Story from Westbriton.co.uk: A warning has gone out about the dangers of potentially unsafe electrical beauty equipment. Cornwall Trading Standards has published a list of seven products that have been recalled and has offered advice to consumers in the Christmas gift-buying season. It said that some products made and bought from outside the EU can not only pose a danger but put users at risk of breaking the law. Products without a genuine CE label are not safety compliant and can lead to electric shocks, exposure to unsafe UV levels or overheating, causing products to catch fire. Consumers providing treatments, even to friends and family in their home, have a legal obligation to abide by the relevant laws and regulations.
November 3, 2015 Almost half of the children’s finger paints examined the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA) does not meet the safety requirements. Some products did not meet the chemical requirements, while others lacked the important safety information. The NVWA has prohibited the sale of the non-compliant finger paints.
Machinery of the Avant 600 series produced by Finnish manufacturer Avant Tecno was prohibited from being placed on the EU market due to non-conformity with the essential health and safety requirements set out in Directive 2006/42/EC. The European Commission is now forcing the manufacturer to take corrective actions with respect to machinery that has already been placed on the market.
An investigation by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has uncovered that of a total of 1 181 companies inspected, 67% did not comply with one or more provisions of obligations under REACH and rules on the classification, labelling and packaging (CLP) of chemicals. This dramatic non-compliance percentage shows that there is still a lot of work to be done in training and in enforcement in order to improve the performance. The ECHA Forum’s second enforcement project (REF-2) focused on checking the compliance of downstream users – particularly formulators of mixtures – with the essential requirements of the REACH and CLP regulations. This enforcement project promoted a level playing field through the harmonisation of enforcement approaches in the Member States and fostered cooperation between inspectors. It was carried out in 29 Member States or EEA countries. The project’s operational phase was carried out from May 2011 until March 2012. The national enforcement authorities inspected 1 181 enterprises covering 6 900 substances, 4500 mixtures and 4500 safety data sheets (SDSs). The majority of the inspected companies were small or medium-sized. More than half of the inspected companies were not only active as downstream users but also in additional roles, e.g. as manufacturers, importers, distributors and only representatives.
A Rotherham firm has been prosecuted for safety failings after a maintenance engineer was crushed by a 1.5 tonne weight landing on his back. The worker suffered a broken shoulder, two cracked ribs and the tops of three vertebrae were snapped off when he was trapped between the counterweight of a large zinc galvanizing machine and a junction box. The counterweight and tub that lowers the metal into the zinc The incident, on 27 September 2010 at Yorkshire Spin Galvanising Ltd in Cornish Way, Rotherham, prompted an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Rotherham Magistrates’ Court was told that the worker went to investigate a fault and climbed onto a gantry inside the machine. When the fault cleared he went to the rear of the gantry, out of sight of the operator, to check another repair he had recently made. The machine was still running and as he leaned over a guardrail to get a good view, the counterweight descended – pinning him against the junction box. He managed to shout ‘stop’ to alert his colleagues before losing consciousness and a co-worker at the control panel was able to lift the weight up to free him. HSE Inspector Denise Fotheringham said after the hearing: “This could easily have been a fatal incident considering the weight of this part. “In this case, the company’s procedures fell well below those we would normally expect. The machine is very large and maintenance workers routinely entered to fault-find. There were also blind spots where an engineer would be out of sight of the operator. “There were no systems to isolate the machinery and engineers relied on emergency stops and interlocks. That’s woefully inadequate as there is a risk the machine could be re-started with the engineer inside. “Machines should always be fully … Read More