Europe needs to move faster on new PPE rules

Neil Hewitt looks at the potential flaws in the CE marking system for protective equipment.

construction sites can be dangerous places: in 2014/15 there were 65,000 self-reported, non-fatal injuries in the UK, with half a million working days lost due to workplace injury. Although the Health and Safety at Work Act ensures that hazards are limited and risks controlled, personal protective equipment (PPE) is of fundamental importance as the last line of defence in keeping workers safe.

PPE is equipment designed to be worn or held by an individual for protection against one or more health and safety hazards with three distinct categories: Category 1 products are defined as “simple design”, to protect against superficial harm, such as a liner glove that doesn’t claim mechanical protection; Category 2 includes items such as safety footwear; Category 3 items are products of “complex design”, intended to protect against serious consequences or irreversible damage to health, such as respirators.

When drawn up in 1989, the PPE Directive was one of the European Union’s first “New Approach” directives. To facilitate a single European market for goods, over 20 years ago the principal aim of this New Approach was to remove barriers to trade by requiring all products to meet common minimum health and safety requirements, which were supported by agreed European standards at the product level.

In reality, the certification process has its limitations. Once the manufacturer has self-certified PPE or has gained EC Type approval and CE marked the product – a declaration that it meets the requirements of the applicable EC directives – it is valid for the life of the product or a minimum of five years. Manufacturers should not change components for alternatives without retesting the product.

These weaknesses could allow a less reputable manufacturer or importer to gain CE certification for products they wish to market and subsequently make changes to them. This could impact on its safety performance, as further testing might not be conducted as the CE certificate is already available.

Manufacturers of Category 3 PPE are required to have a third-party monitoring process in place, through annual testing, for example. However, there is no third-party production monitoring process for Category 1 or 2. It is up to the manufacturer to ensure the product continues to conform to the standards.

Currently the UK’s competent authorities for market surveillance of PPE – local authority trading standards departments, the HSE and the Health and Safety Laboratory – are under increasing pressure from reduced budgets, something that might be exploited by less reputable manufacturers. 

Taking practical steps

In March this year, the new PPE regulation was adopted by the European Parliament, reclassifying some products, introducing a mandatory five-year limit on CE certificates and clearly identifying the obligations of all economic operators – which include manufacturers, distributors and importers – in the supply chain.

The new regulation also clearly defines that an importer or distributor which markets a product in Europe under its own name, brand or trademark becomes liable for the full manufacturer’s obligations.

Although this is a good step forward for the industry, it could take until 2018 for these changes to be implemented, and we need to act now. An example of the weakness in the CE certification process came to light when Arco performed a number of tests on safety footwear toecaps – products which are at the frontline of safety in the industry.

Traditionally, toecaps were made from steel, to ensure toes were not crushed in the event of an accident. Bones in the foot are easily damaged – any injury can prevent normal movement for several months, which may result in loss of work for the employee and a cost to the business.

Non-metallic materials have entered the marketplace, offering lightweight design and the ability to minimise disruption where metal detection is required. Some non-metallic toecaps are made from composite glass fibre and others from injection-moulded thermoplastics.

During testing in our United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) and SATRA independently accredited lab, it became apparent that the safety footwear using some injection-moulded plastic toe caps in its construction performed significantly worse than the fibreglass composite toecaps during compression testing. But the use of a thermoplastic toe cap in safety footwear construction is not immediately evident, and purchasers are relying on the CE mark being accurate. 

Identifying true product compliance is difficult for the user. The responsibility falls to the manufacturer or importer who may not have the resources in place to ensure regular testing. Anyone who has concerns over the safety of equipment supplied should:

• ask suppliers for a declaration of conformity that shows original certification for the PPE purchased;
• ask suppliers to define their process for sample testing to ensure safety products continue to meet required standards;
• ensure suppliers are members of the British Safety Industry Federation (BSIF) Registered Safety Supplier Scheme;
• ask suppliers to define their process of quality assurance at the manufacturing facility to ensure the products are being manufactured as originally certified;
• always buy from a trusted source.

Neil Hewitt is divisional director, quality and technical standards, at Arco