crothall. Also, he said authorities lacked the staff to carry out inspections.

Officially sanctioned unions are seen as toothless, while independent unions have been banned by a Communist Party suspicious of other sources of power. Among those who have seen the consequences of poor workplace safety is Chris Chan, an assistant professor at the City University of Hong Kong, whose research has taken him to Shenzhen, the city where China’s economic boom began and which remains a manufacturing hub. There, he said, many town or district-level hospitals were full of industrial-injury patients, mostly young male migrant workers from the poorer parts of China.

“Many injured workers work for small or unregistered workshops, which are called ‘black factories’ by the workers. The machines and facilities are old … the accident rate is therefore very high, but is not well reflected in the official figures,” he said. “Some of the factory owners will disappear after an accident.”

Long hours and fatigue are blamed for many accidents. Yet China’s official figures have been improving. Last year’s death rate was more than a third less than that of five years earlier, while in the first nine months of 2011, deaths dropped 11.8 per cent.

Ms George is sceptical there have been genuine improvements, mirroring the doubts campaigners have expressed about China’s falling road accident death rates. There have been reports that after some coal mine accidents, even other miners may be kept in the dark about deaths, while local officials are put under pressure to report improvements in fatality rates.  But there are signs for optimism.

Mr Crothall said awareness had improved in the past decade, and it was more common now for coal mine bosses to talk to workers about safety. Also, Mr Chan cited campaigns by non-governmental organisations as having helped improve safety standards at some factories, especially those producing for western markets. Some factories have, he said, set up occupational health and safety committees, with worker representatives.

However, there has also been a trend towards self-regulation that “is actually quite dangerous”, said Ms George. All agree more must be done to reduce further China’s devastating workplace accident toll. “It’s still got a very long way to go before the Chinese workplace is safe,” said Mr Crothall.